Who is JB Williams ? Never heard of him before this one time personal opinion letter . Is he a cousin ? I most likely will never hear of him again definitely not from him . Even Fire Wing has more stay power , same rhetoric but stay power .

  Patsy said: LOL.....but us "trolls" already knew this, didn't we, FW?  

 *shhhhhhhh......*           

Who is JB Williams ? Never heard of him before this one time personal opinion letter . Is he a cousin ? I most likely will never hear of him again definitely not from him . Even Fire Wing has more stay power , same rhetoric but stay power .

Did you know there were other sites on the web besides Dingy Paul's library and FS?  JB Williams - political writer. Official Site

Isn't JB Williams one of the "smart guys" that predicted a huge Republican victory in 2006?

Could be....do you think that translates into an RP win?  Surely you jest!

Here is what a great American (and Republican) President said about preventive wars:

In 1953 when his advisors mentioned the concept of pre-emptive war, President Dwight Eisenhower (who led the military campaign against Hitler in Europe), remarked: "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler...I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

Preventive war was the policy of Hitler.  We, the Republican Party, must reject these ideas no matter how well said or enticing they look.   Preventive war is a path that leads to imperialism, and we all desire America to be a Republic, not an Empire.

In the inter-war years the Kennedy clan, another of America's rich elite families, was making huge fortunes on the stock market and through bootlegging. Joseph Kennedy, multi-millionaire father of president to be, John F. Kennedy, was a friend of President Roosevelt and made large contributions to his election funds. Roosevelt appointed Kennedy Ambassador to Britain in early 1938 and while there, he befriended Viscountess Nancy Astor, the Nazi supporter. As fiercely anti-communist as they were anti-Semitic, Astor and Kennedy, like so many of their contemporaries, looked upon Hitler as a possible solution to both these "world problems."

A small cabal of immensely wealthy families, friends and golf acquaintances who had either financed and armed Hitler or otherwise supported his rise to power, would go on to dictate almost every facet of American politics and global economics in the second half of the 20th century.

In 1951, Prescot Bush reclaimed Union Bank from the US Alien Property Custodian and went off to the Senate as the Republican for Connecticut. (He was re-elected in 1956 and again in 1963.) In 1953, Dwight Eisenhower, yet another old friend and favourite golf partner of Prescot Bush, became President and filled his government with Rockefeller men. His first Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles, the Bush family lawyer from the Nazi days. Brother, Allen Dulles, who had legally represented the Nazi Thyssen bank in Holland, was appointed US Intelligence chief in post war Germany. Back in 1937, Dulles had been hired by Prescot Bush to "cloak" his Union Bank accounts. Effectively, any information in post-war Germany regarding Bush and American complicity with the Nazis was now silenced.

If it was so DOA - why are people bothering even writing articles and spending time blasting his campaign? 

He's polling above Fred in New Hampshire today.

Finally, some anti-Paul rhetoric that can be replied to which isn't simply trolling by the trolls.

Although presidential candidate Ron Paul is a life long Libertarian, he has chosen to operate within the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party has never been able to get off the ground due to some of its extreme positions and Paul, like other Libertarians, eventually found a home in a broadened RNC.  However, within that party, Paul is only connecting with a small libertarian wing, about 3-5% of Republican voters, based on an average of all available national polls.

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Why the Ron Paul Campaign is DOA

My response: JB Williams does not understand the difference between libertarianism as an ideology vs. Libertarian as a party.  If you support liberty than you're a libertarian.  Before the term "conservative" was coined in 1953 via a book, Republicans were the libertarians.  This was the days of the Old Right.  The "conservative" Republicans who stood up against the New Deal policies of FDR and the socialist left.  The New Dealers were also imperalist warmongers and it was the Old Right who stood against this imperialist foreign policy.

Ron Paul has a been a Republican Congressman for the 10 terms, over the course of 30 years.  He took time off to go back to being an obstetrician and has delivered over 4000 babies in his career.  He would not accept medicare or medicaid from his patients but would instead opt to pay for their costs out of his own pocket if needed.  Ron Paul is essentially the only Real Republican in the Washington D.C. at the moment. 

