I think Congressman Paul should negotiate (hold out) for Treasury Secretary. That position would be much more effective than V.P.

What it does mean is that world power should mind its own business, keep its forces on its own soil, develop an impenetrable border, including a missile defense shield, and develop the necessary force to protect any ally against an attack of any kind from any aggresor. Then any evil nation, rather any nation under the control of an evil force, should be warned to behave themselves under penalty of retaliation. The, if such a nation makes any move beyond its own border, THEN WIPE THAT NATION OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH !

Jeff, I'm terribly sorry, but I just don't believe very much in museums. After all, exactly what percentage of the American people will ever be in New Orleans? It's just not a very effective, even though it's a very expensive, way to spread a message. But I'll tell you just what the message, the lesson of WWII is. If there is a recognized world power, then it is the responsibility of that power to warn any nation which exhibits a desire to impose it's will, through force, on any other nation, to restrain itself. That does not mean it should interfere with that sovereign nation's internal policies or political structure, or anything else it wants to do. It does not mean that world power should have installations all over the world.

There's only one small problem: no one has been able to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that such a convention could be constrained to a single issue. History shows otherwise! Have these people forgotten the only example in our history? The only Constitutional Convention we've ever had was instucted to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they just through out the Articles of Confederation and started over from scratch. Could I be credible if I were to suggest that that would be the "precedent" the Supreme Court would use if they were called on to make a ruling on the matter? Phil Roach, author "Why Conservatives Are Always Right"

Now, please go just one step farther. Hispanics - "Mexicans", Latinos, etc.- are SW European people. Are these the people the leftists propose to "return" our southwestern states to? They are no more indiginous to North - or South - America than are NW Europeans. Or, are they proposing to return this land to the indiginous Indians - Aztecks, Incas, etc.? If this is the case, are they proposing we return the remaining states to the indiginous people - the Iriquois, Cherokees, Seminoles, etc.?

Here's another example for you! All these morons who are suggesting we should "give back" the southwestern states have no idea what they're talking about. Just WHO are we to give these states back to? The spanish? . . . Give me a break! They are no more indiginous to North America than the British and French. They sailed over the pond and captured southern North America and South America from the "Indians" who were there first. . . . or are these morons actually talking about giving Mexico and our southwestern States back to the Incas and Aztecs. If so, then why not give the rest of our States back to the Cherokees, Seminoles, etc.? Do these people have a clue about history? . . . And they're lecturing us? Phil Roach Author, Why...

What do you suppose Judas Obama will do with his thirty pieces of silver?

What do you suppose Judas Obama will do with his thirty pieces of silver?

What do you suppose Judas Obama will do with his thirty pieces of silver?

The most ironic thing is that these very same liberals who decry the fact that GE paid no income taxes are the very ones who promoted the tax breaks that GE took advantage of - the credit for "green appliances". GE makes millions of washers and dryers and refrigerators that comply with the regulations set out by the liberals to promote "saving the environment", for which they receive income tax credits that offset their income tax liability.