See, if you continually make someone an "unperson", the public that relies on TV for their news will never know about him, and you can self-fulfill the "he'll never win" prophecy. At the party level, I'll not be surprised.
I wonder how they'll ignore him when he's drafted to run as an independent?
I'm also amused by all the "pro-gun" sites making excuses for drinking the GOP Kool-Aid. Guess what, guys--they'll never win with all the pissed off activists out there. The numbers will pan out and you'll see.
Then you can either rail against naive traitors like me who are "throwing away our vote," or you can come to the realization thast the only way to keep a dem out is to abandon the criminal rino gang that long ago abandoned us, and truly "Vote Freedom First." Otherwise, it'll be you throwing away your vote.
I hope my hijacking scenario comes true. Meet our demands or feel our pain.
Oh--but then we'll lose our Second Amendment rights.
Any coward who says that has already surrendered them.
"Then you can either rail against naive traitors like me who are "throwing away our vote," or you can come to the realization thast the only way to keep a dem out is to abandon the criminal rino gang that long ago abandoned us, and truly "Vote Freedom First." Otherwise, it'll be you throwing away your vote.
ReplyDeleteI hope my hijacking scenario comes true. Meet our demands or feel our pain.
Oh--but then we'll lose our Second Amendment rights.
Any coward who says that has already surrendered them."
Hear, hear, David!
*Laughs* Keep bearing the torch high, Sir. The gunnies need be reminded that they have a duty to live free.
ReplyDeleteIf he's drafted to run as an independent it will still be easy for them to ignore him, after all America is a two party system, ya know. Unless it is one of the Democrat or Republican socialists, it doesn't really exist in their minds.
ReplyDeleteJust voted in our primary. With Thompson out, I had to vote for the only one left who says what he believes. Not one who says what he thinks you believe.
ReplyDeleteI still think he stinks on foreign policy.
Quote from a WSJ editorial: "Some of his more radical ideas, like abolishing taxes and letting people carry firearms in national parks, have kept him from rising above fringe status in most states." (Italics mine)
ReplyDeleteGod help us if that's considered radical.
Voted for Ron Paul and it was very difficult knowing that my principled vote is a vote to install mccain.
ReplyDeleteGod bless (and save) America
Fight islam Now
The freedom strategy encompasses more than the current election cycle. Stay course.
ReplyDeletehttp://hopeanthem.com
I went for the liberty candidate.
ReplyDeleteAlso: Paul is radical. He's back to the roots, the fundamentals of our government that have been ignored for so long. I realize that "Authorized Journalists" treat the word as a synonym for "insane", but I can't fix their problems.
Amen David.
ReplyDeleteThese kool-aid-drinking FreeRepublic-style Republicans would vote Bill Clinton into office if he was the "lessor of the two evils".
It's Ron Paul or Hitlery.
Make your choice Kool-aid drinkers. We aren't changing.
C.H.
Almost knocked the neighboring voting booth down with my wheelchair (the booths were packed ridiculously close together, and so close to the wall that I had to sit sideways to fill out my ballot), but Dr. Paul and his delegates got my vote.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is the only one that honors his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. He got my vote.
ReplyDeleteThe only good thing about McQuisling McAmnesty McCain winning the nom is that Ron Paul will be the only conservative Republican in the race, if he runs 3P, that is.
ReplyDeleteBTW, everyone in the beltway - except NumbersUSA apparently - knows Huckabee is colluding with McCain to defeat Romney so that McCain will get the nom and then Huckabee will get VP or some other position.
Huckabee made a big deal signing a pledge to support NumbersUSA's positions, and they rated him "anti-amnesty" & "good" on immigration issues (equal to Ron Paul) in denial of Huckabee's terrible record as governor of Arkansas.
This is after the Huckster said anyone opposed amnesty etc is a merciless bigot, spoke glowingly about illegals, etc. Huckster is an open border guy who will support an amnesty euphemism after being elected. Believing Huckster's recent claim to be anti-amnesty would be as gullible as it would be to buy into McCain's recent ads about securing the border first, after years of McCain being the point man for the "U.S." Chamber of Commerce and the Mexican ruling class.
Anyway, if McCain wins the R-nom, Ron Paul could actually have a shot if he runs 3P. Let's hope Bloomberg jumps in too. Then it'll be 3 lefties against a real Republican.
Straightarrow, we're two of a kind. Thompson was my man. I had to 'hold my nose' and vote for Paul. It was a nose-holding because I agree with you about his foreign policy. But I trust that he will never work to destroy our freedoms - the same can't be said of any other candidate left on the field.
ReplyDeleteWe're freaking doomed in any case.
"WE'RE DOOMED" needs to be the caption for that photo.
ReplyDeleteReal American Republicans must prioritize: Do you want to save Iraq, or do you want to save the USA?
ReplyDeleteConservative Republicans shot themselves in the head blindly supporting Bush's years of pre-surge underwhelming-force / endless occupation / bodycount / attrition / hemorrhage the expendable GI strategy that wasted ~3,500 American GI lives plus ~35,000 wounded, maimed and disabled.
