By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times

Ron Paul ends his hunt for votes

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said Monday he will not compete in primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially confirming Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

He did encourage his supporters to still turn out and vote.

His decision not to compete for new votes in other states leaves Mr. Romney as the only candidate still actively fighting for voters’ support in the 11 states still to vote. That list includes the biggest prizes on the board — Texas and California.
The rest of the story …

Why are Republicans looking at those who are running for President as “milk toast”?

Maybe everyone needs to quit asking why and start thinking maybe NO ONE trusts the Republicans or their leadership any longer.
Instead all of the talking heads are banking on THE ELECTORATE to simply vote for the REPUBLICAN OBAMA LITE.

Mitch Daniels at least talks “common sense” on a couple of important issues.
He is worth a listen.

After her rousing speech at CPAC Sarah Palin speaks to Chris Wallace about the GOP candidates.

Ron Paul claims the military is a big financial supporter of him.

Funny have you heard who appears to be in bed with Mitt Romney?
Clearly Romney has a problem with his image of “BEING AN UBER RICH GUY”.
Personally I do not care if he is the richest guy in the world unless he got that cash illegally which does not appear to be the case at all.

But who is pushing, prodding and funding him AND WHY … is of definite interest.
Looks like if this chart is accurate Mitt Romney is the WALL STREET flavor of the 2012 election scene.
Chart and full story about it HERE.

Now Donald Trump another uber rich guy jumps on the Romney bandwagon?
Don’t get me wrong. I like Trump because he is gutsy, goes relentlessly after what he wants.
But the sudden endorsement of Romney?
Something about all of this sort of raises my Antennae?

Come on everyone start to connect the dots.
WOW does it look like WallStreet is beginning to hedge its bet realizing Obama has skidded into a brick wall?
Is far to battered and bruised to come out of 2012 a winner?
Shucks Batman do ya think?

So who is the next most likely push over left in the race?
ROMNEY? Is that a mirage?

It is clear to anyone with 20/20 vision that Paul or Gingrich do not fit the “PUSH OVER BILL”.

Oh my gosh how much money are Paul and Gingrich getting from WallStreet?
How much did the other NON PUSH OVERS (Bachmann and Cain) get?
PEANUTS? … did I say peanuts? more like chicken scratch according to the above chart.

We have a large segment of society swallowing the “media crap” hook line and sinker “lemming style”.
Why? Because they are to lazy to get off their dead asses and check anything out for themselves.
We have another segment of society swallowing the progressive rhetoric hook line and sinker “lemming style”.
Why? Because they are the true “useful idiots” that the left counts on to survive.

Then we have those of us somewhere in the middle not knowing what the hell to think, do or why.

How does our country survive?
Each of us better start to think for ourselves … use your common sense.
Dig around in the FACTS. Give up the OPINIONS of others.
Form your own opinions.
Take the information you find here or on any other internet source and check it out FOR YOURSELF.

Time the mass gives up being a part of the “flat world” believers and opt for the round world REALITY.

I find myself intrigued with Ron Paul on a regular basis. The man can get up and say some of the most patriotic and sensible things in once sentence and then in the next sentence sound like he just came out of an insane asylum. Paul has great ideas when it comes to fiscal responsibility, spending, freedom, and the Federal Reserve. On the other side of the coin, though, his ideas on foreign policy leave me wondering where he left his brain, or if he has one that is properly balanced. When he speaks of fiscal issues he sounds like Ronald Reagan. When he speaks of foreign policy he sounds like Hugo Chavez and even to the left of Barack Obama.

When I hear him speak of auditing or eliminating the FED I stand up and cheer. The Federal Reserve is a non-governmental entity that is destroying our economy by printing money that has essentially no value, thereby lowering the value of the dollar and guaranteeing severe inflation in the very near future. The FED also has virtually no oversight from anyone in Congress. Paul is also correct in his assessment of federal government spending. We cannot keep spending money borrowed from China for building IHOP restaurants, studying ants in New Zealand, teaching African men how to wash their genitals after sex, and certainly can’t keep borrowing to prop up European countries.

I also agree with much of his stand on Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and the other third world hell holes Obama is involving us in. Fighting a war against Islamic terrorists is one thing but this “nation building” farce is only a boon for the military industrial complex and is not helping any aspect of our national security interests. We are wasting money and lives in a venture that will fail because it isn’t about winning a war; it is about being politically correct and propping up a puppet government. As we are leaving Iraq we see the sectarian slaughter returning. Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been butchering each other for centuries and we are not going to stop it. Until these stone-age animals decide to live like human beings nothing we do is going to change anything. All we do is put our soldiers in the line of fire with a no-win policy that puts their lives in danger with rules of engagement that are insane.

