Next Ron Paul Money Bomb

Check out Ron Paul. Think about making big news, even if you're not completely supporting him for election. Even if he doesn't win, but supporting him, you might get a few other candidates to pay attention to freedom.

Presidential Endorsements

Well it seems like everyone else is making endorsements, so I suppose I should make one as well.

I'm a registered Republican. I've been a Republican for as long as I can remember. I've run for election as a Republican. I helped get other Republicans elected. I'm even a life member of the Republican National Committee.

I like freedom more than any other aspect or issue in politics. I think abortion is murder. I'm pro-gun and vociferously pro-freedom. So what sort of candidate should I support?

Mitt Romney just got an endorsement from Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich and conservative Bob Jones III. Romney supports same-sex marriage (sometimes). Romney supports government forcing people to buy health insurance. Romney's campaign is spending more money than they're taking in. Romney wants to increase the war in the Middle East and spend more money. Romney wants more immigrants in America (legal or illegal). Romney wants to spend more money on "education."

I'm not sure I agree with Mitt Romney on ANYTHING. And I'm not sure he supports freedom anywhere. But hey, if you like government and you like government getting bigger, more controlling, and spending more, it appears that Romney is your guy.

Rudy Giuliani just got an endorsement from Pat Robertson. Mr. Robertson loves Rudy because Rudy "is the best candidate to handle the War on Terror." Well, Rudy LOVES illegal immigrants, spending, abortion, and same-sex marriage. He hates guns. He wants to increase power and control of government. In fact, when asked to name a difference, ANY difference between his positions and those of Hillary Clinton in a recent debate, Rudy COULD NOT NAME ONE.

So hey, if you're a single-issue voter that thinks sending more troops to Iraq and Iran is the way to go, I would say that Rudy is your guy. But if you like freedom, you cannot possibly argue that Rudy supports freedom.

John McCain just got the endorsement of Sen. Sam Brownback, a former candidate for president. McCain wants a bigger, stronger military and wants to fight more terrorists in more places around the world. McCain despises freedom of speech. In fact, if McCain had his way, I would literally not even be able to post these words on the Internet. McCain wants government to control all insurance to ensure that everyone gets "fair" insurance. McCain thinks we should have no southern border at all and anyone who wants to get free stuff from the American government should be able to, even if they're not citizens.

If you're a big supporter of government regulation of speech, McCain is your man. Oh, and he's a war hero.

Johnny Thompson -- or whatever his name is. He was a Senator. And in a TV show. Yeah, that's about all he's got so far. So I guess if movie stars are your thing, Thompson's your guy.

Duncan Hunter is the first candidate to agree with me on immigration. He wants a damn fence. I'm with Hunter on abortion and a few other issues. I like a lot of what Hunter wants to do. In fact, there's not much I can actually disagree with Hunter on -- except he does think we should keep fighting in Iraq. He's got a few ideas that make federal government intrusive, but for the most part, he does support freedom and states rights.

Mike Huckabee is a destructive force. He's loved by some, but he really is a true big-government type. He might say the right things for some people, but he supports wacko ideas like a federal government ban on smoking everywhere. He wants enormous piles of new money to be spent on education. He wants to force people to be healthy, rather than "permit" them to be free to make bad choices. He is just outright dangerous to freedom, if you ask me.

Ron Paul, however, likes freedom. He has consistently voted for freedom for decades. He thinks that we've spent enough time and money in killing in Iraq and that we should just come home. I don't know if that idea will work, but I'm sure willing to give it a try. Paul is also anti-abortion. He's pro-gun. And he really, really supports freedom -- both socially and financially. He absolutely terrifies the establishment because he will get rid of those thousands of people who are becoming the richest in the country by living off government contracts. And Paul recently got the endorsement of over 38,000 citizens who all put up around $100 for him.

So, since my primary issue is freedom, I find that I simply will not be able to vote for Rudy, Mitt, Thompson, Huckabee, or McCain. That leaves me with a choice of Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter. Since I think Paul will do more to advance freedom, I'm going to throw my support (and my money) behind Ron Paul. I think he would be GREAT for freedom and WONDERFUL for this country. I think he would advance freedom and we'd have an economic boom the likes of which have never been seen (after the government employees actually find productive work).

But don't worry, hard-core big-government, pro-war Republicans -- I live in North Carolina and unlike some Democrats, I believe in playing by the rules -- so my vote won't make any difference as it will all be over long before our presidential primary (but I'm still sending campaign donations to Paul).

Ron Paul Fundraising

Wow. How is this not bigger news? Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, just raised more money in one day than ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. He raised more than Rudy, Mitt, or Thompson. He raised more than Hunter, McCain, or Huckabee. And while the story is in a few news reports, it's really not showing up much.

Even more amazing is HOW he raised this money. He didn't have a big dinner in New York to gather lobbyists. He didn't charge $1000 a plate for corporate donations and soft money. He didn't invite Chinese businessmen to a downtown party. He didn't even wander to Hollywood and have a party. So what did Ron Paul do to raise all this money in one day? Absolutely nothing. And that's the real story there.

This money came from people. With over $3.8 million raised from 35,000 people, that's an average of just over $100 a person. A few people just got together and said, "Hey, let's all raise a pile of cash on one day." They told their friends. Eventually, around 35,000 people, completely on their own, without any help or organization from any campaign, just donated $3.8 million in 24 hours. That's just unreal.