Though all conservatives and most Republicans agree with Ron Paul rhetoric concerning a general reverence for our founding principles and documents, there is a clear divide between Ron Paul Libertarians and all other conservatives on matters of national security. Namely, the alleged “illegal invasion” of Iraq

My Response:  There is little to backup this claim above.  The author states "all conservatives" even though it has been the neoconservatives that have dominated the party mainly since 2000.  The neoconservative have absolutely ZERO regard for our founding principles and documents.  During Bush's first time discretionary spending increased by 48.5%.  This is more than twice as much as the 21.6% increase during Clinton's TWO terms.  I highly doubt that JB Williams would state that Clinton has a "general reverence" for the founding principles and documents, yet who has spent less?  Even LBJ, who instituted the Great Society and also was in term durin ga war, spent less than Bush too.  (Source on spending here of Bush vs. Clinton vs. LBJ: www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.h...

Although many conservatives could unite with Paul on many other domestic issues, especially the idea of limited government, reduced spending and taxation and less government intrusion into personal lives, they quickly part company on this issue.

My Response: Neoconservatives cannot unite with Ron Paul on these matters.  Since the neoconservatives have dominated the Republican party the size of ATF has even tripled, spending has increased as illustrated above, increased the inflation tax, increased farm subsidies, increased federal government involvement with education, increased the transportation subsidies, and nearly ushered in amnesty to 20-30 million illegal aliens.  This is anything BUT support for limited government.

According to Ron Paul and his followers, the U.S. military action in Iraq was not an act of “liberating” the Iraqi people or even an act of deposing the world’s most brutal rogue regime, known to have sponsored terrorism. In Ron Paul’s mind, it was an “invasion” of a sovereign nation and on this premise; they follow with the assertion that such an act of aggression is both “illegal” and “unconstitutional.”

My Response: Was the goal of the Iraqi invasion to "liberate" the Iraqi people or to protect America from an imminent attack?  If the goal was to liberate the Iraqi people than 1st off why haven't the neconservatives supported liberating the Sudanese in Darfur?  What about the Haitians?  What about the other so called "humanitarian" interventionist efforts that can be done to "liberate" an oppressed nation, such as perhaps the Chinese.  2nd, we haven't done a very good job of liberating the Iraqis considering there's been estimates of up to 1,000,000 Iraqis who have been murdered due to our presence there.  

I don't think anybody would argue than an aggressive war is not an "invasion" as we were an occupying force.  You cannot occupy a nation with 160,000 soldiers without having "invaded" that nation.  I also do not see anybody questioning the sovereignty of Iraq.  It was its own nation just as Jordan, Qatar, Poland, New Zealand, and Russia are all sovereign nations with their own governments, and even with borders.  

Considering since HJR114 was an "authorization of force to the president", to enforce UN resolutions (an illegal entity operating in our nation that we cede sovereignty to), and there was no war declaration on Iraq, that pretty much defense being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, any act by the federal government that breaks this law is hence "illegal".   

Of course, I am still waiting for Ron Paul or just one of his supporters to direct me to that part of the constitution that says America is not allowed to take preventive action against a known foreign enemy in defense of our own sovereign nation.  

My Response (Via the Founding Fathers):

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Invasion or Liberation?

I’m puzzled by the use of the word “invasion,” which implies an act of aggression usually connected to conquering a territory, a people or a nation and its assets. By simple definition and facts of the mission, this term clearly does not apply. The term “liberation” does…which is of course, quite different.

My Response: See above on "liberation".

We didn’t “declare war” against the Iraqi people, quite the opposite. We deposed the world’s best known murderer and sponsor of terrorism in his own country as well as others and the 70% of Iraqi citizens who braved a gauntlet of fire to paint their finger purple in their first free elections seem to understand this, even if American liberals and Ron Paul don’t.

Once you remind them of these facts, they shift their argument from the erroneous assertion of an “invasion” to an equally erroneous assertion of “nation building” and “exporting democracy” around the globe.

