At the California CNN debate between Romney and McCain (during which Ron Paul and Huckabee were occasionally allowed to pipe in for a few seconds), the two guys who are supposedly on the top of the conservative ticket exposed each other as the flaming liberals in Republicans' clothing that they really are.

If you missed it, here is Brent Bozell's take on the whole thing. Rush Limbaugh isn't even supporting McCain. I doubt that he gives Romney a better scorecard on conservatism.

So, what choices do conservatives have left, then? Certainly not Huckabee. He may draw the votes of evangelicals - but only because their leaders tell them to vote for him. If the Huckabeast really had their unreserved, gut-level support, they would be donating far more money to him.

But they don't.

The (simultaneously hilarious and saddening) thing is that "McRomney's" criticisms of each other are so undeniably true. Romney did refer to "a series of  timetables" when he was interviewed in 2006, and he did say that it should be kept secret from the general Iraqi population so they wouldn't be "laying in the weeds" until US troops are gone.

Romney, in his typical fish-tailing fashion, tried to slither out of that one by claiming the "timetables" he was talking about did "absolutely not" concern withdrawal, but then Anderson Cooper interrupted and read the complete quote to the candidates and the audience, revealing that Romney was indeed referring to troop withdrawal.

Not to be outdone, Romney then laid into McCain's liberal stance on campaign finance reform and immigration, to which McCain responded with his own fish-tailing tap-dance extravaganza by recanting his earlier support for McCain-Kennedy with the stated reason that, when he took that position on amnesty, he "didn't understand" how Americans felt on the subject.

Oh, how Bill Clinton would have been proud to claim that backtracker as one of his own!

Holding the finger to the wind as an admitted policy option does not win conservative votes, Senator McCain!

Or, maybe it does.

These days, it seems that as long as you are hell-bent on continuing to send  American troops to be killed in Iraq (essentially for enforcing UN resolutions) while claiming to "fight terrorism" there, you can claim to be a "conservative" - even if you advocate leaving our borders completely unprotected from terrorist infiltration.

Whatever happened to "character counts"? Or does that only apply when a Republican is facing a democrat?

Huckabee had his own telling moments of public gutlessness. When asked whether he would have nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court - as Reagan did - knowing what he knows about her legal opinions now, Huckabee (in his mind) elegantly sidestepped the question by replying that he was "not stupid enough" to criticize President Reagan in his own library.

Needless to say, when it came to be Ron Paul's turn to answer the same question, he straight out said he would not have appointed her.

Whew! After that took the pressure off of them, even McCain and Romney suddenly thought it wise to pose as men of character and fortitude by agreeing that they would not have appointed O'Connor.

Then, the question came around asking the candidates whether they thought Ronal Reagan would endorse them,  were he still alive. That was followed by a despicable display of rear-end smooching from all concerned - with the exception of the one whom Reagan actually did endorse during his lifetime.

Ron Paul.

Reagan once said of him: "We need Ron Paul to keep fighting for America!"

Yet, Paul had enough taste to not even mention that fact. Instead, he reminded all present that - like him - Ronald Reagan was a strong advocate and defender of the gold standard as a way of reining in Congress' limitless spending sprees - a position that Paul's Republican opponents love to deride him on at every turn as being "out of step" with true conservative thought.

Tsk, tsk. Who is the real conservative, here? Who's your daddy now, Mike McRomnabee?

Who is the man of character and conviction in this bunch? Who says straight-up what he believes, even when everybody around him obviously disagrees with him? Who among these remaining candidates can actually back up what he believes with solid argument rooted in traditional conservative thought - and actual historical fact?

It is becoming ever clearer that if Republican voters want a conservative in the white house, they have only one choice.

Maybe it's time to stop holding Republican voters hostage to the dogma that only a president who will "stay the course" in Iraq is a conservative worth electing - regardless of how liberal he may be otherwise.

"Staying the course" only makes sense when you're on the right course. A determination to 'stay" a course already taken does not make a wrong course right. It does not turn an ignoble, deceitful continuation of a 1998 Clinton-policy (regime change in Iraq) into something noble and "honorable." 