While closing military bases all across the United States we build and expand bases throughout the world. While we are “helping Afghan police and military close their borders to invaders” we leave our own borders wide open to drug cartels and the very Islamic terrorists we are fighting in far off lands.

Ron Paul makes quite a stir when he talks about “legalizing drugs”. I don’t remember everything he has said about drugs but I do know he has some valid points here also. The “war on drugs” has been going on for 50 years and has cost taxpayers billions in wasted money. Not only have we not solved the problem of illegal drugs; this “war” has made it worse. Most of Paul’s position has more to do with leaving this issue to the states, not legalizing drugs wholesale as the story is reported. Ron Paul is a strong states’ rights advocate, as am I. It only took the politicians 14 years to see the problems caused by Prohibition and repeal the 18th Amendment. The war on drugs has been going on for 50 years with the same results we saw during Prohibition. I don’t condone legalizing all drugs but I see a colossal failure that could be handled better at the state level.

Paul has the same ideas on abortion; let the states decide how they want to handle this issue. I agree with him on this matter. If it isn’t in the Constitution the federal government has no business sticking their nose into it. Every time a person or group doesn’t get their way at the state level they run to the federal government to override the states, the place where these issues should be decided. I see abortion as murder, and see murder as a state issue not a federal one.

I hear all of the things Paul writes and says about these issues and I jump up and cheer him on. Then he begins to talk about foreign policy and I scream out in pain. Paul is just as bad as Barack Obama when it comes to blaming America for every ill in the world. I have a cousin who worked in the building demolition business years ago and I had several opportunities to see the activities involved in blowing a building up, or rather imploding them. When I hear Ron Paul talk about 9/11 being an inside job I want to choke his scrawny little neck.

The idea that the World Trade Center was taken down by internally placed explosives is ludicrous to anyone who has even a scant knowledge of building implosions. The amount of work necessary to drill into pillars, place the explosives, wire them together, and tie everything to a detonator cannot be accomplished in a building with thousands of people walking in and out all day every day. A building that size isn’t brought down on itself with a satchel charge tossed into an elevator. The idea that the Bush Administration was involved in setting up the hijackings is equally ludicrous and statements by Ron Paul and his supporters on this issue shows they are well outside the realm of sane or intelligent thought.
While Ron Paul has some very good ideas about what is needed to restore The Republic of the United States of America, he has more than enough crazy ideas to make him a danger to every person in this country. I would love to see Ron Paul be the next Treasury Secretary or Chairman of the Federal Reserve but to put this man in the White House would endanger our nation almost as much as re-electing Barack Obama.

We need a very strong leader with strong conservative values. We need someone who will articulate the conservative message and have the courage of his/her convictions. Now is not the time for waffling or being concerned about “diversity” or “inclusiveness”. The only answer to our nation’s problems is a conservative approach that relies on the Constitution that our founding fathers fought the Revolutionary War to make possible. Anything less will result in the demise of a once great nation and the rise of another Third World banana republic with a dictator such as Adolph Hitler or Hugo Chavez. Ron Paul is not the man for the job.

I submit this in the name of the most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell Claremore, Oklahoma January 23, 2012

Judge Napolitano clearly is not keen on Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.
Here is why.

He is a supporter for Ron Paul.
I have to wonder how he expects Ron Paul to get any cooperation from our Congress who is fortunate if they can pull an approval rate over 10% for any length of time.

UPDATE on Mitt Romney “natural born citizen” state.
Please read this latest research update on this issue.

This is a re-post of an article I wrote (based on the research and comments submitted by Adrianne) back in mid June. I am grateful for her research finds.

It is CRITICAL that the public understand this problem … leap on the bandwagon and FORCE EVERYONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT TODAY to address this issue.

For whatever reason the DC powers that be CONTINUE TO IGNORE the most important issue that faces the United States.

YES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ECONOMY.

Without a fix for this constitutional problem the imminent economic collapse is small change in comparison.
WE CAN AND WILL RECOVER from a collapsed economy.
WE CAN NOT RECOVER FROM THE COLLAPSE FROM WITHIN WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

People YOUR FREEDOM IS AT STAKE … WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE NATURAL BORN IS IMPORTANT.