No matter what you think about Ron Paul, this is really huge. NO other candidate can claim anything even close to these numbers with ZERO campaign coordination. You might think the Ron Paul Revolution is just a few college kids, but this event shows it's at least 35,000 people around the country who are willing to put their money where their mouth is (in just 24 hours). Ron Paul could win this thing.

Even more amazing, imagine if Paul won the Republican nomination. I think he'd cream any Democrat on the ticket. Think about it -- do you think many Republicans would cross over and vote for Hillary just because they think Paul's a nut? Sure, some might, but not huge numbers. And then Paul would pick up a lot of the Democrat vote because he'd get all the billions or so (according to the media) anti-war voters. I really think he'd win in a landslide.

Of course, he'd have to get past the Republican nomination, and there's a lot of Republicans vehemently opposed to him because of his position on the Iraq war (primarily). Also, those fat cats in Washington oppose him because he doesn't like giving away billions in taxpayer money to people, just because they want it. The establishment honestly hates him because he WILL upset the apple cart and stop billions flowing to private individuals and corporations.

So think about it -- if you like freedom, you should vote Paul. If you're anti-war, you should vote Paul. If you hate the rich and insider Washington deals, vote Paul. If you hate high taxes, vote Paul. If you support less government regulation, yes, vote Paul. If you are pro-gun, vote Paul. If you don't want government controlling insurance and want health care freedom, vote Paul. Heck, if you're anti-establishment, again, Paul is your man.

He's raised over $7 million from individuals with no soft money included since October 1st. That's more than just a few college kids who are supporting him. He could actually win this thing.

Fair and Balanced?

This is, reportedly, Fox News setting up a camera shoot covering a Republican conference:

Just can't let those darn Ron Paul supporters be seen. He's got dangerous ideas, so the mainstream media, even Fox News, apparently, simply cannot let people know about him.

Edwards: I Can Spend MORE!

Wow. In the midst of the election season, the Democrats are trying to outbid one another. Each one says that they can spend more money than the others. And of course, that's money that you earn that they're bidding to spend. And Edwards even admits that he's going to raise taxes -- a LOT.

He wants to force 3-year old children into schools. It's not enough that the government brainwashes children from age 5-18, now he wants to start at age 3. Why? Because the school system NEEDS to take your children from you earlier so they can program them before you do. Seriously. Government schools are evil and they will destroy your children. And adding a couple years at your expense is what Edwards will do as president.

He wants to put banks out of business because he wants to create a new federal bank savings program -- just for "poor" people -- that will give them free cash. Again, he will have to take that money from people who actually work to earn it so he can give it to "the poor." He's calling it "matching savings accounts." I think I want to be poor so I can get a 100% return on my money. In fact, just in case he becomes president, I think I'll start working now on creating two or three new identities (I think I'll be from Mexico) so I can launder money through federal accounts with 100% interest.

He wants a $9.50 minimum wage. Well that makes sense because he needs "poor" people to support with his other various programs and the quickest way to create more poor people is to make the economic market so screwed up that more people will have to be fired -- or work under the table. The more government screws with the capitalist system, the more people will work to find ways around it. Then again, that might be a good thing because then we could all be "poor" and get a 100% return on our savings accounts.

He wants to give away a million houses to "the poor." Don't you want to be poor now? Not only do you get a 100% return on savings investments, you also get a free house! And like other crappy Section 8 programs, if you don't take care of your house and you destroy it, running it into the ground, the government will just give you another one to destroy.

But wait, there's more!

Yes, not to be outdone with his spending, Edwards also wants to disrupt the entire economic system of higher education by giving away college educations for free, too! It's called "College for Everyone." Awwwww. Isn't that special? Yes, Edwards is going to take enough money from working people to force children into school from age 3 to 23 now. Twenty years of your life will be spent in government education buildings. Government will decide what and when you shall learn for twenty years. You WILL go to the government education camps buildings.

Oh, and you'll have socialized medicine "instantly" according to Edwards. Let's vote for this guy and just be done with this experiment we called "Democracy." It will be better if we end it quickly.

NC GOP Tailgate Contest

Planning on attending a sporting event this fall? Why not make it a political event? The NC Young Republicans Club is against sponsoring a Tailgate Contest -- you could win $500 for supporting a Republican candidate this year.

Fred on Immigration

Well, it seems that Fred Thompson has released his immigration plans. They sound good. Then again, most of the people running for president right now are saying all sorts of things they don't really mean, support, or have ever done before. I don't know enough yet about Thompson to support him. Of course, I don't know enough about him yet to oppose him, either.

Then again, if immigration is your single issue, Tom Tancredo is the only way to go. Seriously. No one can beat Tom on immigration. Duncan Hunter is right there with Tancredo. Ron Paul's got great long-term solutions to immigration. Rudy McRomney all support amnesty and no international borders at all. Take your pick.

ABC News (D) has up a quiz to "help" you decide your candidate. It's pretty bad. Admittedly, you can only have so many options in a multiple choice test, but still, the questions are VERY slanted. For example, one says, "What is the best way the federal government can get more people covered by health insurance?" There's no answer for "The federal government should shut up and get out of all associations with health insurance, including any and all regulation of insurance at all."