America is basically a very conservative country. In my view, Americans will always elect a really conservative president - if given a real choice.

For the Party to push liberal sidewinders whose only claim to conservatism is a willingness to stay in Iraq is not a good strategy. It leaves the electorate with only two choices: They can either elect a liberal Republican who will stay in Iraq, or a liberal Democrat who only claims that he (or she) won't - but who will end up staying there, anyway.

Is that the idea? I don't think so.

America is more important than Iraq - and America happens to be broke.

Thanks to another liberal Republican currently in the White House, we have unfunded entitlement mandates approaching 59 trillion dollars ($59,000,000,000,000.00)! Check with the head of the United States GAO if you don't believe it.

That's three times more than the entire amount of dollars currently in existence, world wide!

Trying to tax, borrow, and print our way out of this entitlement hole will kill the US economy. Only one candidate on the current slate even addresses that problem. His solutions need to be carefully examined, not ridiculed and marginalized.

If American conservatives were to reject Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, it would be as disastrous a mistake as the one the biblical Jews made when they rejected Jesus Christ as their messiah.

To be sure, Ron Paul is not Jesus, and he is no messiah. He cannot save anyone's soul. - but he does bring a message of salvation to America, a message straight from God: "Make your politicians obey your Constitution, make them respect the freedoms I have given you - or else!"

If Republicans choose the wrong man, America's blood will be on their hands.

Ron Paul Unveils a REAL Economic Stimulus Plan

These videos speak for themselves:

Watch these two videos from VetsAgainstMcCain: Part I, and Part II

Why are the 32 propaganda tapes he made at the behest of the communist North Vietnamese still classified??

What "sensitive" information could possibly be exposed by declassifying them? Maybe how this "war hero" squealed like a girl when his captors put the pressure on?

The voters in SC must have been on Qualudes to vote for this guy.

The power of names - and what they reveal about their holders:


Rudy's too fruity;

John is a Con;

Mitt? He's a twitt;

Fred is all wet;

Mike?? Take a hike!!

Paul ... takes it all.


Isn't it great to have two first names?

I have already published a number of items on this blog that should tick  the whole lot of you off to no end.

Yet, other than the lone, typical, worn out  "Ron Paul is a nut" non-starter, I haven't seen a single response from anyone attacking anything I have written with substance, facts, and logic - yes the very same things conservatives pride themselves of (or used to pride themselves of, at least).

There is a saying that goes: "If by the time you are 30 you're not a liberal, you have no heart. If by th time you are 40 you're not a conservative, you have no brain."

I have generally found this to be true. People who use their brain more than their emotions tend to be conservative. So, what happened to conservatives' brains when it comes to Ron Paul?

Many who consider themselves conservative either go into a frothing-at-the mouth diatribe against him - or they simply shut up and act superior. "Bah! He can't win" is the common response. If that was true, people wouldn't attack him, Fox wouldn't exclude him from a "roundtable" debate the night before the NH primary even though he beat Thompson in a scientific pre-primary poll, and even though he out-fundraised every other Republican candidate in Q4. Also, Jim Kirchick wouldn't have written that smear piece against him. Paul keeps beating Thompson and Giuliani in early primary state polls. Giuliani was the unquestioned front runner only three months ago. Now, where is he?

I am not doing this because I think I am such a 'great debater.' I know I am not. What I am doing is to really, truly find out what exactly it is that some conservatives are hung up on when it comes to Ron Paul.

Take a look at Glenn Beck. He once detested Ron Paul. Since the interview with Ron on his show, Glenn actually brings out a lot of people who agree with Paul on ky issues, especially the economic ones (i.e., the head of the US GAO, the author of the book "Financial Armageddon" who was on Glenn's show today, and several others). Why do you think that is?

Richard Viguerie, who used to be completely mum on Ron Paul has built him an entire web site - for free. Why? Because Richard knows a thing or two about Republican sell-outs - like you-know-who!

