Maybe it is because Paul is anti-establishment and wants to actually change the status quo instead of further expanding the government (i.e. business as usual). It is pretty telling when the frontrunners of the party of supposed "Limited Government" claims that we are too far gone to even replace the IRS and the income tax with an alternative and can't name a program they would cut (besides Paul). Perhaps Scoop and Dump said what he did regarding the IRS Rubicon in the context of merging Real ID, Total Information Awareness, and RFID technology with the IRS and our income tax system. Maybe Ted Kazinski and Bill Joy are more right then they know and the endgame of the industrial revolution that they fear has already found a base of operations. An inescapable system in which everyone is a member and exclusion means a complete disconnection from society. All the groundwork for such a system is already there.

Maybe it is because he doesn't fit into this pretty little Left/Right paradigm that all the useful idiots out there try to pigeonhole everything into? The money changers and the CFR don't care if what a person calls themselves, Democrat or Republican. It doesn't matter, all that matters is playing ball with the elites. Swimming with the sharks. Paul doesn't play those games and isn't CFR, hence his exclusion from the selection pool decided on by the elites.

It really is sad, but what is even more sad are all the useful idiots that go along with it and the extremely large amount of useful idiocy I see regarding asinine wedge issues and blind allegiance to Establishment candidates anointed by the big money that anointed BushCo. Blind allegiance to a "party" that is half of a system that ultimately could care less about you or me or anyone outside of their special interests.

Get him some of that hair in a can that he can spray all over his noggin followed up with some steamy hawt butt secks.

Powell and his buddies have probably already discussed everything at Bohemian Grove.

The Democrats Are Selling Out the Peace Movement

And much of the peace movement is selling out to the Democrats…

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11437

"The front-running Hillary is the darling of the neocons these days, partly because of her spat with Obama over what Fred Barnes calls the "would-you-meet-with-despots" question. Our future commander in chief answered "firmly and coolly," says the man who coined the phrase "big government conservatism." "She excels," raves National Review editor Rich Lowry, who says Clinton "has done more than any other Democrat to show she's ready to be president." Neocon bellwether David Brooks' paean to Hillary, the Warrior Goddess, heralds her as "the perfect combination of experience and change." Even Charles Krauthammer, the neocons' resident Cato (the Elder), hailed "the grizzled veteran" Hillary in her alleged victory over "the clueless rookie" Obama in the talk-with-tyrants spat.

I long ago predicted that the neoconservatives would switch sides in the partisan divide: having drained the GOP of its vital juices and left it a dry husk, they are readying themselves for the era of "Bush lite."

Sucking up to Hillary and her court won't be too difficult: the neocons already have an inside line in her camp in the person of Marshall Wittmann, the former Trotskyist-turned-Christian-Coalition-director-turned-McCainiac who is now Hillary's Rasputin. This ideological chameleon, whose advice to go hawkish and prove her credentials as a potential commander-in-chief she appears to be taking, is the archetypal neocon, which is not so much a doctrine as it is a history. Wittmann's political odyssey from the fever swamps of Spartacism to the storied heights of Washington's neoconservative network is an exaggerated version of Hillary's own hegira, from the far Left of the Democratic Party to the DLC-Lieberman-Scoop Jackson far Right."

...

"President Hillary Clinton will inherit a war that she intends to fight and win, no matter what she says to the Democratic base. And her "antiwar" cheerleaders at MoveOn and the SEIU will still be "building bridges" to cushy jobs, choice cuts of pork, and their fair share of political perks. Then, with sudden swiftness, we'll be hearing about the progress of labor unions in American-occupied Iraq, and why it's much better and more "humane" to continue a "residual" presence that will, like all such presences, grow of its own accord.

The criticisms of the Bush policy by such Democratic foreign policy mavens as Joe Biden and Ivo Daalder have been based around the argument that the Iraq war was wrong in its execution, not its conception. There was insufficient planning, the decision to disband the Iraqi army was a disaster, etc., etc., all assuming that the Democrats could have done a better job – and even deserve a chance to "succeed" where the Republicans failed.

This has been the major charge by the warbots in the GOP, who are now saying that the "surge" is saving the day and who blame the "defeatist" Democrats for obstructing the war effort: Republican neocons claim congressional Democrats, and, indeed, all war critics, don't want America to succeed in Iraq. The Democrats hasten to disagree, but never think to ask: what is it that we are supposed to be succeeding at?

The neocon project is all about creating a reliable ally in the region, a base from which to wage new wars of "liberation" – and ensure American control over much of the world's dwindling oil supply. What the Democrats are promising, therefore, is to be more successful at being imperialists than their incompetent Republican rivals. This is a distinction without a difference, one that is certainly not worth either voting for or even passively cheering on in the name of "change." After all, it could well be a change for the worse."

The neocons weren't always Republicans.

And Goodwin's law is broken before the first post. Nicely done.