The Two Party System

RNC Shuns Ron Paul, Supporters Root For Romney Defeat

"I want to make sure that when the Republican Party loses, terribly to, in my opinion, the worst president in history, I want [them to know] it's because they systematically shut out the most intelligent, most youthful and active voting bloc in American history," said Ron Paul voter Mike Timoney.

Timoney's statement accurately reflected the mood at PAULfest, a celebration held by Congressman Ron Paul's supporters at the Tampa Fairgrounds on the weekend before the 2012 Republican National Convention.-http://youtu.be/tD0LlwN-xOg

To the Republican party Establishment — and much of the rank-and-file activists — political debate is a “distraction” from what really matters in politics, which is seizing power. As for the rules governing the political process — they can be changed at a moment’s notice, and bent any which way, in order to facilitate this seizure. Ron Paul’s supporters in the GOP learned that the hard way, as the Romneyites used their control of the party bureaucracy at the state and national levels to retroactively change the rules in order to unseat duly elected Paul delegates. In Maine, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Oregon, Oklahoma, and elsewhere, the party bosses have disenfranchised Paul voters — closing down party caucuses, rejecting as delegates anyone under 50, and calling the cops when all else failed. And while Ryder’s rule change failed — thanks to RNC’er Morton Blackwell — the Romney people did sneak in an amendment that would require delegates to state in writing who they intend to vote for on the convention floor at least one hour before the vote.

This is something not even the Communist Party of the Soviet Union required, and is unheard of even in Red China. The reason for the new rule is obvious: to alert the Romneyites to impending displays of public dissent. This will give them time to isolate the dissenters, strip them of their delegate credentials, and unceremoniously haul them out of the convention, preferably in handcuffs, while the cameras roll.-The Iron Fist in Tampa

The Romney Con

Phony Conservatives Choose Fake Conservative In First Time EVER Electronic Voting CPAC Straw Poll

Mitt for Brains the lying fake conservative statist wins CPAC poll. Lew Rockwell mentioned this earlier, that they even said not having a paper ballot this time and switching to an electronic vote would make it harder for someone like Ron Paul to win (Paul won the previous two CPAC straw polls). Does anyone really believe that electronic votes with no paper trail are MORE reliable than using paper ballots? No system can be completely fraud free, but the shenanigans available with purely electronic counts turn all elections into potential shams.

As for the "conservatives" who have given their endorsement to the phony Romney, the very fact that they did so proves they are not conservatives!

Romney won 38 percent of the CPAC straw poll votes, with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum coming in second at 31 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) picked up 15 percent of the votes and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who won the straw polls in 2010 and 2011, received only 12 percent of the vote.-CPAC Straw Poll Results 2012: Mitt Romney Wins Conservative Vote

Three Little Wives of Newt

thanks to OldTimePatriot

Are Republicans Really for Smaller Government?

Who Are You, Mitt Romney? (Tales of a Flip-Flopper)

via disinformation

Sick Rantorum

Rick Santorum is as crazy and sick as they come.

In a January 18 interview with Glenn Beck Rick Santorum decided to compare his view of the Constitution with that of Ron Paul. His statements can only be described as delusional and totalitarian.

Santorum first claimed to have read an eighteenth-century dictionary that defined happiness as "to do the morally right thing." This is how the founding fathers defined happiness, he said. This is Santorum’s definition of "happiness," not the founding fathers. It’s a good bet he is lying when claiming to have read an eighteenth-century dictionary. (But I suppose anything is possible with a man who brought his deceased infant home who died two hours after birth and slept with it after showing it to his children, as Santorum admits to have done).

The freedom to do whatever you want to do – as long as you do not harm anyone else or interfere in their equal freedom – would "lead to libertinism and lead to chaos" said Sanctimonious Santorum, who has also pledged to do what he can to put an end to contraception if elected president. Contraception changes "the way things ought to be," he says. Santorum is self assured that he, and he alone, understands "the way things ought to be" and pledges to use the powers of the state to forcefully impose his "understanding" on the entire country.

But the founding fathers are known as champions of freedom, are they not? But what kind of freedom? According to Santorum, who apparently fancies himself as an historian, freedom in America means "the freedom to do what you ought to do – what you are properly ordered to do [by a politician like himself] – as someone living a good, decent, and ordered life" (emphasis added). "That’s the differentiation that I believe Ron Paul and I have with respect to what liberty is," said Santorum. To Rick Santorum, "freedom" means doing what government "properly" orders you to do, as long as government is controlled by good, proper, moral people like himself, the K-Street lobbyist for the Pennsylvania coal mining industry (and anyone else who will pay his huge fees for influence peddling).

This is not the view of the American founding fathers, as Santorum claims. It is more likely to have been the mindset of the founders of the Soviet Union, not the American union. It is the mindset of the neoconservatives whose founding members were, after all, Trotskyite communists. This includes the self-described "godfather" of neoconservatism, the late Irving Kristol, who reveled in talking about his youthful Trotskyite roots.