If you know that you have no real reason to vote against Ron, why do you still want to vote against him?

What is your real concern?

How do you think a Ron Paul presidency will hurt this country?

Surely, you must have your reasons. Why don't you verbalize them and post them here?

I'm waiting....

James Kirchick, the author of the New Republic blog post that attempted to smear presidential candidate Ron Paul with racists statements penned by unknown authors and published in newsletters bearing his name more than a decade ago, seems to have an ax to grind with the good doctor.

Kirchick, a formerly leftist, now supposedly conservative gay activist, interviewed Ron Paul in July of last year after Paul - along with the other GOP white house contenders, gave his assessment of the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He later criticized Paul in an early smear-piece entitled 'Ron Paul, Libertarian Bigot?' published on AFF Brainwash.com.

AFF Brainwash is a site claiming to be conservative/libertarian and which ostensibly supports “innovative thinkers and writers.”  Well, apparently only if they agree with the gay agenda.

The site is owned by “America’s Future Foundation” (AFF) which carries the same logo. Its executive director is David Kirby, listed in Wikipedia as a former regular contributor to the New York Times, and on the AFF web site as a former intern to Senator Ted Kennedy. He is a gay activist who has published scores of articles on a pro-gay web site called “The Advocate”  - particularly the one just linked to in which he fawns over Hillary Clinton for her pro-gay views..

Kirchick is part of an aggressive, divisive, and reactionary gay sub-culture that will not accept  anything less than total compliance with the goals of the gay agenda, from anyone. It is an agenda that attempts to destroy the holders of even slightly “non-conforming” opinions. The agenda’s stated goal:  unqualified acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream America, without any reservations, by anyone - or else!

Kirchick’s list of no less than 23 articles on gay issues penned since 2005 attests to his bristling contempt at any remark, by any public or even semi-public personality, who has any reservations whatsoever concerning gays, their lifestyles, their sexual practices, and their desire to inundate mainstream consciousness with a ceaseless barrage of one guilt-trip after another.

Why anyone should feel guilty about disagreeing with the gay agenda is, of course, always left unanswered.  If differing viewpoints are desirable for “vigorous public debate”, and if it’s okay for gays to voice their opinions at every turn, then why would it not be okay for Ron Paul to state his opinion that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is a good one and should be left in place? After all, Paul added, the issue isn’t whether a person belongs to one group or another, it’s whether individuals act acceptably or not. That’s what should determine when someone should be punished, not whether he or she belongs in one group or another.

But apparently, Kirchick wasn’t happy with that answer. He feels that gays are being discriminated against as a group, so their concerns must be addressed as a group, and he wanted an unconditional admission from Paul that he would accept openly gay men and women in the US military if he was to become president. Naturally, he was disappointed. Paul doesn’t tell people what they want to hear. He just tells them what he thinks, and he has the audacity to back his thinking up with facts,  logic, and an undying devotion to principle.

Ron Paul was smeared because of his non-conformance with the views enforced by gay activists. The smear in fact says more about the activist than about Ron Paul. What is the most disconcerting thing here, though, is the fact that so many “conservatives” who always scream the loudest in opposing the gay agenda jumped on the bandwagon so readily - because they thought they finally found something to “stick” Ron Paul with.

The bottom line is that Paul got smeared because he consistently fails to carry out orders received from the thought-police. Not only that, he tells the thought-police - in his usual principled and polite way  - that they should not even exist.

That is his real 'crime' - and I suspect he will gladly admit to his guilt in that regard..

If the terrorists want to hurt us here at home, their time to do it is NOW.

• Our borders are wide open.
• Our government is jailing its own border guards who are sworn to protect us.
• Any attempt to protect us is stifled immediately by Congress (still no fence) and the White House (border guards have no right to do their jobs).

So, why would terrorists have to wait until our troops withdraw from Iraq in order to "follow us home"? They can come here now. Nothing stops them from coming in.