I still ended up with Ron Paul #1, Tom Tancredo #2, and Duncan Hunter #3. Well, those are the three I certainly support the most at this time (even if I did disagree with them on this quiz a whole bunch).

Hillary Scandals

hillaryScandal.gif

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath, either.

Republican Debate

Just a couple notes on the debate from last night. Oh, you didn't see it? Were you too busy watching the Red Sox trounce the Indians? Or perhaps you were watching the football game. No matter, you really didn't miss anything. Actually, it was the same things they've been saying all along. But a couple notes because I did actually watch just about the whole thing.

Rudy: I honestly don't understand how any Republican can vote for this guy. I've previously mentioned that Rudy cannot beat Hillary. He was asked during the debate to describe where Hillary and he disagreed. He did not answer the question AT ALL. He literally could not give ONE single example of an issue upon which he would disagree with Hillary. That's just sickening.

Mitt: I'd been waffling on him. I want to support him. Peter Porcupine has been big in trying to sway Ogre's support for Romney. But after last night, I've got to add him to the short list: the list that Ogre will not vote for, even if it's Mitt vs. Hillary. Sorry, but he outright said last night that he WILL FORCE every person in America to buy health care. It doesn't matter if you want it or not, you WILL buy it, or he will jail you. He said it is absolutely unacceptable to him for anyone to NOT have health care. Sorry, Mitt, but I'd prefer freedom to government-forced, well, anything.

Huckabee: Despite a few questions about Huckabee, and some SERIOUS states' rights issues with him, and with Chuck Norris' endorsement, Huck really looked good. I think he did a great job at the debate and really looked and sounded the best. I can't really throw my support behind him because of a few issues, but I could at least vote for the guy.

Tancredo: Still great, but still just not getting support.

Paul: Consistency, consistency, consistency. He keeps saying the same thing. There's NO question where he stands on anything. He got a lot of boos every time he mentioned getting the US out of, well, ANY foreign entanglement. That's sad because it was Republicans in the audience. People would do well to remember Jefferson's words:

I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.

I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people.


All in all not much excitement. But now there's three Republicans that I won't vote for if they win the primary. Sorry, but I just can't vote for the "lesser" evil.

Ron Paul:A New Hope

This is excellent. No comments needed from Ogre.

Richard Viguerie on Mike Huckabee

(Manassas, Virginia) Following are the main points made by Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006), in his new paper, Mike HuckabeeWishy-Washy Republican

Mike Huckabee poses as a conservative, but he enthusiastically promotes big government.

In fact, hes just another wishy-washy Republicaninconsistent in policy because hes inconsistent in principle.

Gov. Huckabee claims to support empowering people to make their own decisions, but he has consistently promoted government meddling in the market economy.

He called no-tax pledges irresponsible but then signed one.

In his 10 years in office, Gov. Huckabee had raised the states sales tax by 37 percent, motor fuel taxes by 16 percent, and cigarette taxes by 103 percent.

He publicly opposed repealing a tax on groceries and medicine, though he claims that hes always philosophically supported axing the tax.

State spending under Gov. Huckabee rose by 65.3 percent during 1996 to 2004.

Not only did he increase Arkansass minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.25 per hour, but he even encouraged the U.S. Congress to do the same thing nationally.

He supported President George W. Bushs 2003 massive expansion of Medicare by adding a prescription-drug benefit.

He called the No Child Left Behind Act, which increased federal education spending by 48 percent and expanded big-government control of local schools, the greatest education reform effort of the federal government in my lifetime.

He wants to fence illegal immigrants out, but to give them cheap tuition while theyre here.

Mike Huckabee calls conservatives blind purists but poses as one of us. ]

Many more details about Mike Huckabees conservative charade are contained in Richard Vigueries paper, Mike HuckabeeWishy-Washy Republican, available on-line here.

Fred Smith for Governor?

Fred Smith, Republican candidate for governor, recently held a BBQ fundraiser. Now if you want Ogre to show up somewhere, food is a sure way to get him there. And BBQ will do it nearly every time. His campaign sent me a nice invitation, and I was getting excited about going to the rally (and eating BBQ) and meeting Mr. Smith, asking him questions, and perhaps taking some pictures to post here.

Then I read the date and time on the invitation. It was Wednesday, October 17, from 6:30-8:30 in Statesville. Then I looked at the clock/calendar on the computer. It was Wednesday, October 17, 7:45 pm. Oops. I had just received the invitation in the mail that day. Mr. Smith, you need to talk to your campaign people, because I bet I'm not the only one who missed the rally because of not getting the invitation!

Well, he also sent a copy of his book, "A Little Extra Effort." I'll take a read and post some updates and quotes from the book over the next week or so as I learn more about this fellow who wants my vote.

Hope For America

I often have given up hope on freedom in America. But I have found there is real hope today.

Giuliani vs Hillary

This post is for those who support Giuliani because "he can beat Hillary."

I've heard, many times, the argument of selecting someone because they can win the election, even if they're the best candidate. I've heard it a lot in the Republican primary, and it really is one of the #1 reasons I've heard people give for supporting Giuliani. However, take a look at this poll.

It shows that the Giuliani CANNOT beat Hillary. All other issues and discussions aside, this poll (I know, it's a poll) clearly shows that Giuliani will not beat Hillary. I know the election is a long ways away. I know there's lots of other factors. But based on this poll (and other anecdotal evidence), the argument that Giuliani can beat Hillary is no longer valid.