If Santorum really wanted to know how the founding fathers defined freedom he would not make up imaginary, two-century old dictionary entries but would read what the founders actually said. A good place to start would be Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address where he stated: "[A] wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . ." It is hard to imagine that Jefferson, the author of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that strongly opposed the governmental imposition of any religious views on anyone while defending religious liberty in general, would have admired an Uber-Catholic Theocrat like Santorum. For government to compel a man to support a religious cause with which he disbelieves, wrote Jefferson, is "sinful and tyrannical."

When Ron Paul says that such victimless crimes as prostitution or smoking pot should be decriminalized, says Santorum, "that’s not the moral foundation of our country," once again pretending to be The Expert on the thinking of the founding fathers. There’s one problem with Santorum’s historical revisionism, however. Prostitution was in fact pervasive in Colonial America. Prostitutes traveled with George Washington’s army, serving as nurses and cooks as well as prostitutes. In fact, there were no laws in America banning prostitution until Massachusetts enacted the first one in 1917. (The 1910 "Mann Act," named after Congressman James Mann, prohibited "white slavery" for the purpose of prostitution). Federal laws against prostitution were first enacted after women got the right to vote and immediately outlawed prostitution in the vicinity of military bases when their husbands and boyfriends were off serving in the military. In other words the founding fathers agreed with Ron Paul, not Rick Santorum, on personal liberty issues.

America is "not just a collection of freedoms," said the insufferably sanctimonious Santorum. It is, instead, a collection of orders from the state defining what "proper" behavior is. Stalin himself could not have said it better.

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo: Ayatollah Santorum the Sanctimonious (ASS)

republished under the following notice: Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Some people have missed my point about Sick Rantorum and his claim that happiness means doing what is moral. That's not all that he said. The key point here is that Rantorum also said that this means "doing what you are ordered to do" by the state. The Newt Gingriches, Bill Clintons, and Sick Rantorums will define for us what is moral, and then use the state's powers of imprisonment, taxation, execution, torture, etc. to force us to live like they want us to live. In other words, some of the most immoral people in society, who have gotten to where they are by being masterful liars, connivers, and manipulators, will force us to live our lives in their image. Quoting ancient Catholic theologians or founding generation politicians on the subject of happiness is therefore irrelevant unless they, too, were totalitarians like Rantorum.

Rantorum gave an interview to a major news network to describe the story about bringing his deceased infant home, presumably to boost his image as a right to life candidate. He went on and on in the interview about how this really, really proved his bona fides as a "pro-life candidate." It was a political stunt, in other words. This is why the story is worth mentioning — it speaks volumes about the character of this man who wants to have his finger on the nuclear button, and in the name of being "pro-life" is just itching to murder thousands of innocent Iranians (for starters).-Thomas DiLorenzo (Missing the Point About Santorum)







And Sick Rantorum's view of "liberty" is telling in regard to his statements during the last Republican debate on SOPA and PIPA, where he said "“The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do..." I guess that means he would let you do only what he thinks is "moral and right" while you're online.

Republicans Hate Jesus!

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.-Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 7:12)

"Maybe we ought to consider a golden rule. Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us."-Ron Paul


Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule

Foolish Republican Romneybots

The "electability" issue is being used by the media shills for the establishment to create an inevitability to Mitt for Brains as the GOP nominee. The brainless primary voters once again have become mere pawns in the "democracy" game, submitting to the will of their masters, who chose Romney before a single vote was cast.

Ron Paul, of course "can't win" (if you don't vote for him, no, he can't, fools!) and is "unelectable" and can't beat Obama, but yet, CNN's own polling shows otherwise, with Ron Paul tied with Obama in a general election match up: CNN Poll: Obama tied with Romney & Paul in November showdowns



Prediction: If Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination he will go down in flames against master politician Barack Obama. Either way though, win or lose, the establishment will still be smiling when the smoke of stupidity clears.



Romney the Loser

Republicans sure have short memories. It was just four years ago that they went to the polls in the primaries and elected the most "moderate" and "electable" candidate they could find in the hope that they had a man who was palatable to the general population. Their reward for their unprincipled pragmatism was an ass-kicking in the general election that few Americans will ever forget. John McCain and Sarah Palin certainly won’t forget it.

Four years later, having learned absolutely nothing from the election of 2008, Republican voters are once again lining up behind the most moderate and supposedly "electable" candidate that they can find in the pragmatic hope that they can beat Obama in the general election. They have become so unprincipled and pragmatic, in fact, that they are lining up behind the very man who brought European-style socialized medicine to our fair shores, simply because they have been told that he is more "electable" than anyone else in the field. How they can expect an outcome that’s better than four years ago is difficult to fathom, unless they think that their new moderate’s plastic hair can compensate for his obvious blandness.

In one respect, moreover, the selection of this particular "moderate" is even more ridiculous than the selection of the kooky moderate four years ago. This guy came in second place in the primaries to the "moderate" who got his ass handed to him in the general election. Think about that for a minute. This guy was moderate enough to come in second in the primaries two years ago, when the Republicans first decided to eschew principle and select a moderate, and yet he was deemed less "electable" than the guy who lost so badly.