Coming here now would save them from having to fight our troops in Iraq. They could walk straight into LA and do whatever it is they plan to do. They can still die for Allah over here and collect their 70 virgins, if that is really so important for them.

Question: What is better for national security: Fighting them "over there" while leaving all borders open over here (Plan A) - or bringing our troops home and having them protect our borders (and stop prosecuting border guards who want to keep us safe ? Let's call the latter option "Plan B".

Of course, there is still the third choice: Fight them over there AND protect our borders.  I would be totally behind that if it was effective - and if it was necessary.

However, even though our borders are completely unprotected, we have not had any terrorist attacks back here in the US for six years So, once we pull our troops back and station them on the border with orders to arrest all illegal border crossers and shoot to kill any armed Mexican convoy's on sight, there will be even less danger.

Far less, as a matter of fact. There would also be far fewer drugs and drug-peddling gang-bangers in this country.

What additional measure of safety could be achieved by offering our soldiers as cannon fodder in Iraq and elsewhere? Even if they "stay on the offensive" (against a hard to define enemy moving effortlessly within his own country and culture, which is hard to do ad costs American lives), how can we ever hope to "eradicate" terrorism?

How can we ever hope to get the people of these countries to foreswear terrorism when our very presence there gives them reasons to become terrorists?

If we stay militarily engaged in countries whose populations are naturally hostile to our presence, how do we assemble and make viable a regime that can control that country without our military support when it is already clear the population will regard any such regime as a US puppet regime?

What is the point of continuing such an occupation out of strictly national security concerns? If we are already safe under Plan B, if implemented,  without needing to sacrifice our soldiers in other countries, why continue with Plan A which requires us to sacrifice our soldiers with no added sceurity benefit?

It would seem, then, that Plan B (Ron Paul's plan) would a far better choice from a national security standpoint.

Is anyone up for a rational discussion of these issues?

 

If you concern, as a conservative, in this year's presidential election is the good of the country, and if you already know that six out of the remaining seven GOP candidates are liars who will say and do anything to get your vote, and if you already know that one of them doesn't, then why would you vote for one of the six liars - just because you believe he has a better chance at beating any Democrat nominee?

Under that scenario, even if your GOP favorite gets the nomination and actually beats the Democrat opponent, what will you get?

You will get another sell-out in the White House who will help an already liberal Congress enact a basically liberal agenda AGAINST YOUR WILL!

Do you honestly believe that any of the so-called 'party favorites' currently running is more conservative than George Bush?

If not, then why would you possibly consider voting for any of them?

Just a question ...

The head of the US General Accounting Office (GAO) has stated, on the record, in videos, and on CNN's Glenn Beck show that the United States government is bankrupt.

Only Ron Paul is addressing the issue.

Not only that, he is addressing the core problem: Money loaned into existence, at will. Every time Congress borrows money from the Fed, the money supply is increased by that amount.

This causes monetary inflation (an excess supply of money), which eventually - inevitably - results in price-inflation. We can now see that it does.

In the past since 1971, the US was able to export most of that excess money because the dollar was the world's exclusive reserve currency.

Since 2002, the new euro currency has made huge inroads into this formerly exclusive deal. More and more oil nations are taking steps toward accepting the euro and other currencies in addition to the dollar in payment for oil.

As a result of that, in excess of ten trillion dollars ($10,000,000,000,000.00) will no longer be in demand world wide - and they will return "home."

Yet, as all of these bills were coming due, the current administration and former GOP Congress thought it was a good idea of saddling the US with an additional $26 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlement liabilities to the then already-existing liabilities from 2000 and 2005, alone. The total of unfunded liabilities in 2005 according tot eh GAO: A whopping $46,400,000,000,000.00 (i.e., 46.4 Trillion dollars!) 

That is about twice the entire amount of dollars in existence in the world today.

This means that the US government must come up with twice the amount of dollars that exist today just to pay its bills.

Raising taxes to cover that amount will kill the US economy for good.

Cutting spending to cover that amount will require the government to cut all other spending, including military spending.

