Rereading, I see that I do not make myself clear. Let me try again: No one has a right to lie. The truth never hurts one who hasn't done anything wrong. I cannot understand why anyone should need a legitimate right to silence. Only guilty people "need" them but even then they are not legitimate. What was the reason the 5th was given to criminals?

¿Where can I find some explanation of the founding fathers' reason for the 5th Ammendment? I cannot understand why one should have the right to keep silent to protect oneself from the consequences of one's wrong-doing. Only someone guilty of something would want to "not help" the prosecution prosecute one. Even if I had nothing to do with the crime I'm on trial for, but I AM guilty of something and I refuse to answer questions so that they won't find out about what I AM guilty of, I still can't see why I should have the right to refuse to cooperate.

Isn't Dubai where the police-cars are Lamberghinis? Not one cent of American tax-payer money should ever go to anything in that country.

compromise, we will have Rubio the professional, and that means we are back to Bush. I still say that the only way to go is to get out of the RINO party, start our own Conservative/TeaParty/or whatever we decide to call it (¿"HundredPercentConservative"? ¿"No-Compromise Party"?) and with however few of ours get elected, prove over the term that we will not lie and not compromise. One day the country will be in such a crisis they will all be asking "Who can we trust?" and then we may win enough elections to get stronger and eventually elect a president. I can even see God helping us out - though He will not be a registered Lobbyist. ---- ---- ---- uh, have I been asleep? What a dream !!!

All of you true conservatives who are saying that Rubio is done-for, tell me ¿do you mean that you will not vote for him and therefore he will not become our leader? You haven't done so well at electing a true conservative in these last elections, ¿have you? Rubio the philosopher might read Buckley and learn that he could become the "most electable" if he waters down his conservatism, and then we all might vote for him because he is the lesser of two evils. ¿Then what would we have? Once elected, he could try to turn more conservative, but there would be so many compromises already made to get elected that he would be pressured not to turn more conservative, even as much as he would want to. But, having learned to...

Anyway, the politicians who won't enforce the laws we now have, wouldn't enforce the new laws we might approve. There's your test.

But, if he were such a good student, ¿would it really have damaged his chance of graduating if he had skipped school that one day and taken the rifle home? ¿Could he have returned to school and just been regarded as "late"? Seems to me that an intelligent 17 year old could see that as the lesser of two evils.

As I read the various comments here, my fear increases that some of you who believe the worst things about President Obama (none of which you can produce evidence for) will get too desperate for legal solutions - the 2014 elections are too far away - and before too long some stupid, fearful, quixotic revolutionary will do something horrible, even though in the end it will not advance the cause of justice or freedom or national security. I pray that saner minds will be willing to fight our ever-lowering status quo with all legal means forcefully and relentlessly toward accountability and sensibility in these matters, before the crazy kills a president or a jihadist or God-knows-who, and throws us into a chaos worse than 9-11.

been making. 3. "There will be a divine reckoning for this nation unless we can turn it back." This is another unfortunate -theological?- comment. It sounds contradictory (theologically) so that it can't help you promote any conversions from the abortionist camp. In other words, Afire, I'm suggesting that we all need to learn how to present our arguments keeping on target and not mixing in points that by themselves could be controversial.

PatriotAfire, Not sure where you're coming from, but as much as I am against abortion, I protest your post on the following points: 1. Not ALL those who promote abortion are calloused-hearted and with no conscience. You won't convince any of the latter anyway (Tbrennan, for example) but if you want to convince any of those who promote abortion with sincere, altruistic motives, you shouldn't ignore that they exist. 2. "Abortion destroys . . . a divine life." ¿Really? This wouldn't be where you should defend that religious concept but by saying it here (and repeating later that "abortion is the murder of God") is at least a distraction and could be the undoing of any good argument about abortion that you could have