Lefty, please reply as to your citizenship.  Are you a US Citizen, or an Israeli Citizen.  If you are Israeli, fine, your a Zionist arsehole and KMA.

If you are a US Citizen, you put Israel’s interest above that of the US, and as such, are a traitor, and should immediately renounce your citizenship and move your zioinist ass to one of the hundred of illegal kibbutz in the Golen Heights.  If you really hate the displaced citizens of Palestine so much, move and go kill a few.  Stop expecting our nation to be complicent in Israeli terrorism, we have our own terrorist in office we are hoping to deal with before he invades Iran so Israel doesn’t have to.

#115750 by Ernest Canning

Ernest,
I ditto Non Credo again, and have said pretty much the same myself. I only worry if cheney will even wait until spring. He’s had this in the plan for so long.

I do get your point on the foreign fighters in Iraq though. I’d missed it myself, maybe not because of myopia, but just because it’s been so long now, since the US invaded and occupied that country. And, so many other of the MSM headlines have been spinning new ‘security’ gains there. Yeah right. Possibly the only real ones might be the observation that violence in the Basra area had dropped 90% since the Brits left. But even a moron can figure out by now, that the only reason for the violence ANYWHERE in Iraq is the US presence there. It wasn’t like that before our ‘foreign fighters’ got there, and nothing will improve until we leave.

I did spend a few hours on ‘impeachment duty’ today…just trying to clarify the urgency of the thing. Seems like I’ve been doing THAT for a real long time as well. At least 6 years.

re: #115750 by Ernest Canning on 11/25 at 11:49 am:

I was going to reply to this, but my agreement is so total that it’s hard to know what to add.

Cyrena & non credo:  There is no more evidence to support the supposed links between Iran and the Iraqi resistance than there was to support the alleged links between al Qaeda and Saddam.  We are seeing a re-run of the Dick Cheney-led effort to fix the intelligence and facts around the policy. 

There is no question but that the administration is moving forward with plans to, as a minimum, unless an extensive bombing campaign, perhaps a full scale invasion of Iran, probably next Spring.  I think there can also be little doubt, given the expansive view of the original Congressional authorization to use force it obtained in the wake of 9/11, that the administration will argue that the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, which designated the Iranian revolutionary guard as “terrorists” authorizes such unilateral executive action as part of its global war on terror.

Since, unlike Iraq, Iran has not been crippled by by 13 years of devastating U.N. sanctions, and since Iraq has so depleted our ground forces, it is likely that a bombing campaign would, at a minimum, unleash a blowback from the Iranians not only against our armed forces in Iraq, but in terms of retaliatory “terrorist” strikes here the U.S., triggering the executive orders now in place to permit the Bush regime to declare a national emergency, impose martial law, shut down Congress and postpone elections.

While such a scenario could produce an unmitigated military disaster, especially if Russia should enter the fray on behalf of Iran, it would provide what the unscrupulous and ever-scheming Dick Cheney has always desired--permanent, unchecked and unlimited power.  That is why, for him, the irrational is rational.

There is only one way to put a stop to this approaching disaster--impeachment now!  Not after it happens.

Finally, Cyrena.  My problem with the New York Times piece which argues that the “foreign fighters” in Iraq come primarily from U.S. allies, like Saudi Arabia, is that it is a product of American myopia which ignores a fundamental truth.  The nation supplying the greatest number of “foreign fighters” in Iraq is the United States!

#115698 by troublesum on 11/25 at 7:34 am
(17 comments total)

A Question I would like to ask Hillary Clinton if I had the oporturnity:
You have chosen Madeline Albright as your foreign policy advisor.  Albright is notorious for having told a correspondent on the CBS tv show “60 Minutes” in 1997, when she was your husband’s Sceretary of State, that she believed that the slaughter of 500,000 Iraqi children since the end of the first Gulf war in 1991 was “worth it” in terms of meeting US policy objectives.  Given that the US may be about to repeat the same diasterous mistakes in Iran that we made in Iraq, do you think that there is any US foreign policy objective that would justify the systematic slaughter of 500,000 innocent children?
**************************************************

Your representation of Madaline Albright’s statement contain false premises on at least two levels.  The U.S. policy objectives in Iraq (based on the best interest of the citizens of the U.S.), are to promote oil production and supply on the world market to keep the price of oil low.  The objectives of Bush, Cheney, Exxon, et al. are something else and are clearly in conflict with the objectives of the U.S.  Clearly, the murder of Iraqi civilians was a war crime which demands that the criminals who perpetrated it be brought to justice.  The Bush/Cheney/Exxon/Mobil/Shell/Chevron war in Iraq was and is a fraud ab initio.