Giuliani CANNOT beat Hillary. Numerous groups have mentioned that they will support and run a 3rd-party candidate should Giuliani win the Republican nomination. This situation is very real. Again, to those who support Giuliani just because he can "win," please note these results. He cannot win. I know I won't vote for him if he's the only name on the ballot. And there's clearly a lot of others like me.

Know what would be a true dream ticket for me? And would have a VERY strong chance of beating Hillary? Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Holy crap. Both strong on the Constitution and freedom and Keyes with very strong foreign policy experience. Wow.

Voter ID

votingID.jpg

A Letter From the Founders

foundersletter.jpg

Democrat Debate

So, did you see the Democrat debate last night? Me neither. But hey, if you want to know what today's Democrat party stands for, take a look at some of their positions on the issues:

War: YES.

According to the formerly mainstream media, something like 70% of the people of this country oppose the current war in Iraq. 70% of the people want the US out of Iraq. The top Democrat presidential nominees DO NOT. Edwards, Osama Obama, and Clinton ALL support continued war. In case you missed it: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. If you, personally, want to vote for someone anti-war, I'd suggest Ron Paul.

Taxes: Higher, more, bigger, huge, massive.

Only Richardson found a tax he didn't like. Every other Democrat candidate crowed about how much they could increase the payroll tax. Yes, that means if you work, they want MORE of your money. Imagine your paycheck. Now imagine your paycheck under a Democrat president: it's smaller.

Biden was one of the few who actually had a coherent, logical thought. His solution to the government paying out too much cash to people who do nothing was to consider raising the retirement age. Total wacko Kucinich actually wanted to REDUCE the retirement age! Then again, maybe that would be good because then the government could go bankrupt right away instead of waiting a few more years.

Keep in mind: social security was NOT designed for everyone! It's official title includes the word "supplemental!" This was a system designed for people who were too old and physically incapable of working. It was supposed to be for widows who lost support from their husbands. If this system was indexed for the increasing life span of people, the social security retirement age would be EIGHTY-ONE -- and it should be. You shouldn't get free cash from the government just for turning 67.

Oh, and all the Democrats promised to spend billions and billions of dollars of YOUR money to ration health care so you can have less of it. Go ahead, vote Democrat. I think things are going to have to get worse before they can get better.

Could Ron Paul Win?

I know, I know. He's a "lower tier" candidate. The mainstream media polls won't even include him. But is it possible that Ron Paul could actually win the Republican nomination?

I just happened upon a list of national Straw Poll results. Ron Paul is winning them. Look at this:

Ron Paul vs. Rudy: Ron Paul beat Rudy 23 times, Rudy beat Paul 3 times.
Ron Paul vs. Romney: Paul beat Romney 15 times, Romney beat Paul 11 times.
Ron Paul vs. McCain: Paul beat McCain 22 times, McCain beat Paul 3 times.
Ron Paul vs. Thompson: Paul beat Thompson 13 times, Thompson beat Paul 12 times.
Against the other candidates, Paul beat them 88 times, they beat Paul 8 times.

Overall, Paul beat other candidates 161 times, while he was beat 37 times. He's finished first in 10 of 26 straw polls. I know they're straw polls, but people are voting for him. Could he actually win the nomination? I'm not making a prediction, just looking at the poll results.

Just imagine the election campaign of 2008: Paul vs. Hillary. Now there would be some real choice!

Republican Congressman from MA?

I got this note from some folks that are trying to do the impossible -- get a Republican elected to Congress in Massachusetts. I honestly don't think it's possible, even when you consider Republicans like Romney got elected there. But is a moderate Republican better than a moderate Democrat? Some would say yes. I'm not sure. So check this fellow out -- you might want to support him:

Meet Lt. Col. Jim Ogonowski (Ret.), the Republican candidate running in the October 16th special election in Massachusetts' 5th district. Jim is a 28-year veteran of the Air Force and Air National Guard. On September 11th, 2001, Jim's brother John was the pilot of hijacked American Airlines Flight 11, the second plane to hit the World Trade Center. Ever since, Jim has dedicated himself to helping John's family, and no w works his brother's farm.

A SurveyUSA/WBZ-TV poll out last week shows Jim behind by just 10 points -- 51-41 percent. That's remarkable in a state that hasn't elected a Republican to Congress in over a decade! What makes this even more incredible is the fact that Jim's Democrat opponent is the well-known wife of a late U.S. Senator.

You need to watch Jim's TV ads to understand the tremendous appeal he has in this race. And once you have, will you chip in $25, $50, or $100 through Rightroots to keep Jim going all the way through Election Day?

http://www.RightRoots.com/Ogonowski

This race is winnable if Jim gets the resources he needs to stay competitive. This is a district that only went for John Kerry by 7 points in the last Presidential election and where Democratic governor Deval Patrick was held to 50% in 2006 despite winning the state overwhelmingly. Polls show Jim winning with independent voters 46-39% -- and that's 51% of all the district's voters. All the ingredients are in place for a stunning upset -- and now Jim needs our generous support to carry him across the finish line.

Taking back a Congressional seat in the bluest of blue states would simply stun the liberal media and show that the GOP is alive and well heading into to 2008.