My Response: I'm not sure who is saying we "declared war against the Iraqi people", let alone declare war on anybody, which is part of the problem.  See above once again, we depose the world's "best known murderer" only to allow an estimated amount of 1 million Iraqi citizens to be murdered due to our presence.  If you want to depose "best known murderers", you still need to Declare War on this nation.  The difference is, if we had to actually obey the Constitution and declare war, we would not be involved in these interventionist police actions around the world to "spread democracy" like the leftist Democrat Woodrow Wilson recommended.  Ron Paul drafted up a War Declaration act because he at least wanted to see this done the right way, but the bill would not even come up for DEBATE in committee.  The cowards in Congress did not want to be held responsible for declaring a war that did not fit the "Just War Doctrine" therefore they would rather hand this authority over for the Executive Branch to decide on their own.  Republicans and neoconservatives have reverence for the founding principles and documents?  What happened to seperation of powers and checks/balances?

The “un-Declared War” argument

As we all know, congress has not “declared war” since WWII and for good reason.

Since WWII, America has sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti and Afghanistan. Congress did not “declare war” in any of these instances, because America was “at war” with none of these nations.

My Response: The author made the case for non-intervention.  We were "at war with none of these nations".   WWII was the last war we declared and subsequently the last war we've also won.  It is not the job of America to be the policeman of the world.  It is bankrupting us, we have to borrow money from China to fund our middle east war machine.  It is not allowed in the Constitution.  When you declare war, you win it, and you get out.  

We defended South Korea against North Korea, South Vietnam against North Vietnam, American hostages against Iranian terrorists, the people of Grenada and Panama from brutal dictatorial regimes, Kuwait from an invading Hussein regime, Kosovo and Somalia from terrorizing war lords and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq from a growing terror group running roughshod over their nations with the help and support of brutal rogue regimes, the Taliban and the Hussein family.  

My Response: Again, where in the Constitution are we supposed to be the policeman of the world?  If it is deemed to be our job to defend one nation from another, than justification can be made for us to go into undeclared wars against nearly half of the world.  Though there is obviously no interest in "liberating" an oppressed people.  The author should also not force me to fund these military operations that are not Constitutional.  As they did in Lincoln's days with the "Lincoln Brigades", JB Williams should form a Williams Brigade to go and personally contribute towards the liberation of these nations.  This will allow other neoconservatives to privately contribute the fruits of THEIR labor to these brigades, rather than allow the government to use the theft of taxation and force me to pay for these immoral, expensive, and unconstitutional operations.

We were “at war” with no nation and no people of these nations. We conquered no territory, no assets and no innocent people. We “invaded” none of these countries. And as a result, we “declared war” against none of these countries.

So the “un-Declared war” argument is heavily flawed right from the start. The emotion driven rhetoric behind the claim is simply not supported by the facts and those who are unable to follow the facts to this undeniable conclusion are certainly not qualified to call themselves “constitutionalists,” let alone any form of a national security expert.

My Response: JB Williams needs to look at the number of troops we have stationed in these nations as an occupying force.  We remain in the Korean Peninsula after more than 50 years while the South does not want us there but would rather directly speak with the North Koreans.  Fifty years of having tens of thousands of troops in the region did not stop Dictator Il from procuring nuclear weapons either.  Instead we subsidized them.  There is only one flaw, that the Constitution is viewed as antiquated and an anachronism by the neoconservative Republicans in fiscal, social, and foreign policy issues.  

The case for “preventive” medicine

On 9/11/01, nearly every American was shocked and demanding to know how such events could happen to us, here on our own soil. Yet the answer to this question is more obvious than most are willing to confront.
America was one of the easiest places on earth to carry out such an attack on that day and it remains so even now. We are an open free society, free to come and go as we please, with open borders and very little concern for who might be crossing them with what intentions.

We love our freedoms and liberties and we want everyone to have them, including the terrorist next door. We are a peaceful, tolerant and welcoming sort, with our arms wide open to all comers and all ideologies, including those that wish us harm.  

If you asked 100 Americans on the afternoon of 9/11 if all efforts should have been used by our government to stop the events of that day before they happened, all 100 would have said YES, as if you were asking a silly question. But had you asked the same 100 people on 9/10/01 if it was okay for our government to “wiretap” or snoop on people in America and pick up suspected evil doers before they had a chance to do their evil, almost all 100 would have said NO.

This is a fight we are still having today.