Iran is different than Iraq.  The Iranian government is the world bank for terrorism, and Saudi Arabia is where the terrorists come from.  The U.S. owes a duty to its citizens and its allies to prevent established terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons.  But, it doesn’t require a war to do so.  Israel has proven that, twice.

Ernest Canning,

First, I don’t know who, or what, ephraim or pesasch is, or means.  And I don’t really give shit.  It was a pathetic response to my labeling your brother, Robert, as “Abu the Kiffiyeh,” because he is clearly an islamist, fundamentalist, propagandist, arab, troll, who posts arab, islamist, hate propaganda on liberal websites (just like an extremist, right-wing republican), as are you, Tony Wicher, Peter, Fadel “Castro” Abdullah, Chris Hedges, and the rest of BIFPAT!

Second, you are quite rational in your support of extremist, right-wing, fascist, islamist, fundamentalist, terrorists, against the liberal, socialist, Israel, ONLY IF you are in fact an islamist, fundamentalist, terrorist.  Otherwise, you are a FUCKING NUT!

#115698 by troublesum on 11/25 at 7:34 am:

Excellent question.

A Question I would like to ask Hillary Clinton if I had the oporturnity:
You have chosen Madeline Albright as your foreign policy advisor.  Albright is notorious for having told a correspondent on the CBS tv show “60 Minutes” in 1997, when she was your husband’s Sceretary of State, that she believed that the slaughter of 500,000 Iraqi children since the end of the first Gulf war in 1991 was “worth it” in terms of meeting US policy objectives.  Given that the US may be about to repeat the same diasterous mistakes in Iran that we made in Iraq, do you think that there is any US foreign policy objective that would justify the systematic slaughter of 500,000 innocent children?

re: #115673 by cyrena on 11/25 at 2:57 am:

Yeah, I saw that ominous stuff on Iran.

But Cyrena, it’s not normal to be concerned about that. Real Americans are positive, pleasant people who continue to feel that everything is fine. Don’t be such a grump. It’s so French.

Turn that frown upside down, and go shopping!

Me? I think I’ll just crawl under the bed and suck my thumb while softly whimpering....

#115658 by cyrena on 11/24 at 11:27 pm:

OK, Cyrena. I have learned that I can pretty much take what you say to the bank. Count me now as one even more firmly opposed to Ron Paul, and even more firmly in favor of Kucinich.

Better get to work on the civil disobedience, and quick.

Iran in Crosshairs
as Fuel Delivery to Gulf
Forces Increases

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112407A.shtml

This one blames the Iranians. (to be expected of course)

US Blames Iran-Backed Group for Baghdad Bombing
Reuters
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112407B.shtml

But this one, (the day before) blames the Saudis and the Libyans (America’s allies)

Foreign Fighters in Iraq
Are Tied to US Allies
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112207C.shtml

#115421 by Non Credo

• However, I am suspicious of this article, because it shows signs of being a hatchet job. Much of the article is smearing by association. So what if David Dukes likes Ron Paul. On Duke’s website, there’s a link to the book on the Israel lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. Does that discredit them or their book? Certainly not.

Non Credo,

That’s why I like you. (soul mates in skepticism – ALWAYS question…ALWAYS….) So yes, I can very much appreciate what you noticed from the article. AND…I would have noticed the same about any other, IF (and only if) I didn’t already have some on-hand experience with the Ron Paul ideology long before he became a candidate for the executive office. And, under other circumstances, I WOULDN’T necessarily have this ‘foreknowledge” but as it happens, I do in this instance.

Still, I wouldn’t expect that alone to be enough to ‘certify’ the article that appeared to you like a possible hack job. I don’t think it was, but again, I cannot ‘certify’ it. I can only say that it’s very similar to other speeches that he has delivered. And, I have in fact actually HEARD some of those same things, directly from him. (Specifically the alleged statistics on all of the crimes of black men.)

Now if it looks like there’s any possibility of him actually getting the repugs nomination, I WILL take the time to dig the stuff up, because he’s a disaster waiting to take down the rest of whatever might be left of the republic. And, I don’t wanna hear the same whining or apologies from the same folks that put the Dangerous Duo in office two times running. Like…. they didn’t know. Or, they had ‘no idea’ that Dick Bush would do this. Or even worse, remain in denial and claim that everything they’re doing is still just honkey dorey. More than anything, I don’t wanna have to flee my own country if Ron Paul takes the reins, and that’s what I’d be forced to do. (or at least make sure the siblings and kids escaped). Who would have thought that I’d ever even pay any attention to the repuglican candidates, if only to figure out which one would be the least of the evils. I was just thinking it over a bit ago, and I’m almost embarrassed to admit it, but if I had to take any of them, it would have to be John McCain. (is he even still in the running?)I know, I know. But, look at the rest of them. The only one worse than Ron Paul is Guiliani, and even that’s a toss up.