Bush could've done the surge years earlier, and if it was up to the Republicans who mindlessly backed his quagmire strategy and attacked anyone who questioned it, the surge would never have happened and he'd still be wasting 100 lives a month plus 1000 wounded or horribly maimed.
And the mindless Bushies would still be saying that's no big deal because we lost X thousands in X hours at Iwo Jima. I.E., our guys are expendable.
In the end, it's no coincidence Bush held off on the surge until after the elections. He WANTED to lose R control of congress because his priority was to pass the McCain/Kennedy/Bush amnesty / guest worker / open border "reform" which, amazingly, Republicans were blocking.
So he sacrificed who knows how many GIs, plus Republican majorities, for his dream of a de facto North American Union through invasion, which will make the official Union inevitable.
Republicans went along with it, protecting their "commander in chief" over all other considerations, a "commander in chief" who even after 9/11 never stopped subverting the very existence of the USA along with our borders, immigration limits, and sovereignty.
It's not our GIs' job to die to give Iraq the perfect Islamic "republic". They're not ready for a true republic and they haven't earned it. If Iraqis really want a true constitutional republic, as if most of them really know what that means, it's THEIR job to die for it, not our GIs' job.
Keep some bases in Iraq and Afghanistan for future denial of rule actions. Pull every soldier out of the cities, bring the vast majority of them home, and free up enough to guard our own borders as part of a containment strategy.
To hell with Iraq. We're losing the USA for cripe's sake and Republicans are still worried that Ron Paul will pull out of Iraq?
Every American needs to examine their priorities and put America FIRST.
We DON'T need the perfect government in Iraq as part of a "war on terror." Sure, it would be nice to have an idyllic Republic in Iraq. But All we ever REALLY needed to do there is to maintain the ability to knock out any succeeding government that threatens us, either in Iraq or the rest of the region. That means all we need to do is keep permanent bases. And we really don't even need to do that. After all, we knocked out the Taliban and Saddam without those bases.
Would Iraqis kill each other if we pulled out of the cities and into bases? Probably. Is that our problem? No. Is it our responsibility to kill off our guys and bankrupt and destroy our nation to keep Iraqis from killing each other? No. Is it indispensable to our security? No. Does a stable Iraq substitute for enforcing our own borders and immigration laws? Does it keep terrorists from waltzing into the USA? No.
It should be clear to all but the glazy-eyed that the current war on terror is a fraud. Why?
1. The borders were wide open before 9/11, and they're STILL wide open. Our immigration laws were relentlessly subverted before 9/11, which facilitated 9/11, and they're still relentlessly subverted 6+ years later. GW "Guest Worker" Bush never took the slightest break from subverting our borders and immigration laws.
2. Rather than stop subverting our immigration laws and sovereignty which would've been the responsible thing on 9/12, rather than keeping terrorists and their sympathizers from coming here / staying here in the first place, Bush used the "war on terror" as an excuse to implement a range of Orwellian police state policies like the "Patriot" and "Real ID" acts to track, monitor, and control EVERYONE in America. And he used his own subversion of our immigration laws as an excuse for Real ID, falsely claiming that the only way to deal with illegal immigration was to track EVERYONE, which primarily means track, monitor and control REAL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Wake up, you're losing your country right before your very eyes. Even as it accelerates, Republicans continue to wring their hands about Iraq.
We don't need to bankrupt the USA, elect national socialists like McCain, or police, babysit and save every country in the world and sacrifice the lives of our GIs to do it. It's not our job and it's not necessary to stop terrorism.
All we need for a successful anti-terror, anti-Islamist-domination strategy is CONTAINMENT combined with a credible threat of DENIAL OF RULE: Force the Islamic rulers to choose between continuing to rule and continuing to tolerate extremism within their sphere of influence. Most will make the right choice, as Qadaffi did. Any regime that doesn't make the right choice can be knocked out.
Containment includes, as the key starting point, fully securing our own borders and fully enforcing and tightening our own immigration policies.
Don't you get it yet? Establishment RINO Scion Bush used the "war on terror" to sucker Republicans into putting globocop foreign policy first while that traitor worked to END the country he swore to protect, the country countless Americans fought and died for since the War of Independence. Guest Worker Bush is a globalist who by facilitating the ongoing invasion of the USA is working for a de facto North American Union as a stepping stone to a de jure North American Union, as a stepping stone to a world government.
To accomplish this, he suckered us in with the phony good ole boy Texas rancher Christian act, exploiting our patriotic conservative values, values he does not share.
It's a despicable outrage that not a single Republican legislator called for the impeachment of Guest Worker Bush on the grounds of subversion of our constitution, borders, immigration laws, and sovereignty. Even Tancredo, Hunter and Paul are guilty of dereliction in this regard. Every congressman and senator had a sworn oversight duty to expose Bush's subversion and call for impeachment.
Bush used Republicans' blind "support of the troops" to keep them from exposing the issue of subversion and honoring their accountability duties, along with their corruption, fear, and blind party loyalty. He manipulated them like marionettes.
