Boortz just talked about Ron Paul with a caller

I've listened to Boortz and read his daily blog for years.

He gave Harry Browne about a half million person boost in 2000 (in Georgia) by supporting him.

9/11 changed him, he has a huge hatred for "islamofacists" as he likes to call them. He says that waterboarding isn't torture. He's stuck in favor of the war.

The sad thing is, he worries about how the "islamofacists" will hurt our way of life while not caring that Hillary or Rudy in office will destroy our freedoms much more than any terrorist could hope to.

paul proposed a marque and reprisal for osama bin laden

he even suggested that if we are to war with iraq, then declare it

has the highest support of the military than any other candidate

is the champion of the constitution

takes care of our veterans

that should be hard to argue with....

With people who are basically with us on domestic policy, but differ on the war, should be shown the financial costs.

When you show these people that we simply cannot afford to have these adventures without creating massive debt which will have to be paid for by TAXES you link the war with the most hated phrase in most GOP circles, "Tax Increase".

If you can effectively communicate that support for the war in Iraq is tantamount to support of heavy tax increases which will have to pay for it, you show that being a small government hawk is in realistic terms a contradiction.

Defense is a legitimate state function, but going to war because the administration feels it's a good idea is not. I was behind Afghanistan myself, feeling that there was a legitimate connection between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That being said, permanently occupying Afghanistan is not a solution. We need to widthdraw.

I think Ron Paul introduced a bill that would grant letters of mark and reprisal against terrorists. For those who don't know this is mentioned in the constitution and was a tool for targeting non-state enemies like pirates or terrorists in todays world. It's good to note that he was not against pursuing Al-Qaeda as some people would like it to come off.

I won't preach to the choir here, but this is the key to the nomination and presidency.

Paul's defense approach would encourage defense technology development (the historically proven defense advantage of all strong nations) via free market and government funding, as well as the US being behind a 'just war' authorized by congress per the constitution in which we ALL fight monolithically, with our guns authorized by the 2nd amendment.....or we act as our constitutional law instructs: peace, trade, talk, and prosperity....being a model of how to be as a nation, and the philosophy of 'we stay on our side of the fence...you stay on yours'. And bring the 9-11 responisble to justice once and for all.

Nation building is key to globalism. "Conservatives" under neoconservative influence need to understand this before primary season. Will this happen? Is there time? Will there be a mass awakening?

A stronger national defense would strengthen our nation and non-intervention would take away alot of the fuel for creating terorists in the first place ............. these ignorant talkshow hosts arguments have way to many holes in them ,I mean are we going to invade Ireland and kill thousands of civilians to get to a few terrorists .

With guys like that, just ask what will it all be worth if the soldiers come home to 10 times more social regulation than when they left.

You cannot win with us pro-war Republicans by directly talking about the war.

But you can win with us if you talk about the outrageous things that have been passed in the Congress while the troops were away.

The Roman Republic died this way as well.

In 68BC, terrorists destroyed the fleet at Rome's Ostia harbor.

This caused the people to vote themselves a dictator via a bunch of laws and institutions that everyone thought would make them safe.

Now we have Republican federal judges like Thomas Rose saying things like:

"There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner" (said just before Memorial Day in 2006 in the European Connections vs Gonzales Case trying in vain to strike down the IMBRA law).

I would rather have my politicians, my president be softer on terror, vs harder on trampling my rights.

The sad problem with this whole image of Ron Paul being soft on terror, comes from him not supporting US Citizens being spied on, wire tapped, rights squeezed so tightly they barely exist anymore.

Ron Paul would deal with terrorists. Ron Paul would also deal with any threats here at home, but he would do it legally. He would not trample our rights in order to do so.

The constitution was not made to protect us from terrorists. It was made for one reason, and one reason only, to protect us from our government. Why can't people see that? Why are they letting THEIR FREEDOM be viewed as something dangerous that needs to be taken away to keep them safe?

The real question to the people that are all for this war and the one with Iran is how do we win. They feel that we have to fight them because they want to destroy our way of life well them how do we win the war on terror. I am not sure any of the people have an answer to this they only keep saying we have to be there. Keep them stumbling by asking ok how do win--- then step back watch them stumble around (because there is no way to win this war) Just try not to laugh when they are taking too long to answer.

"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library"

I listen to Boortz quite a bit. Everything he talks about except for 'terrorism' is inline with the Paul message. Too bad he won't talk about Ron Paul on the other issues; he has alot of influence, especially in Atlanta. If he were to endorse Ron Paul and talk about him all the time, Ron would do doubt win the Georgia nomination.