Values Voter Debate

There was a debate last night -- did you notice? All Republican candidates for president were invited. Not everyone showed up. Well, it was put on by values voters -- so those who disagreed with their positions, for the most part, didn't show up. Absent, but invited, were: all Democrat candidates and Rudy McRomny-Thompson.

Many questions did circle around Christian values. They asked questions that would have been quite tough for many of those people to answer. I watched part of the debate, but my internet connection got funny towards the second half, so I missed parts.

In short, basically all the candidates agreed with just about all the positions of the Values Voters group. The one exception was Ron Paul -- who was solid and outstanding. Mr. Paul was incredibly consistent -- he supported freedom at all times. When asked who would use government to correct behavior like prostitution, all agreed they would except Paul. When asked about expanding government to do, well, anything, most agreed -- except Paul.

And when it came to the discussion about the Iraq war, everyone agreed that the US needed to stay "until victory is won" -- except Ron Paul. At the same time, Mr. Paul agreed with all the positions of the values voters. Keep that in mind: Ron Paul agreed with all the values of the Christian Values Voters. And Ron Paul can beat Hillary Clinton.

A new entrant was in the race and appeared at this debate -- Alan Keyes. Wow. This guy can talk. I absolutely love to listen to him speak about issues that he's passionate about. I have a couple recordings of his speeches from back in 2000. I even managed to vote for him back in 2000 in the presidential primary (I still have the T-Shirt!) He is powerful and passionate -- I really don't understand why he has so much trouble getting votes. And Keyes really understands the war on terror:

The Islamic fascists are evil, and it is right to defend ourselves against them. But we do not fight them because they are Islamic, or even because they are fascists. We fight them because, by their practice of terror, they prove themselves to be people who have no regard for the fundamental tenets of decent conscience that we believe must be respected when human beings deal with one another, even in war.

If you missed that debate, you did miss some really exciting candidates. Now if we can just find a way to ensure that Rudy McRomney-Thompson don't get elected, things could really improve...

Update: Stop the ACLU isn't so inclined to favor Ron Paul after this debate.

Hillary Care II, Revenge of the Spurned

Well, Hillary has joined Edwards in support of jailing more people who disagree with them. I wish I were an artist -- here's what I'd draw:

Picture a table with two piles of steaming dog doo on it. To the right of the table stands a worn, tired, hard-working taxpayer. Behind him is a large government goon with a shotgun pointed at his back. The goon is saying, "Pick one now, or else!" At the top is a banner: HillaryCare 2008.

That's an accurate picture of what will happen if Hillary gets elected. She has now said that she will use the force of government to make you buy insurance, even if you don't want it. And if you don't, apparently, you'll either be killed or jailed. Welcome to Hillary's America.

Perhaps the only way America can avoid this forced health care will be with Ron Paul. Could Paul be the only possible candidate who can beat Hillary?

Democrat Debate: What Country?

Democrats this weekend have made their position quite clear: they do not want America to exist as an independent nation. They do not want laws enforced. They do not want borders. And most of all, they despite English as a unifying language of a people -- they do not like the American culture.

In case you missed it, the debate was held in Spanish. Yes, questions and answers were broadcast completely in Spanish -- not English. And since they were Democrats and since they were pandering for the illegals' vote, Democrats were very clear: they hate immigration law. All of them agreed that they would open the borders completely to anyone who wants to come in (terrorist or Mexican).

In addition, Democrats being Democrats, they showed how clearly these candidates view people only by the color of their skin or their ancestry, rather than by their abilities. Clinton made sure to point out to everyone that she hired a Latino once. And she made it appear that she hired the Latino just because they were Latino -- not because they were qualified for the job. Obama said that Chavez, big communist, was the same as Martin Luther King, Jr. And Edwards, king of the panderers, was quite to point out that he heard from the little people in the town where he was born and they said that a lot of people with brown skin lived there now -- and Edwards was proud.

But in a move that really takes the cake, look closely at how Perry Bacon Jr., writer of the above linked article, end his article:

Democrats see an opportunity to peel off Latino voters in 2008 because of the opposition of many leading Republicans, including almost all of the party's White House candidates, to President Bush's policy that would create a citizenship path for some illegal immigrants -- a policy that some have labeled "amnesty."

Huh? Does this guy know anything about politics? He thinks that Democrats can get the "Latino" (read: illegal immigrant) vote because Bush and others support amnesty -- and the Democrats support amnesty, too. So if Latinos want amnesty, they have to vote Democrat because Republicans support amnesty? Huh?

Richard V on Thompson

Fred Thompson is a Washington insider.

Fred Thompson has spent more years in Washington as a lobbyist than as a U.S. Senator, Vigueries paper points out.

His client list included Haitian tyrant Jean-Bertrand Aristide--the leftist murderer who called the United States the great Satan and defended necklacingthe gruesome torture of fastening a tire around a victims neck, filling it with gasoline, and setting it on fire. Thompsons defense? President Clinton supported Aristide too.

Fred Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. CFR is the liberal foreign policy Establishment personified. This is the club for Dean Acheson and Henry Kissinger wanabees.

Fred Thompson is a Big-Government Expansionist.

Fred Thompson has quietly voted for George W. Bushs massive expansion of Big Governments intrusion into American citizens personal lives. Thompson voted, for example, to allow government eavesdropping on presumed innocent citizens through roving wiretaps.

He was a key water-boy for one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation in American historythe McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. Apparently theres something dirty about grassroots lobbyingunlike his lobbying for billions in corporate pork and welfare.