And now many Republicans will work to elect McQuisling McAmnesty McCain because their top priority is "supporting the troops". It truly escapes me how electing a national socialist who will work to accelerate the destruction of OUR country equates to supporting our troops.
The leftist "Republican" establishment are a cabal of traitors who are effectively holding our troops hostage, to force us to go along with their treasonous agenda and their insidious corruption of Republican values. It's idiotic and suicidal to continue to play their game.
And then there's the judiciary issue which is also used to force Republicans to work for national socialists. How anyone can believe that a national socialist phony R like McCain, who defecates on the US Constitution every chance he gets, will nominate and fight for true strict original intent justices is beyond me as well.
Republicans have got to stop being such gullible saps -- and soon -- if we're to have the slightest hope of saving the USA. Better open your eyes and look around. The invasion, occupation and takeover may already be irreversible due to rapidly worsening demographics, anchor baby citizenship, voter fraud facilitated by mail-in registration and absentee voting, etc., etc. We don't have the luxury of nation building. We're going to need Republicans putting 100% priority to reversing the invasion.
To Hell with Iraq. Save the USA.
I donated to Tancredo and Hunter, but they're GONE, and so is Thompson. If Romney loses, the only guy left who resembles a conservative will be Ron Paul. In many ways he always was the only true conservative in the race. More of a Reagan conservative than Reagan ever was. And I'm not the only person who is skeptical of Romney's conservatism. He's certainly terrible on gun rights.
I just hope Ron Paul runs 3P. If not, I'll probably be voting for Hillary. I'd rather have Hillary and gridlock than McCain and "progress".
RH
Correction. Should say:
ReplyDelete"hemorrhage-the-expendable-GI strategy"
RH
[This morning I received the following statement on Juan McQuisling, by Gary Marbut of Montana State Shooting Assn:]
ReplyDeleteDear MSSA Friends,
In response to the recent "Gun Owners Don't Accept McCain" email, someone on the MSSA list replied, "Ron Paul doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell." Boy did that light my fuse. I'm afraid I was a bit ungracious in my reply.
And, at the risk of sounding like preaching, allow me to repeat my response to that charge for you (with edits). I said to the person making that statement:
The would-be king-makers in the major media are so pleased that you keep repeating their recommended mantra, "Ron Paul doesn't have a chance." They absolutely count on you to perpetrate this myth. You seem to be doing a fine job for them. Fox's exclusion of Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate was so egregious that the Republican Party pulled out as a co-sponsor with Fox. When Ron Paul comes in fourth, the media reports the top three. When Paul comes in third, they report the top two. When Ron Paul comes in second, as he did in Louisiana and Nevada, the media only reports the winner. So, you are right in line to help select the President the national media wants you to have.
Let me tell you something the media doesn't want you to know. One critical litmus of candidate electability is the ability to raise funds. Ron Paul raised more than twice as much money in the last quarter as his closest rival, Romney. And, Paul raised almost as much money as all the other GOP candidates put together. Ron Paul has received more money from U.S. military personnel than all the other GOP candidates combined. I respect what our military says about Paul with their checkbooks. Ron Paul was the top Republican fundraiser from Montana donors. Further, much of the money raised by Romney, McCain and Huckabee has been from "heavy-hitter" donors who have given the max amount allowed by law - $2,300. Thus, they have tapped out their narrow donor base. Their campaigns are essentially broke and are NOT getting more money in. Why do you think Romney quit?
The average contributor to Ron Paul, however, has probably given about $200. So, Paul has this vast list of people who believe in him, have donated, and who he can go back to for more money.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who can raise the funds necessary to go head-to-head with Obama or Clinton.
Clinton v. McCain? Don't forget, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Ann coulter says, "Republicans are so shell-shocked and demoralized by the success of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, they think they can fool the voters by nominating an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation 'Republican.' Which is to say, a Democrat." Coulter continues, "As the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, voters will always choose the Democrat." Remember, this John McCain is the same guy who sought to be John Kerry's running mate.
So, I'm sticking with Ron Paul, a real Republican. I am not letting the media king-makers choose for me. The Internet has allowed me to become informed without the so obviously slanted "news" from the major media.
I have told national conservative political consultant Chuck Muth that if Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination, I'll vote for Paul as a third-party candidate. If he doesn't run as a third-party candidate, I'll vote for him as an Independent. If Paul doesn't run as an Independent, I'll write him in. Period. There are lots out there like me.
If that causes Hillary to get elected, tough. Frankly, I'd rather have Hillary than McCain. Their outlook and programs are the same (anti-gun, disdain for the Constitution, pro-illegal aliens, profligate spending, Patriot Act tyranny, and MUCH more), but at least the Republicans in Congress will fight Clinton. Gridlock would be fine. The Republicans in Congress will stampede to do the will of McCain, even though his political history differs little (regardless of what he claims for this campaign) from Clinton.
Do I feel strongly about Ron Paul. You bet. Can he win? Only if we make it happen.
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
www.mtpublish.com
[Obviously, I agree with Mr. Marbut. Juan McQuisling should run for Presidente de Mexico or at least of the North American Union, not the USA he seeks to destroy.
RH]