So for now, the only thing to keep in mind are the basics. Ron Paul is a life long repuglican, and a radical right conservative. His entire political life has been spent in the representation of some people from Texas, (and NOT the handful of progressives there). So, just remember that…Repuglican, Texas, Conservative, Bible Belt Religious, and Patriarchal; consistently supported in all political efforts by white supremacists. Now, ALL of those things are true, and all are well documented, so that’s not a smear by association, but rather just what he is and where his principles lie.

Non Credo.  I long ago gave up on responding directly to “Lefty’s” many rants.  If you will go back on truthdig to the 6/3/07 article by Chris Hedges entitled “Looking Back on 40 years of occupation” you will find a running colloquy which entailed an alignment of three Zionist posters--lilmanzer, lefty and Inherit the Wind on one side with a number of critics of Israeli policies who regard Zionist policies as both racist and fascist.  Those other posters included myself, Tony Withcer, Robert, Peter RV and Fadel Abdalluh.

The only one of the three pro-Israeli posters who, at times, offered rational discourse was Inherit the Wind.  limamzer and Lefty constantly resorted to irrational rants, which in Lefty’s case are perhaps suggestive of acute psychopathology.

This dialogue was a continuation from an ealier post, the title of which escapes me.  It is my recollection that one of the posters challenging Israeli policies provided an account of how he was able to identify “Lefty” as Ephraim Pesasch.  He was referred to as such on numerous occasions and never once denied it.

If you find the time, I think you will also find both Hedge’s earlier article, a number of the posts and links a worthwhile endeavor.

#115595 by troublesum on 11/24 at 4:01 pm

• Paul has steadfastly refused to repudiate the support given him by white supremicist and other racist organizations over the course of several election cycles.  This is what concerns people, not his regard for congressional process which any pageboy or girl has.

BINGO troublesum!!
You’ve hit the bulls-eye here. (or at least one of them…maybe the most troublesome). This is it. A racist is a racist, and will generally ALWAYS be a racist. Not much way around that.

And, unfortunately, it’s just not a new fad of some sort. Sad as it is to acknowledge, (though dangerous not to) this country (and it’s Constitution) was FOUNDED on the premise of white supremacy. I wish that it were not the case, but the FACT of the matter, is that it is.

Now, we’ve made some progress against that in the past 200 or so years, so clearly things are ‘better’. Amendments have helped some, though the law cannot change the mentality. Ron Paul isn’t even TRYING to change his mentality, and that might be just as well, since it’s clear enough (at least to me) that a racist is always a racist, and those who are firmly convinced of the superiority of the white race, generally stay convinced of that. Ergo, Ron Paul has no troubles with support from the white supremacist organizations. No doubt, they are his greatest fans/supporters.

So, why try to fool anyone into believing otherwise? Much better to let it be clear that he is what he is, and thinks what he thinks, and believes what he believes. Then, the rest of us can form our own opinions accordingly.

#115624 by Lefty on 11/24 at 7:17 pm:

Lefty is just precious.

He writes: “Ernie thinks I’m a jew.”

Thank-you Lefty. Thank-you Jesus. Thank-you universe. I really needed that belly laugh.

Lefty, you’re so awful, you’re sort of cute — the way babies and animals are when they are just doing what they can’t help doing.

#115478 by Ernest Canning on 11/24 at 9:17 am
(1166 comments total)

Non credo.  I long ago concluded that Ephraim “Lefty” Pesasch suffers from a political schizophrenia.  Domestically he favors the progressive policies of a Dennis Kucinich.  Yet when it comes to Israel, he is to the right of Likud.

****************************************************
Wrong again, camel breath!  I’m consistently a liberal, socialist.  As such, I oppose, and have no sympathy for arab, islamist, fundamentalist, wahabiist, terrorist, scum.

#115574 by Non Credo on 11/24 at 3:00 pm
(563 comments total)

#115478 by Ernest Canning on 11/24 at 9:17 am:

Thanks for giving me a little support there concerning L. But why do people always call him “Ephraim”?
****************************************************
It’s simple, but apparently not for you, Non-Crapo . . . . because Ernie and the rest of BIFPAT (especially Chris Hedges), hate jews, and Ernie thinks I’m a jew.