Fred Thompson the political actor is very adept at delivering his lines about the need for fiscal responsibility, putting an end to pork and corporate welfare, and the rest of the conservative litany. Fred Thompson the lobbyist and Washington insider, however, sees pork as a juicy way to make a living, says Vigueries paper.

Fred Thompson is no principled conservative.

Hes voted 14 times against the Constitutional right to bear arms.

Hes voted to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Hes voted to squander billions of taxpayers hard-earned dollars on subsidies to gimme-groups like tobacco farmers, the Peace Corps, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

As Vigueries earlier paper, Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson, points out, Thompson provided legal services for a pro-abortion groupand then claimed that he couldnt remember the work he did.

The July report also notes that Thompson has never walked among conservatives or fought in the trenches with us, preferring the company of big-government establishment Republicans like Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander. Tell me who you walk with, Viguerie says, and Ill tell you who you are.

Playing a conservative is just another acting job for Fred Thompson, Viguerie concludes.

Thats why Viguerie used satire yesterday to show whats really going onclick here to read Fred Thompson under contract to play The Conservative.

Conservatives, keep your powder dry, Viguerie advises. None of the four top-tier Republican candidates appears to be a true, principled conservative because none of them opposed the Republicans massive expansion of government during the last ten years. The GOP has taken us for granted for too long. Conservatives should make the GOP and its candidates come to us and prove that they are worthy of our support.

Many more details about Fred Thompsons conservative charade are contained in the paper, Fred Thompson, the Faux Conservative, available on-line here.

Republican Debate Transcript

I watched some of the Republican Debate last night. Some of it was interesting, most was not. I know a lot of people didn't watch it, so I'll be glad to help you out with an almost word-for-word transcript. Well, I shortened it a little to give you all the main points:

Moderator/Talking Head #1: Hello and welcome. We're glad you could all come to New Hampshire (off mike: New Hampshire? Make sure my plane is ready so I can get out of this hick town as soon as we're done). First, Mr Mayor, Mr Wonderful, Mr Giuliani, you're great. I like you. You're a Republican, but you're liberal enough for me. What do you say to that?

Giuliani: I agree, I am wonderful. And I want to be president. Then we can all be wonderful. And I fixed New York, so I'm really wonderful.

Moderator/Talking Head #1: Excellent. That's great. Mr Romney, what you think about Mr. Giuliani being wonderful?

Romney: Well I think he's wonderful, too, but I think I'm more wonderful. Really, don't you agree I'm wonderful? I fixed Massachusetts, which is bigger than New York, so I really think I'm more wonderful.

Moderator/Talking Head #1: I agree. Next question is for Mr. McCain. Senator McCain, I think you're pretty great, too. Do you agree or disagree?

McCain: I was in a war, you know, so I'm pretty wonderful, also.

Moderator/Talking Head #2: I think that's great. But over here, we've got Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul, you're a wacko. I don't like you. In fact, I don't want to talk to you. So instead, I'm going to just call you a wacko. Don't you agree?

Ron Paul: Why don't you ask the right questions? I think we should follow the Constitution! Why don't we follow that? I want to be a leader that follows the Constitution.

Moderator/Talking Head #2: See? You're a loony. No one follows that silly old document any more. Forget you, we're going back to Giuliani. Mr Mayor Giuliani, tell us more about how you fixed New York.

Giuliani: Well I banned guns, which made it safer. You see, guns are bad and guns cause crime. You can tell they do because when I banned them, crime decreased. So I'm tough on crime. And I support the second amendment. I just don't support it when I'm in charge.

Moderator/Talking Head #2: Oh, that's just great. Mr. Romney, you disagree?

Romney: Well, I don't know about that. I stand firm on my position. I think my position is clear and I absolutely stand by that position. In Massachusetts, I had to work with Democrats, where I made my position clear. Is that clear?

Moderator/Talking Head #2: Oh, very clear. Senator McCain, do you want to talk about this issue?

McCain: Oh yes. You see, I know war. I was in a war. I've been to Iraq, and I've seen war, so I know about guns.

Moderator/Talking Head #7: Great. Let's go back to Giuliani. Mayor of New York Giuliani, you didn't sign this pledge to raise taxes. Do you like taxes?

Giuliani: I think taxes are something that need to be considered. I don't need to sign any pledge because I know how to raise taxes. Taxes are the engine that drives government, but since I'm running for the Republican nomination, I support lower taxes today.

Moderator/Talking Head #7: How about you, Front-Runner Romney? You claim that you're not going to raise taxes, but you didn't sign this pledge to not raise them. Why is that?

Romney: Well I think my record stands for itself. I know what I did then and I know what I stand for now. So that's clear enough that I don't need to sign any pledge because I did what was then now before I came up here today to New Hampshire.

Moderator/Talking Head #7: What's that? There's someone else on the stage that wants to say something? You there, with the tie, yes?

Senator Brownback: Yes, I'd like to comment on...

Moderator/Talking Head #7: Oh, I'm sorry, it's not your turn yet. We're talking to the front runners, who are much more important than you. I'll ask you a question when I want some answers to make fun of later on. Let's move to immigration. Senator McCain, you supported amnesty in the Senate, and I liked that. Could you comment on that?