No matter how ANYONE slices, dices or ginsu it BARACK OBAMA for certain does not meet the requirement … neither does Mitt Romney according to records of old.

If these contenders are not WILLING to face and DO SOMETHING about this problem then WE AS CITIZENS MUST FACE THE FACTS … that contender is either ignorant (no matter what they claim) of what the constitution says/means or is to cowardly to stand up and follow it.

Those contenders do NOT DESERVE THE VOTE OF THE PUBLIC PERIOD.

Do we need ANOTHER IGNORANT COWARD in the white-house after the 2012 election?
DO WE ACCEPT WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL?

Is Mitt Romney a “natural born citizen”?

Was George Romney (father of Mitt Romney) a natutal born citizen?
Not according to the historical records I could dig up.

If George Romney was not a “US citizen”, “natural born citizen” or became naturalized BEFORE Mitt was born then neither can Mitt Romeny (his son) be natural born.

THE CASE:

Had Romney been successful in 08, we’d still have socialized medicine, only the name would be Romneycare, not Obamacare.

In regards to the missionaries, I point that out to show that the expatriate Mormons HAD to become Mexican citizens since missionary work by foreigners was prohibited by Mexican law at the time.

Geometry, “if this and this, therefore that.” If Mexico only allowed citizens to conduct missions/missionary work. The Mormons operated missions in Mexico, therefore, the Mormons were Mexican citizens.

Since George W. Romney was born in Mexico, son of the head elder, there for about 3 decades before his birth, said elder must have been a Mexican citizen, therefore, could not bestow American citizenship, let alone “natural born” to George W. Romney. Since George W. Romney was therefore NOT AN American citizen, he could not bestow natural born to his son Mitt Romney. It does not matter what state Mitt Romney was born in.

The operative immigration law of nations at the time, each government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates as a matter of being put into delicate situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil. This procedure was operative when the Mormons fled Utah, the standard being that if an American stayed (at the time the accepted time frame was) 5 or so years, each country would consider they had rejected their native country’s citizenship.

Since the family was in Mexico, depending on the story, 1870′s or 80′s, the USA would have considered them Mexican and Mexico would have too, on that account.

Since Mexican law severely restricted foreign ownership of territory and since Romney’s own family genealogy reports they bought land w/Mexico’s approval, then if this, then that of it concludes that they were Mexican citizens, free to own land and also, do their missionary work.

The Mormons left to escape the US government threats, then passage of two severe laws against polygamy (links below). They were losing or had lost their citizens’ rights to vote, sit on juries, etc. The final legislation banning polygamy and assessing severe sanctions in the 1880s made committed polygamy a crime and while the legislation OFFERED THE EXPATRIATES IN MEXICO a legal way back, all those who were married prior to 1864, (and George W. Romney’s father was), he could have chosen to repatriate with all benefits of American citizenship.

He declined and died in Mexico in 1906 or 1907, never returning, never giving up Mexican citizenship.

Clearly American citizenship was not a concern then, Romney et al have a dog in that fight but not the Mexican Mormons, the Romney family tree is clear, committed and leaders of that movement.

Notes to CI from Adrianne:

CI … I went to your site and as I forewarned, said that the “official” accounts are revisionist history.

From your link:
“… While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship.”

Actual Chronological History:

Mitt Romney’s paternal great grandfather Miles Park Romney was one of the many families that left the United States in March of 1885 to conlonize Mexico. (why and their citizenship fate explained below)

Mitt’s paternal grandfather Gaskell Romney stayed in Mexico until the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States.

Mitt’s father George W. Romeny was also born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua – one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico – on July 8, 1907.

Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, George W. Romney’s maternal grandfather, Helamen Pratt:
Pratt was one of the first missionaries to Mexico, and in 1876 at Hermosillo, Sonora, Pratt and Meliton Trejo performed the first baptisms recorded by the LDS Church in that country. Pratt latter served as president of the Mexican Mission based in Mexico City for part of the 1880s. After his release he moved to Colonia Dublan in Galeana, state of Chihuahua, Mexico, where he died.