Paul has steadfastly refused to repudiate the support given him by white supremicist and other racist organizations over the course of several election cycles.  This is what concerns people, not his regard for congressional process which any pageboy or girl has.

Ron Paul’s statement below exhibits his solid credentials and sober regard for congressional process:

Statement Regarding Impeachment of Vice President Cheney

Ron Paul Speech to Congress

November 6, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio’s desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.

I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however, that this legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives following regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the House Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for a vote. This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that the House thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments of high officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the legislation had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation and accompanying committee report.

I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long supported the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely political reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional function of this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.

I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this legislation to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.

#115478 by Ernest Canning on 11/24 at 9:17 am:

Thanks for giving me a little support there concerning L. But why do people always call him “Ephraim”?

#115505 by troublesum on 11/24 at 10:36 am: “All 900 Polish troops in Iraq will be withdrawn....”

Same for Australian troops too, I believe, troublesum
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si d=ac5bab4TApqc&refer=home

Australia joins Poland in throwing out a Bush ally and electing an anti-war candidate to lead the country.  All 900 Polish troops in Iraq will be withdrawn.

“People in all corners of the globe” are not responsible for the US government, we are.

#115474 by Scott on 11/24 at 8:40 am: “People in all corners of the globe are terrified of the US government....

Were, Scott. Now that the Australians have thrown out their neocon conservative government for a Democrats equivalent, its over, uhh. Whats more, the new deputy prime minister (US vice-president equivalent) is a 46 year-old woman!

The Howard years have largely been a free ride on the strength of the commodities boom there and Australians have personally paid the cost of having allowed their federal leadership to always take the easy option.

Non credo.  I long ago concluded that Ephraim “Lefty” Pesasch suffers from a political schizophrenia.  Domestically he favors the progressive policies of a Dennis Kucinich.  Yet when it comes to Israel, he is to the right of Likud.

“In France the government is afraid of the people; in the US the people are afraid of the government.”

People in all corners of the globe are terrified of the US government.

re:#115460 by Lefty on 11/24 at 7:40 am:

Wow. What a bracing blast of stupidity - equal parts hysteria and bullying.

Haven’t seen Lefty for a while. I thought maybe he’d finally had the inevitable stroke.

And would someone please explain to him that his ‘BIFPAT’ acronym was not even slightly witty the first time?

Chris Hedges, you insufferable jackass!  How can anyone with half a brain take you seriously?  You hold yourself out as compassionate liberal, yet you support the most despicable example of extreme, far right-wing, conservatism - arab, islamist, fundamentalist, wahabiist, terrorism, against Israel, the most successful example of liberal socialism in the world.  You are either an imbecile, or you think your readers are, with the exception of your carefully cultivated and loyal following - the Truthdig BIFPAT(brigade of islamic, fundamentalist, propagandist, arab, trolls).

As for the rest of your readers on this thread, particularly the peabrains who some how managed to narrow their presidential choices down to either Dennis Kucinish or Ron Paul, ARE YOU IDIOTS FUCKIN’ SHITIN’ ME???  Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY liberal/socialist running for president and Ron Paul is a libertarian, corporatist/fascist enabler who would (if he could) abolish governmental regulation of commerce, leaving corporations free to just fuck you without having to - at least - buy of the government first before they fuck you.  Ron Paul’s policies have been tried and failed.  Remember the Gilded Age?  Where 99% of the wealth in America was owned by about a dozen aristocratic families, where children worked in factories and mines instead of going to school, and where the leading causes of death were infection and starvation?  THAT IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF RON PAUL’S POLICIES!

IDIOTS!

Ron Paul is advocating we dismantle a corrupted US government and let the states handle all duties not assigned the the Feds under the Constitution. Very radical idea, but I remember how the states handled integration until the Feds stepped in. Rather than dismantle the gov. I would rather have a constitutionalist like Kucinich fix it (if it can be fixed)—and dismantle it only as a last resort.  Rather than have the big-money oligrachy continue to control the government, I would let Ron Paul dismantle it.

Without the matter of his oppostion to the war, Ron Paul’s campaign would be a minor blip on the screen.
Unrestrained free market capitalism and social darwinism is just what everyone wants.

Well, Cyrena, I vastly prefer Kucinich already, but if Ron Paul really said some of those things, he’s beyond consideration.

However, I am suspicious of this article, because it shows signs of being a hatchet job. Much of the article is smearing by association. So what if David Dukes likes Ron Paul. On Duke’s website, there’s a link to the book on the Israel lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. Does that discredit them or their book? Certainly not.

As a matter of fact, speaking of the lobby, one of the “crimes” the article’s author accuses Paul of is the following:

‘Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.’