McCain: Oh sure, I'd be glad to. We've got some wonderful people that have come to this country to help us work. And I think they should be allowed to help us work. I didn't support amnesty, instead I supported letting them stay here and work without punishment. That's not amnesty, that's just me trying to get them to vote for me. And I like people voting for me, even if they don't know I was in a war.

Moderator/Talking Head #4: Mr Romney, you've been accused of being for illegals, and even had some mowing your lawn. What do you think?

Romney: Look, just because they were mowing my lawn doesn't mean I don't like them or that I'm racist. I didn't hire them, it wasn't my fault. Instead, I'd like to do something about them. I don't really know what, but I'll go with my record on that one.

Moderator/Talking Head #4: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: Well I sure had a lot of illegals in New York -- and I supported them. I protected them from one another because they're too stupid (like most of the rest of you) to protect themselves. After all, once I took away everyone's guns, they had to rely on me to protect them anyway, so I thought I'd welcome the illegals and protect them, too, because we need workers.

Moderator/Talking Head #9: Let's go over here to the lunatic fringe and talk to that guy. What's your name? Oh, who cares, you're not going to win and everyone knows it, but you can talk some now if you like.

Tancredo: We need borders. Why can't we have borders? All these guys up here now are claiming they want to secure the borders -- but before they were running for president, none of the bums would do a damn thing for the borders. How come they're only claiming they want a border now? Do you actually believe they're going to do something about the borders? I don't think they will, and I WILL. I will enforce the law, as I'm supposed to, unlike these jokers.

Moderator/Talking Head #2: Are you done yet? Geez. Hey, let's go to some guy in a restaurant or some other place in this hick town.

Remote: Hey, I've found a bunch of socialists here in New Hampshire that don't really know they're socialists. They are government employees, so they'll be as leftist as we can find here. You there, drooling woman, do you think gays should be able to marry?

Random Government Bureaucrat Woman: I think "Live Free or Die" means that government rules! Go Government! Oh, and yes, I think queers should be able to have complete and total approval from all people and anyone who opposes them should be locked away.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: Oh goody. Hey tie-boy over on the left side. Yes, you. You're a far-right wacko, what do you think about men putting their things in other men's things in public?

Senator Brownback: That's just wrong. Every single country that's approved of gay marriage has had a massive increase in out of wedlock births. In every one of those places, there are thousands and thousands of more children that are being raised with one parent. And the results of that are catastrophic. Every single place that's been tried has been an absolute disaster. It's just wrong.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: Weirdo. Let's go back to the front-runners who we in the media want to win. Mayor Giuliani, you're wonderful. We all know that. But what about those pesky personal issues you have like divorce?

Giuliani: That doesn't really matter, does it? Didn't Clinton teach us that personal lives have absolutely nothing to do with the presidency? Just because women don't trust me and I've proven over and over again that I can't keep my word, that doesn't mean I won't do a good job. Just because I claimed to honor my wife "till death do us part," and didn't, doesn't mean I can't be president.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: True, true. So do any of you front-runners have an opinion regarding Senator Craig's resignation? No? You don't know him? Fine, let's let one of the other people who aren't going to win answer it.

Senator Brownback: He said he was going to resign, and I think he should stick by his word.

Congressman Hunger: I agree.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: You people are living in a fantasy land, aren't you? Let's talk to the wacko again. Mr Paul, you love terrorists, is that right?

Ron Paul: Why don't you people listen? The Constitution is the law of the land.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: Yeah, whatever. Hey you, guy with the black shoes, your comment?

Governor Huckabee: Look, we screwed up Iraq, so we're going to fix it.

Ron Paul: No! When you mess something up, you don't keep messing it up more! You STOP messing it up!

Governor Huckabee: No, once you mess it up, you have to send government in to fix it because only government can fix anything.

Ron Paul: Government cannot fix ANYTHING!

Some moderator: Mr. Paul, aren't you the nut job that wants to get rid of the FBI and CIA or something? If we get rid of the FBI, how will you have intelligence?

Ron Paul: Well let's see, how did the billions of dollars worth of intelligence help us on 9/11? We spend how many billions and it did us no good. So explain to me how spending billions MORE will help more.

Moderator: You're just nuts, and I hope no one votes for you because you just scare me with your talk of freedom. Let's get back to the people I want to win this election. Mr Giuliani, do you love Iran more than me?

Giuliani: I think so. I mean, I don't want them to drop any nukes on my house or anything, but I think our position should be clear: they're sponsors of terrorism and we should talk mean to them. I mean, not mean enough to make them mad, but you know, sternly. They'll listen to that.

Moderator: Mr Romney, how about you? Love Iran?

Romney: Once again, I fall back on my record. My record is clear on this issue and I want everyone to know that it's clear. Is that clear?

Moderator: Yes. War hero McCain, your position?

McCain: I've been to war. I've seen Iran on a map. And I think, as Mr Romney does, that our position should be clear. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. And if they do, we should sanction them. And if they use the nuclear weapon, we should severely sanction them. And we might even re-start that League of Nations thing to keep them in line since the UN is doing such a good job of it.

Moderator: Well, I need to get the heck out of this backwards state and back to socialists who love and worship me. Thank you, especially the media-proclaimed front-runners, for being so liberal, but having the courage to run on the Republican ticket. It warms my heart to know that when we have two choices next November, it's highly likely there will be two liberals to choose from. Our next so-called debate will be in a nicer place, so join us then.