My Response: NO!  I do not wished to be lumped into a collectivist statement that "ALL Americans love our freedoms and liberty....." because this is obviously not true.  Many Americans still do not even get the concept of liberty.  They do not listen to our Founding Fathers like Ben Franklin who said when you trade liberty for security, you deserve and get neither.  We know that the information on the 9/11 attacks existed before they happened, and it was due to big government bureacracy where this data was lost and as a result we have 3000 lost Americans.  The neoconservative administration's answer to this problem?  Leave our borders open and create even MORE bureacracy via DHS.  

Should we “prevent” further attacks, or simply “respond” to those attacks once they happen?

This is a very important question and although the answer seems obvious to most, it isn’t so obvious once you understand the implications of the question.

To stop or “prevent” further attacks at home, we must identify and confront threats before they reach our shore. This means we must take “preventive” (pre-emptive) measures. We must aggressively seek to learn that which the enemy desperately hopes to conceal. Our intelligence operations must operate at peak levels, both in volume and quality of information and they must have the authority to do so. This requires some special authority, such as that provided by the Patriot Act.

My Response: The answer is simple, and the answer is to do both.  You prevent further attacks with a non-interventionist foreign policy.  One that follows the Jeffersonian axiom of "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none".  You leave the border patrol in the United States and have them defend OUR borders and not Iraq's.  You physically secure our borders and our coast.  You stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations such as the latest incident with turkey that was nothing but rhetoric that incited more anti-American sentiment in a region that has generally been friendly towards us.  

You prevent further attacks by re-instated the 2nd amendment.

But what about our liberties and freedoms, which can easily be infringed by the abuse of these special policies?

Again, we must ask ourselves how much freedom or liberty we will have once a U.S. city or two is leveled, the economy thrown into a tailspin, our currency collapsed and the streets of America looking more like the Gaza Strip than a day at the park?

Do we want to prevent such a future from becoming a reality or don’t we? Are we serious about preventing such an inevitability or aren’t we? Every American needs to answer this question for themselves and vote accordingly.

My Response: These excuses have been used for decades, and the biggest contributing factors that we have been attacked at all is due to our interventions around the world.  In 1953 we had the CIA place a hit on the Mosadegh of Iran only to install the Shah.  The purpose?  To protect the oil interests of British Petroleum.  In the 80's we subsidized the "World's best known murderer" Saddam Hussein and favored him against Iran.  A few years later we were fighting them and setting up bases in another sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia.  It wasn't the people who allowed us there, it was the government.  What if the United States government would allow the Chinese to station 10's of thousands of troops here to amount invasions on our neighbors?  

We have to remember that life is only one of our unalienable rights.  Patrick Henry summed this up when he said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death".  The folks in NH subscribe to this as well with their motto of "Live Free or Die".  Liberty means you are TRUELY free from the government.  They do not own you, control you, or allow you to do anything.  They simply exist to punish those who violate your individual rights with the use of force (violence or the breaking of a contractual agreement).  We cannot have government stop death.  It is an unfortunate part of life.  There were more deaths from car accidents in 2001, and even more deaths from bath tub drownings in 2001.  You cannot prevent murders from being committed in the United States by ceding away liberty to the government with a "minority report" style police force.  You also cannot prevent murders via air piracy by allowing government to legalize the ability to strip you of your citizenship, spy on and label you a terrorist based on the terms they define in hundreds and hundreds of pages of one bill, nor by allowing them to rob you of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus which is followed by common law nations since the magna carta.  

You CAN use Constitutional methods to punish those who committed the murderous acts via air piracy.  It was none other than Congressman Ron Paul who introduced the Letters of Marque and Reprisal Act which would have already likely nabbed Osama Bin Laden, and other terrorist leaders, at a much cheaper cost with much less death and blowback suffered to the American people.  This went nowhere, so it should be questioned if the neoconservatives in the federal government really DO have concern for our security or not.   

This is what divides Ron Paul and his supporters from all other conservatives

Most Americans, certainly most conservatives, want no more government than is absolutely necessary to provide for the fundamental defense of our nation, its people and their freedoms. But at the moment, and so long as this threat goes unchallenged, we may require more government than is otherwise desirable.

My Response: My response to this has been covered above.

I submit that the same people who authorize government to use these additional powers to defend the nation today, have the power to remove those special powers once the threat no longer exists. This of course means that we will have to remain engaged in the process ourselves, until such time that these powers are no longer required, then remove them and return to life as it once was.