He married in Salt Lake City, Utah, 20 April 1874 German Anna Johanna Dorothy (“Dora”) Wilcken (Dahme, Zarpin, Rheinfeld, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 25 July 1854 – Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico, 22 June 1929), daughter of Carl Heinrich Wilcken (Eckhorst, Holstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 5 October 1831 – Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 April 1914) and the first of at least four wives (m. Neustadt in Holstein, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 10 August 1853) Eliza Christina Carolina Reiche (Neustadt in Holstein, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 1 May 1830 – Salt Lake City, Utah, 13 August 1906), both of whom also became LDS Church members. He was also a polygamist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helaman_Pratt

His maternal great grandfather, Helaman Pratt’s Obituary:
Helaman Pratt, a Frontiersman From Birth, Closes Long Missionary Life at 63

In the death of Helaman Pratt, the Juares stake has suffered an irretrievable loss. He died of apoplexy, Nov. 26, 1909, at his house in Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua, Mexico. Few have done more for the spreading of the gospel among the natives of Mexico than he. None have taken a more general interest in the work both temporal and spiritual. ….”

Would you agree then, that despite the claim on the official page, the link I give from the FAMILY genealogy page would show that Romney’s great grandfather and his descendants all considered him a missionary?

Mexican law, until the 1940′s prohibited foreign missionaries.
I know this because my cousin was a Franciscan missionary and was imprisoned and tossed from Mexico, the third time with a warning he’d be shot.

Interesting old article, some name dropping, too:
Mormons Carry On In Mexico Farm Area

May 03, 1986|By William Stockton, The New York Times
NUEVO CASAS GRANDES, MEXICO — A hundred years ago, a group of Mormons loaded their possessions and families onto wagons and moved to Mexico to seek a place to practice polygamy free from interference and to establish a beachhead from which to convert Mexico to Mormonism.

Polygamy died out not long after the turn of the century, and most of the Mormon colonies disappeared, too. But two survived and prospered in northern Chihuahua, and the descendants carry on their ancestors` religious traditions and work as farmers and ranchers.

Residents have names such as Romney, Taylor, Wagner and Hatch, and some live in two-story Victorian-style brick houses reminiscent of Salt Lake City. But a century of living here has produced a life of dual identities.

On one hand, the Mormons are Mexican citizens, some proudly, ardently Mexican. They speak Spanish, are subject to Mexican laws and economic woes, and must meet the Mexican military service requirement.

But their outlook on life is decidedly American. Their children attend Brigham Young University in Utah, and they receive Bride`s magazine when a daughter`s wedding is imminent. The side of the refrigerator in one Mormon home has a very American set of household rules posted for the children.
Whole Story …

In order to stay and own property, they had to become Mexican Citizens.

HELAMAN PRATT — Mission to Mexico City

” ….Helaman’s duties with the exploration commission did not release him from his duties as Mission President. It was not until after the trouble with the Governor of Chihuahua that he was released and set apart by President Taylor to help in the colonization of the Saints in Mexico. In this new calling he worked hard to help the Saints get land, secure land titles, water rights, spearhead the building of canals, and ditches and all that was necessary to make their new home a happy and prosperous one. At the time he set Helaman apart, President Taylor told him that he was called until death released him, and that he was to become a Mexican citizen and take part in the government. Helaman accepted the call and all its ramifications. ….

Helaman Pratt’s Mexican naturalization paper.

State side persecution from the government only increased as the Mormon Church continued to grow. In 1882, the Edmunds Act, which outlawed cohabitation with more than one woman, was passed. To enforce this, U.S. President Chester A. Arthur sent the Utah Commission. All Mormons who practiced polygamy were disenfranchised, stripped of the right to vote or hold public office. Many of them were also jailed. Although this clearly violated U.S. constitutional law forbidding ex post facto laws, over 1,300 men were jailed. In Idaho, a loyalty oath was instituted in 1885, which required all residents to swear they opposed polygamy or any organization that taught it in order to vote. This effectively disenfranchised all Mormons. Mormons appealed these laws all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but things only got worse. In 1887, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which dis-incorporated the Mormon Church and seized virtually all of its property. It required loyalty oaths from local officials, which kept even Mormons not practicing polygamy from holding office, and allowed the federal government to appoint state officers and even control what textbooks could be allowed in classrooms.

In July of 1862 the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. Then in March of 1882 the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 was signed into law.

The Edmunds Act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists’ right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.

Their citizenship was unceremoniously stripped.
According to the anti-polygamists the Mormons were charged with “political treason” by establishing a separatist theocracy in Utah. Second, they saw a social treason (Race Treason) against the nation of White citizens when Mormons adopted a supposedly barbaric marital form (polygamy).

By the time George W. Romney was born, it was quite safe for the Romneys to come back to the United States. They chose not until the revolution in 1912 forced the issue.