Would you or I disagree with a word of this statement, except perhaps whether or not the Israel lobby is “the most powerful” or only “one of the most powerful”?

And notice, too, Cyrena, how this accusation is placed as the climax of the article’s indictment. It supposed to the the topper. Like, “And, as if all that weren’t bad enough, he said this!!!”

I’m sticking to Kucinich, but this article is fishy.

I think this disqualifies him as well…

Why Are White Supremacists So Attracted to Ron Paul?

Pam Spaulding: Could it be a political newsletter Rep. Paul put out in 1992 where he made some comments that are, well, racist?

• Stormfront.org, a white supremacy web site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul’s bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. Stormfront has also endorsed Paul for president.

• “Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us...I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency,” the Stormfront endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul’s plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

• “Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you are a white nationalist,” the endorsement continues. “Put your differences with one and other aside and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man. Look at the issues. Look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul 2008.”

• ...On the Vanguard News Network , convicted bomber and neo-Nazi Todd Vanbiber posted his support for Paul, saying, “I think I’m going to get in touch with the local Paul people and see if I can help. I am serious about this shit.”; Vanbiber was convicted and spent 5 years in a Florida prison for planning to bomb over a dozen Orlando locations.

Ain’t that America. Apparently the attraction to Paul of the supremacist set stems from a political newsletter from 1992 where Ron Paul made some comments that are, well, racist. I would hope the Paul campaign would explain this:

* “Opinion polls show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

* “We are constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Even more embarrassing, according to Lone Star Times, Paul has the support of David Duke, and Stormfront has a YouTube audio commercial up supporting Paul.

Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters actually posted on Paul’s writings several months ago—and there’s more.

But, hey, Paul’s paranoia isn’t limited to African-Americans. He fears the Joooooooos, too:

• Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Article and Reader Comments here
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/67651/

The rhetoric of the current RP is defied not only by his more recent congressional voting record, but also by his past comments, over decades. Leopards don’t change their spots.

Additionally, RP is neither pro-choice or pro-life. (I dislike BOTH of these politically adapted terms for use in any discussion about abortion). He is ANTI-choice, because he is ANTI-abortion, and has dodged conveying his real sentiments on this by claiming that it should be ‘left to the states’. By claiming to leave it to leave it to the states to decide, he has basically denied the Constitutional foundation of privacy upon which Roe v. Wade was decided.

But Ron Paul has special interests of his own. Mixed economy? Forget it. Regulatory agencies? Not on his watch. Taxes? He’ll do his best to wipe them out. Social Security? Dream on. Cooperation with the United Nations? He’ll probably try to pull out of it. And if you’re a Jew or a Black, folks, the best you can expect is no sympathy. At worst, crazy things could happen.

#115238 by Non Credo

….”“Hey [forced chuckle] - not that anyone’s talking about this, but - did you know that I’m not wearing any underwear? What do you think about that?”…”

Oh Non Credo, my own was a REAL chuckle, (more like a full throttle howl, but I better not go there, if only to avoid giving credence to some of the more ludicrous of accusations leveled against me lately).

STILL, this could give you the opening you need. Mention the fact that you aren’t wearing any underwear, ask what they think about it, and offer to PROVE that you aren’t. Now, in displaying the proof, you can simply have on (in place of the underwear) some sign or noisemaking apparatus that brings up the issue of attacking Iran, which is guaranteed to have far more disastrous effects than you simply failing to have on underwear.

Besides, they’ll be so relieved to avoid THAT conversation, (about your lack of underwear) that they’ll be overwhelmingly committed to anything else that would move the conversation along.

So, try that. Let me know if it works, and keep in mind that there’s more than one way to inject a moderate dose of intelligence and/or reality into the brain of an unwilling recipient.

Ernest Canning writes:

“...Ron Paul was amongst those who joined in seeking to table impeachment when Mr. Kucinich introduced the articles before the House on a motion of privilege.  I think that disqualifies Paul as a “constitutionalist” prepared to withstand the fascist onslaught against our constitution and the rule of law.  Mr. Kucnich is the only presidential candidate who warrants our vote.”

OK, I didn’t know that. That certainly settles the question for me (although I already favored Kucinich over Paul).

ElkoJohn:  I hope you realize that Ron Paul was amongst those who joined in seeking to table impeachment when Mr. Kucinich introduced the articles before the House on a motion of privilege.  I think that disqualifies Paul as a “constitutionalist” prepared to withstand the fascist onslaught against our constitution and the rule of law.  Mr. Kucnich is the only presidential candidate who warrants our vote.