My Response: When have we ceded away such great amounts of power to the federal government and have ever gotten it back?  All of these so called "temporary measures" NEVER remain temporary.  You have the New Deal, Great Society, Federal Reserve, IRS, Income Tax, Dept. of Education, Medicare Rx, past multiple amnesties, welfare, and throwing away our sovereignty to regional and global governing entities ever since we simply CRACKED these doors open.  What a dangerous and irresponsible statement for JB Williams to suggest.

But the emotional rhetoric surrounding the subject of this or any other war makes making such difficult decisions even more difficult. It clouds the issues and causes people to fear themselves more than their enemies.

We fear our own government why? It’s elected by us. Anytime we get sick of the one we have, we can elect another one. We are the government. Our government can do nothing that we don’t consent to. If we consent by our silence, shame on us!

But terrorists don’t need our consent. Their agenda is set and how we feel about it is of no concern to them at all… The founders had no such threat in mind when they drafted the constitution, but they brilliantly allowed for a constitutional process by which all threats to the republic could be met.

My Response: What Americans need to fear is the usurpation of our Constitution.  Perhaps if government did not dominate our education we might actually be taught the Constitution in our schools.  

I fear those who elect our government and hence I fear our government no matter who elects them.  When the 80% vote for a candidate because of his or her looks, speaking abilities, "business or executive" experience, or even based on who is "winning in the polls" I fear this voting base.  This is what has become of the public who is fed with "news" by outlets who are all owned by the same people.  When the biggest concern of the 80% is who is going to win sunday's football game, they do not stop and think to question just why 50% of their income goes towards government in one way or another.  They do not really question why the cost of bread and milk have gone up so much the last couple of years.  The 80% simply grab their spoon, pick from the annointed selection of candidates, and try to pick the one that they can somewhat stomach and of course the won they think will WIN (just like their football team on sunday).

The 80% are the frogs in the pot and the oligarchs are slowly turning up the heat.  They understand that if they throw us into the pot than we ALL simply jump right out. 

Ron Paul supporters who think we have somehow lost sight of this, need to show me where?

It’s almost as if Ron Paul and his supporters fell asleep in the late 1700’s and woke up this morning trying to figure out what to do in a world quite different than the one the fell asleep in.

Most conservatives have been awake the entire time however, and they aren’t buying into the emotional rhetoric surrounding the very real war against international terrorism, whether offered by liberals or Libertarians…

My Response: I believe this article written by JB Williams is a good example of "where" he has lost sight.  Perhaps if he would read our Founding Documents, including the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist he, and people like him, might then get it.  

Here's my response to this guy's "piece" (of you know what).

 1) Libertarian.  All Conservatives are "libertarians" because all that means is you are FOR LIBERTY.....you know the "thing" that our forefathers died and gave up their fortunes to obtain.....something that the desire for maintaining is LACKING FROM MOST AMERICANS (and even some from the revolutionary days as our forefathers wrote specifically about in the DECLARATION---men would put up with B.S. more easily than not).  

Ronald Reagan states, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

2)  Williams tries to state that the SOLE dividing point of Paul from His notions of "conservatives" is that of national security....  WRONG... Williams and everyone here should read Patrick Buchanans Book "where the Right went wrong".....Buchanan says the EXACT SAME THING!!!!  I dare say that Buchanan is NO LIBERAL and that he and Paul are right on the IRAQ issue...

People need to study their history which is imperative to understand what has gone down and how INSANE our policy has been:  On one hand the U.S. has backed 100% the state of Israel which was founded in 1948 by European Jews that had immigrated to Palestine and declared independence and in this process of "zionism" they started a militant campaign of "ethnic cleansing" and "colonization of Palestinian Arab lands....the World League (precursor to the U.N.) stepped in and they eventually came up with a U.N resolution of a "partion plan" this was not accepted by elements of all sides and particularly the Arabs who under international law had the right of return to their lands and homes that they fled at the start of the Hostilities....even Ben Gurion the commander and first prime minister is on record as saying that if he were an arab he would never surrender because the Israelis had "stolen their lands" because "god promised it to them" a claim on the lands because these newly arrived Europeans some of which were "blood" jews and not "converts" claimed their 2,000 year past heritage as being enough to claim current ownership.