The polygamists expatriated.
They went to Mexico planning to convert Mexico and stay in Mexico.

And the bottom line is that immigration law then, put a time limit for natural citizens to live in a foreign country. Especially with no indication they’d come back. The Mormons bought and owned property. Not to mention that Mexican law at the time severely restricted foreign ownership, they COLONIZED the place, all their literature freely admits that.

Go to the American colonists. How many of them came with the intent of going back? They came to stay. As did the Mormons who because citizens.

Now, here is the link and the pertinent points of law that show that law and protocol at the time considered the Mormons expatriates.

“…….Congress finally got into the act in 1907, passing a new law that essentially codified most of these administrative rules governing expatriation. Loss of citizenship depended on the act—naturalizing elsewhere or assuming lengthy foreign residence, for example—not the conscious choice of the individual to give up US nationality as a result…”

Dual citizenship was rare and frowned upon at the time, if it existed in real terms at all.
But the idea is moot since dual is not natural born.

If you are not yet familiar with what the constitution says about “natural born citizen”?
I suggest you bone up on it by visiting the links below.
Also keep in mind that all the naydsaying rhetoric from those who believe “the constitution” is a living growing document? THEIR OPINION of what is TODAY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW matters not and is about as valuable as confederate money.

4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”

Having the Status of Birthright Citizenship Is Not Sufficient to Make One an Article II “Natural Born”

Are the “Birthers” barking up the wrong tree?

More Citizenship Information Backed Up By Congressional Records

Is Ron Paul actually unconventional?
Apparently that is determined by who is perceiving unconventional.

Clearly his belief system is unconventional to a majority in our UNTHINKING government officials. How unconventional is it to the “average thinking citizen” on the street?

I suppose that also depends on whether that average thinking citizen listened to the skewed hypocritical media or what Paul has to say himself.

On one of the forums I attend every time Ron Paul is mentioned a virtual word skirmish erupts. Paul is a lightning rod that can split a cohesive conservative group into a warring faction in a nano second.

WHY?

My curiosity suddenly got the best of me.
Like many of those ignorant on Ron Paul I paid attention to the negative sound bites spewed by Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc.

Silly me … I know better or at least thought I did.

In my opinion the best we can do is hit youtube and listen to the man himself.

How amazing it is that we can finally get to the bottom of what someone is saying and meaning (providing you have a quasi ethical interviewer).

I still do not know if Ron Paul is MY GUY.
It is still to soon in the game to decide.

That being said he is NO WORSE than any of those who have thrown their hat in the ring so far.

He is clearly more closely aligned to the average citizen on the street than many of those in the lead.

It is therefore no surprise his common sense mindset is closing the gap with the public who is drop dead tired of the “Same Old Shit”.

The rumbling on the “internet street” is fairly simple.
Wake up American Political Establishment … a 3rd party is likely to kick your butts into 2016 or NEVER AGAIN!

Ignore the voting public at your own peril.

Listening to the news on the Ames Iowa straw poll to the major media Ron Paul seems to be invisible.

What is with that?
I am not a big supporter of Ron Paul but I am not blind or totally stupid.
Did someone fail to pass 4th grade math here?
A poll is a poll … or do we all simply pick and choose the results according to some kind of agenda?

I definitely do not support twisted media coverage.
Sorry Fox you have now slipped into the MSNBC slot of dishonestly as far as I am concerned.

Does it concern you at all that people like me are suddenly going WHOA!! where is truth and balance?

For those of you interested in TRUTHFUL FACTS?

AMES, Iowa — Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has won the Ames Straw Poll with 29% of the vote, edging out Rep. Ron Paul by 152 votes, or 28%.

Tim Pawlenty, who needed a strong finish, was further back in third with 14%.

Rick Santorum, who has campaigned more than anyone, pulled in 10% and Herman Cain got 9%. Rick Perry, who wasn’t on the ballot, but had a concerted write-in effort here, got 718 votes, or 4%, ahead of Mitt Romney, the presumed front runner for the nomination, who pulled in 567 votes (3%), Newt Gingrich 385 votes (2%), Jon Huntsman 69 votes and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter 35 votes.

The total number of voters was high, 16,892, about 3,000 votes more than 2007. It was the second-highest turnout ever for the straw poll.

• 1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%)
• 2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)
• 3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)
• 4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)
• 5. Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%)
• 6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in
• 7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)
• 8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%)
• 9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%)
• 10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%)

I Jon Stewart now expected to be our next TRUTHFUL MEDIA NEWS SOURCE?