Vote Edwards!

Okay, I'm going to jump on the Edwards band wagon! Really, I want this guy to win now. After all, he's offered mandatory health care. I think that would be a GREAT thing for this country.

No, not because it will work, but because it won't.

You see, under John Edwards' plan, there's only two ways to make it work. For those who haven't read about his plan, he's proposed mandatory health care. He actually said that people would not have the option to NOT have required medical checkups.

To implement this, he can do it one of two ways. For option #1, he's going to have new health police go to people's houses and drag them off to the doctor. I suppose he could have the doctors make forced housecalls, but I think it would be more efficient to just have the health police come arrest people and take them away for their mandatory screenings. I'll be sure and get pictures in case the press decides not to publish those.

For option #2, he can set the system up so that if you haven't participated in the mandatory screenings, you won't be allowed to use the official government system. I'd like to see the person who arrives at the emergency room and is denied care because they didn't participate in the mandatory system. Again, I'll get some pictures.

In either case, government will expand to the point of explosion. An underground system will be sure to develop. The non-government doctors will need protection -- from the government. Underground systems will expand to meet the needs of people. While the government will certainly crush (and kill) many of those systems (and the people in them), some will survive. And at last it will be obvious that the Constitution simply does not apply any more. I will be happy to finally see the revolution.

Vote Edwards 08!

Read Fred's Mind!

Have some fun! Check your crystal ball and try and guess when Fred Thompson will "officially" enter the presidential race. And you could win $200!

Conservatives Betrayed has started a contest to see who can guess the date and hour:

Give us the day and the hour. If, for example, you say "September 6 at 1:00 pm," you qualify to win if he utters the magic words anytime between 1:00 pm and 1:59 pm that day. Then the contestant who was the earliest to enter that correct time slot is named the Grand Wizard with the Clearest Crystal Ball, and is recognized on this website. Global fame will undoubtedly follow but is not guaranteed.

ALL CONTESTANTS are entered in a blind raffle to win a $200 gift certificate with Amazon.com!


Go on, give it a shot!

Hillary Health Care

Those who support Hillary for president, please note that this IS the healthcare system that Hillary wants and desires:

Duncan Hunter on Free Republic

So, did you see the live thread of Duncan Hunter on Free Republic? You should go read it if you want to know more about this candidate for president. A few quotes from the thread for those who don't want to read it all, but want to know what sort of positions Mr. Hunter has:

I reject Al Gores and others doomsday alarmism on the subject. [man-made global warming]

As, President I will build the border fence, all 854 miles, in six months.

During this time I gained the insight that the Hispanic community in the U.S. is not aided by open borders, but rather their wages are the first to be lowered when cheap illegal labor flows across the border.

I like homeschooling because it offers a clear choice for parents who want to impart values and knowledge to their children. I would substantially cut the bureaucracy in the Department of Education, top to bottom.

I would eliminate such programs as National Endowment for the Arts and dozens of programs identified in the Bush Administrations cut list. (These include programs from HUD, the Departments of Justice, Labor, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Interior, HHS, DHS, and the EPA).

[I]n the past I have opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty. I expect that to continue.

Any group that acts as an apologist for terrorism and attempts to undermine legitimate US law enforcement activities, will not get an ear in a Hunter Whitehouse.


Go read more if you like. Not bad, huh?

Duncan Hunter in Iowa

So, did you see how Duncan Hunter fared in Iowa? Me neither. I read dozens of reports about how wonderful Romney is for buying the win there, but every report left out mention of Duncan Hunter. After searching for literally a couple days, I finally found the results of the Straw Poll:

Mitt Romney: 4,516 votes (32%)
Mike Huckabee: 2,587 votes (18%)
Sam Brownback: 2,192 votes (15%)
Tom Tancredo: 1,961 votes (14%)
Ron Paul: 1,305 votes (9%)
Tommy Thompson: 1,039 votes (7%)
Fred Thompson: 203 votes (1%)
Rudy Giuliani: 183 votes (1%)
Duncan Hunter: 174 votes (1%)
John McCain: 101 votes (1%)
John Cox: 41 votes (0%)

While I won't go into the actual value of a straw poll where the politicians buy votes, one thing stands out to me. The supposed purpose of the straw poll is to raise money for the Iowa Republican Party. However, from all that I've read, most of the money comes from the candidates. So the candidates are giving money to the Republican Party that then turns around and spends getting candidates elected? Sure, that makes sense.

However, I was surprised by the strong showing of Tancredo and Ron Paul. I was also surprised by the poor showing by Duncan Hunter. If you want to see what Hunter said at the polls, view here and here.

Duncan Hunter

So, do you know Duncan Hunter? He's a conservative running for president. If you'd like a little more information about him, Alexander Madison has put up a piece about him. An excerpt:

So my argument below addresses 3 key topics that definitively illustrate why all conservatives must climb aboard the Hunter bandwagon. The first two are
about Mr. Hunter himself his history and philosophy. The third topic is the much needed and long overdue comparison how he stacks up against the other
republican hopefuls. In addition, I will demonstrate that Hunter really does "have a chance" and how his ascension is the best thing to happen to the GOP
since Ronald Wilson Reagan left the democrats and joined the party of Lincoln.

And lastly, I will address the role of Mr. Limbaugh and his fellow talkers in this election cycle.