At the same time the British during the Imperialism of the middle east carved up and artificially created KUWAIT which was historically apart of IRAQ....how could the U.S. allow on one hand Israel to exist and steal by force arab lands, based on 2,000 year old claims and then step in to NULLIFY IRAQI claims to Kuwait which were not 2,000 years old????   

Well besides the fact that the U.S. is "biased" because of people that show favoritism (contrary to George Washington and Thomas Jeffersons advide TO NOT DO SO).....besides this bias it comes down to OIL....No matter that the U.S. government had backed Saddam Hussein both financially and Militarily and when neighbor IRAN was poised to "nationalize" their OIL FIELDS & INDUSTRY the AMERICAN CIA helped overthrow their elected leader to install the "shah" (and carved out for themselves shares of the oil fields amongst various western oil comapanies)

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted the war was initiated for OIL....this is no surprise since former cabinet member secretary of Treasury Paul Oneil had said that from the first week of the Bush Presidency IRAQ was the #1 topic (nothing to do with 9/11) documents of their meetings were centered around "post invasion Iraq" even with Penatgon documents of divvying up the IRAQ oilfields!!!!  Only the most naive and foolish can possibly not connect the dots and this is PROVEN by the U.S. currently pressuring the current IRAQI government to sign the "OIL LAW" which would set a precident in the middle east region of giving American and western oil companies a HUGE PRIVATE share rather than IRAQI's retaining full "nationalistic control"...the IRAQI oil workers are poised to strike (and most likely go kill some G.I.'s and their own "government" if the Iraqi government is so foolish as to sign this into law no matter how much U.S. pressure is on them to do so (sign billions of dollars of EXTRA PROFITS away from the IRAQI oil workers and citizens to end up in U.S. corporations......THAT IS THE MAIN GOAL.

Another glaring proof is what happened immeadiately after the fall of IRAQ to the U.S. invasion when the U.S. set up the "provisional Authority" which used IRAQI money that was "frozen" from oil sales and shipped it over to IRAQ and they can only supposedly account for a small portion of the cash (in order of 9 billion dollars went "poof" to a corrupt group of U.S. contractors, Iraqi corruption, and there was ZERO accountability (again if I were an IRAQI I would want to KILL SOME MORE SCUM!!!!

 And most recently as reported on Fox News Osama Bin Laden (allowed to escape 1 time already was in august 2007 being tracked in Pakistan with a 70% certainty and the U.S. did not attempt to take him out!!!! (they don't want to folks....what other excuse is there???)

 3) Congress is to declare war UNLESS there is a spur of the moment emergency situation.....all of these actions that WILLIAMS lists he tries to maintain are not "war".....He asks for Constitutional proof to take preventitive action but where is the authorization for the executive commander in chief to initiate military combat on United Nations resolutions??  Where was the justification to get Noriega which the Panamanians admit was not the objective of the attack on the panamanians??  Congress is to initiate "war" because the founders intended it to be "representing WE THE PEOPLE" which were to be accountable not only to FIGHT THEM but to DECLARE THEM.  If williams logic is taken that these were not fights per se against these foreign countries but more like "surgical" or "tactical" operations to disect a certain part of the whole HE IS CRAZY.....the Constitution already lays out what was intended if that were the case and it is LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISSAL which is authorization of Congress to go after such "surgical" or "tactical" actions against "rogues" such as when we went after PIRATES historically.  In essence Williams argument has NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS at all.

4) williams makes several assertions about AMERICA:   "we are an open and free society" and "we love our freedoms and liberties and we want everyone to have them"   

This is BS.  due to the likes of huge volumes of laws at all levels we are not "free" we may in some instances be more free than a majority of countries around the world but we are constrained at nearly every turn by demands of the state which has a gun in it's hand and a threat....if you do not pay tax you will be at the end of this gun, if you use your land how you would like you could be again at the end of the gun, pastors cannot make political speech if they want tax exemption and sign contracts with the STATE, Unborn citizens can be killed with impunity, nearly every endeavor one takes is regulated and requires payment and control to the government in some way (many totally unknown to the perpetrators as the regulations are so volumous that one could never know them---including the "authorities"---. 