Republican stupidity was on display at the South Carolina convention May 16th. Senator Graham insulted the most vibrant part of the Republicans Party and one of the few bright spots last election cycle. Graham stated “Ron Paul is not the leader of the Republican party.” A direct repudiation of the Libertarian part of the party. The only market share growth in the Republican Party this last decade. Wow what a way to piss off the base.

There was heckling and back and forth banter between Ron Paul supporters and Graham as can be seen on the video. The main gist of Grahams argument was that Republicans needed to be centering right or as most people would classify them as Democrat Light.

Earth to Senator Graham, Bush was a compassionate conservative and John McCain was as center as you can be. The fascist are in control of the federal government and we don’t need “milquetoast conservatism” out there fighting these folks. The only two people I would consider suitable for the GOP would be Ron Paul at the top and Sarah Palin on the bottom. Why Paul? His supporters are the only ones vicious enough to effectively deal with the ACORN fascist on the other side that have no respect for the law or anything else. Graham and his crap philosophy has come and gone. The time to be nice ended in 2000 after the Gore/Bush election.

Message to Senator Graham, we did it your way in 2008. Remember? Democrats used ACORN and unions combined with millions in illegal donation, corrupt judges, election supervisors and propaganda to clean you clock and whip the hall of congress clean of your weak ass philosophical bull junk. You led the troops and the result was a disaster. Now get the hell out of the way.
Republicans hate Libertarians and look down on them. I know it. Graham knows it, Beck, Hannity, Rush and the rest know it. We believe in legalized drugs, fair tax, freedom and liberty. Criticize us all you want for being loony tunes but if you examine the founding fathers and the issues of today we win all relevant arguments.

Drugs. Why legalize them? $30,000 per prisoner. Law enforcement abuses. Billions down a never ending rat hole. Why not spend say 20% of the cost of drug enforcement on children’s education, treatment and hospitalization for addicts. A whole lot cheaper and a whole lot less violence. A no brainer but only if you examine all the facts.

Education. No child left behind. Yea right. Billions to special interest and did McCain get the teacher union vote? I don’t think so. And yet our public schools still fail. School vouchers and complete freedom for parents is the answers not more crap from the Republicans arguing they can piss away money better than Democrats.

Libertarians understand these stark differences between themselves and fuzzy headed politicians like Senator Graham. The average voter has to be presented with these stark differences. Wishy-washy politicians like Graham will get the Republicans a ticket to extinction. Independents are independent because they hate both parties. It’s a huge dissatisfaction with Graham, Pelosi, Bush, Obama and the rest. Graham is part of the problem and he needs to get out of the way.

And what of the argument the GOP needs to win senate seats in Pennsylvania? Says who? How about a few more congressional seats in Western Pennsylvania first? Why does John Murtha keep getting re-elected? The GOP can’t defeat a nut case in a republican leaning district? Seems as though the GOP has their priorities all screwed up. Oh let’s alienate the biggest part of our base so we can pick up that Pennsylvania senate seat. No that’s the incorrect strategy Senator Graham. You stick to your party principals and pick up the congressional seats. Understand?

Finally the Republicans I have seen lack the intensity and will to fight fascist on their terms. This next presidential election will need a candidate that will inspire millions of young people to confront the corrupt judges, election officials, ACORN, unions and the fascist apparatus. Foreign campaign donations will need to be exposed to the press by any means necessary. A lot of eggs will need to be crushed and broken if the Republicans are to compete with the democrats. That’s just a fact. Hide the dirty work as much as you can but the dirty work will need to be done.

Ron Paul was the only candidate with the right domestic vision and dedicated workers willing to do what it took to get the job done. Sarah Palin has good instincts but sadly has not developed her economic knowledge to the level where she would make a good president. If she concentrates on bringing that knowledge up on par with Paul I would have no problem supporting her. In a debate between the two on economic issues Paul would run circles around her as he regularly does to his comrades on Capitol Hill. Palin is more realistic on foreign policy and that’s her weakness. I disagree with Paul on foreign policy but at least he has a clear vision of what he wants to do.

So to Lindsey Graham and the other lily livered weak ass Republicans get the hell out of the way. The fascist are in Washington in case you missed the memo and they are not going to relinquish power just because you win the elections. Get ready to fight and nominate the only candidate you have left with any credibility, Ron Paul. If you don’t like the sight of political carnage then stay at home and shut up.