There is only one solution that makes sense:

(1)     Cut that amount - the unfunded liabilities themselves - along with al other useless government spending;

(2)     Bring the troops home to protect US, not build or threaten other nations, to pay for those who already depend on the government and have no other way to support themselves;

(3)     Abolish the IRS and the income tax and let people keep their money so they can give to those in need.

(4)     Make gold and silver legal tender again by untaxing any transactions involving them and allow people to choose between stable precious metals and depreciating federal reserve notes as their currency of choice;

(5)     Needless to say, the federal reserve is no longer needed under such a system.

If you have a better, more effective way of dealing with the United States government's bankruptcy problem, I would appreciate hearing about it. If you don't know of one or can't think of one, should that make you think again about which candidate to support - maybe?

Just curious.

FACT: 70 percent of Americans are against amnesty for illegal aliens.

FACT: 70 percent of Americans are against staying in Iraq (and even 50% of all military donations combined went to Ron Paul who wants leave Iraq immediately and station them along our borders to protect US -not other countries).

QUESTION:

How does any Democrat candidate (they all support amnesty) expect to win against any Republican who doesn't?

ANOTHER QUESTION:

How does any Republican candidate who supports a continued military presence in Iraq expect to win against any Democrat who doesn't?

LAST QUESTION:

How can anyone say that Ron Paul (who is AGAINST amnesty and AGAINST the war in Iraq) is "unelectable" - and say so with a straight face? He is the only candidate who is right on both issues that will by all accounts determine the outcome of the election.

Republicans: If you want to keep the white house in 2009, Ron Paul is your ONLY sure-fire bet  - against ANY Democrat currently running. Thank God that he is running on our own party's ticket!

In this primary election cycle we have one - and only one - real choice to make:

Choice A: Do we continue to debate which one of several two-stepping, flip-flopping, high-taxing, freedom-undermining candidates will mug us in a way that most coincides with our own ideological preference  - or

Choice B: Do we vote for the one candidate who always does what he says, whose story hasn't changed in over twenty years, and who wants to change the law so we can all simply keep the money we earn?

That should not be a hard choice to make.

Very instructive here was Fred Thompson's comment at the ABCNews/Facebook Debate. he said: "Americans are entitled to the fruit of their labor ... unless the government thinks it can spend the money better."

Oops! Trying to sound like a true constitutionalist, there, weren't you, Fred? Too bad that you ended up saying something your handlers never would approve of - and that those who may vote for you may one day remind you of, should you be elected. It's okay, Fred. You can take those two feet of yours out of your mouth, now.

Seriously, is staying the course in Iraq worth abandoning all pretense at limited constitutional government? Is fiscal responsibility, is honesty in government, is freedom itself negotiable?

Is it worth electing a candidate who will allow twenty million illegal aliens to stay after a slap on the wrist and a monetary fine?

Is it worth electing a known cross-dresser who heads a US law firm hired by the Spanish company that will manage the NAFTA superhighway?

Is it worth tolerating a known flip-flopper who will say and do anything just to look good or to gain an office?

We conservatives always like to pride ourselves on taking responsibility for our actions. Can we deny responsibility for middle east violence and hatred toward the US after having deposed Mossadegh and installed an Anglo-American puppet? After having kept military bases in Saudi Arabia for decades against the will of the Arabs - and propping up  a ruthless and otherwise anti-American, anti-Christian regime?

How would we react if China kept military bases in the US to protect their access to oil?

Are we so committed to a known, obvious mistake that we refuse to correct it?

Certainly, the US did not "invite" the 9-11 attacks. That goes without saying. But we must recognize that meddling in other country's affairs is (a) not authorized by the Constitution, and (b) gets other countries mad at us, and (c)  amounts to nothing more than the US pushing its weight around.

The answer to intervention gone wrong isn't more intervention.

The answer to undermining the Constitution isn't to kill it off entirely.

If we are Republicans who value truth, freedom, property, faith, and the pursuit of happiness, and if we are confronted with these choices - what is there left to think about?