Because I worked for him in 1988, which is 24 years back. I remembered him as 51 from back then. But being 60 myself, I too can slightly misremember a number without much immediate significance.

("Secret sources" my ass.)

I worked for Dr. Paul, and I know quite well what he believes -- and it goes a lot further than your duplicitous statement above. I've heard him rave about "the American Empire" far too frequently to forget it. His proposed reductions to the armed forces are significantly larger than those Obama is perpetrating on us today, which are bad enough. So your little con just fell flat.

Dr. Paul is a radical isolationist in the military and strategic sense. That's incontrovertible. It doesn't make him an evil man -- in point of fact, he's a very good man; he's just unrealistic about geopolitical reality. So peddle it to someone else -- someone less well informed.

Dr. Paul's radical isolationism is a killer for his campaign. Had he been willing merely to criticize poorly conceived "nation-building" efforts and overextensions of the American military into conflicts of no importance to American interests, he'd have garnered more support. Even so, as a 74-year-old, and never having risen above the House of Representatives, he'd be an impossibly long shot for the nomination, much less to beat Obama in November.

All the same, it was good to have him in the campaign. If the ultimate nominee wants to garner any part of Dr. Paul's support base, he'll have to adopt at least some of the free-market / hard-money ideas that Dr. Paul has so relentlessly pushed. That's a big part of the reason why candidates with no chance to win can nevertheless be important contributors to a political contest.

It is not time for overconfidence -- if indeed it ever is. Reflect on what's going on in the GOP's primary competition, and then tell me if you think we have a good reason to preen about our prospects!

Go ahead and try it, Bozo. A very large fraction of the voters who supported Obama have admitted that they did so because of the color of his skin.

But I know you don't love The Won because he's half-black. You love him because he's a Communist!

That "You think it's okay to discriminate against them because they're 'brown people'" mantra is the Left's one and only ploy this election season. They'll use it in arguments about anything and everything...including the principal beneficiary of the Affirmative Action Elections of November 2008!

This thrust by the Obamunists is a trial balloon, to see what sort of Constitutional excesses they can get away with and not provoke a massive counter-reaction. In this case, the reaction, though definite, might not be strong enough to compel them to back off. We shall see.

I'm afraid I must inform you of something that slipped by when you weren't watching, Mr. Futrell. Freedom of religion in the United States died a long time ago. Given the notion of "compelling government interest" as something to be weighed against Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms, it's no longer possible.

Indeed, it's time to ask whether Americans have any freedom left.

Indeed. A particular subgroup of male homosexuals has been agitating for that for quite some time.

This farce is a farce. As a previous commenter said, anyone can marry anyone. There are religious denominations that will marry you to a member of another species. There are denominations that will marry you to your car. What the homosexual activists want is State recognition of their marriages... along with the compulsory acceptance by normal society that they think will accompany that recognition.