5) he tries to entertain the notion that we have to give up our rights to privacy and no searches by the government without warrants because of the supposed fear of future terrorist attack...a notion that is RIDICULOUS, the perputrators were allowed to come in the door...we could shut that door....but as is illustrated around the globe no amount of technology and "security" can eliminate totally people determined to attack.  We have not sealed off our borders nor searched incoming cargos so we are no more secure today and as Pat Buchanan states there is NOT a mortal threat to our nation.  Yes, people can murder (everyday there are scores of murders across the country)....if people are willing to give up their most basic rights against government "spying" how are we any different than the Soviet Union under the KGB....we are wide open for TYRANTS and ABUSE that assuredly will arise from "big brother" watching every aspect of our lives which is 100% directly in opposition of EVERYTHING the founders intended by personal rights and FREEDOM from TYRANNY (the ultimate tyranny is that the government reads all your mail, listens to all your phone conversations).

 5)  to prevent the future attacks we should abandon our current foreign policy centered on GREED and attempts to "force" people to our will by the threat of a rifle or bomber.  As our founders clearly told us we must avoid entangling alliances and only trade with all freedom loving countries and set an example to the world.....our "example" right now is in shambles as we have a DARK and SINISTER underbelly as the leading pornographers, drug users, and originating point of our degenerate "pop culture", we kill more through abortion than any other and yet we do not have HUMBLENESS.  Of course our Government cannot make our people virtuous but we suffer from widespread moral decay and truthfully speaking what nearly half of Americans put forth is ATHEISTIC HEDONISM.....half our country is endeared to SOCIALISM and would love to see the collapse of the Churches and the end to most private property rights....not only does the fallacious environmental ideology meet together with the Corporate desires for GLOBALISM but these two groups seek to end all sovereignty and nationalism in totality ......Paul stands against all of this more fervently than any other candidate.....Has any other GOP candidate been calling for the end to the U.S. involvement in the U.N., WTO, NAFTA, GAT, CAFTA and LOST???  Only 3 of them have no ties to the Council on Foreign Relations which is against U.S. sovereignty.  Coincidentally Tancredo together with Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus which meets at the capital.

6) williams asks us to believe that the government will take away "special powers" when there is no longer a threat...   HA HA HA...1) they tell us this fight will last for decades or longer 2) when has government ever given itself some power and then "reversed" it???  completely a FOOLS ARGUMENT there.

If he wonders why we should "fear" our government this guy is INSANE....Hilary Clinton and the Socialists may be our government next year!!!!  If that isn't enough the guy has to seriously go read the founding documents of our nation......the founders thought government was only "even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one"  George washingto states, "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Ronald Reagan states, "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other"

 The whole point of a REPUBLIC over a DEMOCRACY is that it protects minority rights (thank God).....obviously Williams is out of touch if he believes that the populous can just change what they don't like.....HAS HE CONSIDERED THE DAMN MEXICAN INVASION!!!!!

Finally as PAUL himself tells the public he authorized going after Bin Laden.   But quite simply we are spending 1 trillion dollars on IRAQ and have military bases still in Germany and Korea and total nearly 700 different military installations around the globe.  Where was that authority when we cannot protect our own border? or AFFORD IT!!  we are 9 trillion in debt right now, our dollar is weak, and we are on the brink of collapse.  Common sense says even if you ignore the Constitutional limits of having a GLOBAL EMPIRE that in the face of a 50+ TRILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL from babyboomers retiring we should and MUST CUT THE FAT!!! 

Pauls policies will win out even if he isn't elected because they will naturally have to occur as our EMPIRE COLLAPSES ON OUR HEADS.

Good job guys....

As I've said - I support Ron Paul for many reasons - one BIG one being his knowledge of our economy... his writings have left big impressions on me... he's brilliant.

Great news:

Peter Schif is to economics what Ron Paul is to politics. In fact, He has endorsed Ron Paul. Check out the clips below and then check out what he's been saying lately; his firm's site has a full archive of his appearances updated daily at
http://www.europac.net/video.asp. He is a regular on Fox News of all places, and it is awesome seeing him speak the truth about our economy while these Fox News neo-con fools try to shout over him.

oops double post