In other words, if the more "electable" moderate got his ass kicked four years ago, how badly is the second-place moderate going to do this time around?

Here’s a novel idea for Republicans: Vote based upon principle, not based upon whatever the bobble-headed morons in the media establishment say is strategically expedient. Your strategic pragmatism got you nowhere four years ago. Young people and independents in this country are not any more impressed with bland flip-floppers from Massachusetts than they are impressed with nut-job moderates from Arizona. These guys don’t even impress Republicans themselves. If they want a "moderate" who stands for war and socialized medicine, they might as well stick with the moderate, warmongering socialist they already have.

How about nominating someone who has a record of standing up for individual liberty for once? How about nominating someone who believes in the Constitution for once? How about nominating someone who opposes liberal nation-building and warmongering for once? How about voting for a real capitalist for once?

In other words, how about voting based upon your own damn principles for once, instead of voting like pragmatic Trotskyites taking strategic orders from the political-media establishment? Forget this ridiculous, immoral and futile idea of "electability" and vote for Ron Paul and the principles of your own party.-by Mark R. Crovelli at LewRockwell.com (republished under the following: Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Contrary to the false propaganda proclaiming that Dr. Ron Paul is "not electable", his numbers are rising, his support growing and he stands an excellent chance of winning both the GOP nomination and the 2012 presidential race.-Dr. Ron Paul: 6 Reasons He Is Electable and Will Win

The Humble Libertarian Creates A Ron Paul Ad

He says:

I just created this ad today. Will you please help me share it ahead of the South Carolina primary to inform voters that Wall Street is paying for Mitt Romney's ads while our brave soldiers are paying for Ron Paul's? It should be obvious which of the two is looking out for you-Who's Looking Out For You?

Naturally, the ruling elite will be quite happy with Obama vs Romney in the Fall. That's what the foolish Republican Romneybots voting for the liar from Massachusetts can't understand in their moronic quest to nominate "somone who can beat Obama". Get it through your head, idiots, Obama is Romney, Romney is Obama, and nothing of substance will change no matter which is elected.

Interesting Analysis of Mitt "Ken Doll" Romney's Actual Nomination Prospects

...to win the nomination outright, Romney does not just have to win primaries/caucuses, he has to win MORE THAN FIFTY PERCENT of the delegates. Otherwise, he’ll end up in a brokered convention, in which anything could happen. Given that he didn’t even break 25% in Iowa, may not break 40% in New Hampshire, and is stuck around 30-35% in South Carolina, that’s may be a pretty tall order. The key numbers to look at are Romney’s vote percentages as compared to those of all the religious right candidates combined (i.e. Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, & Bachmann), since those four voting blocs will coalesce into one single anti-Romney bloc by the time Super Tuesday rolls around and the winner-take-all contests begin. And by that metric it doesn’t look good for Romney. He would have lost Iowa 25%-53%, would still win NH, but would lose South Carolina by double digits. Until he starts breaking 40% somewhere outside of NH, I’m going to remain highly skeptical of his chances at actually winning the nomination.-Mitt the Loser

Virginia Republican Primary Qualifications Legitimize Ron Paul

In my state, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, there are only two Republican candidates for President on the ballot.  They are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  Apparently, while I was on vacation in the past two weeks (or while I was getting ready for it), Rick Perry and Newt Gringrich did not like that and have decided to sue.  Normally, this would not have been a big deal, since last time Virginia’s primary happened one week after Super Tuesday, but this year it apparently happens on Super Tuesday (March 6th) and so it is a huge deal.

The state of Virginia requires 10,000 signatures from registered Virginia voters where 400 of those signatures have to be from all of Virginia’s Congressional districts.  While those requirements are hefty, and probably do discourage third parties, they also ensure that only people who receive massive support from the general populace are given a chance versus the much more unpopular, but at least equally hyped, candidates.  There is no opportunity for a write-in on the primary in Virginia.

What gets interesting in all of this is the face that this is the first time it has happened, because it appears to be the first time it has been enforced:

The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponent’s primary petition had never been checked, and that if it had been, that opponent would not have qualified. The lawsuit, Osborne v Boyles, cl 11-520-00, was filed in Bristol County Circuit Court. It was filed too late to be heard before the election, but is still pending. The effect of the lawsuit was to persuade the Republican Party to start checking petitions. If the Republican Party had not changed that policy, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would be on the 2012 ballot.

In other words, the state was making sure that you had to be a member of either faction of the Bank Party or suffer severe scrutiny.  That is until one person had enough and successfully sued in order to see a much more fair election result.  Now the state is forced to verify all petitions in order to ensure fairness.

I take from this whole fiasco a few things:

1. That the only viable candidates for the Republican nominee for President are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  This is because they were the only two candidates who have the widespread support needed.  All other candidates do not have the support needed to gain the nomination.
2. If Ron Paul managed to qualify in Virginia, as one of only two, that means he can win despite what Mainstream Conservatives and Neoconservatives would have you believe.
3. The party machine that established this heavy-handed system in order to make people qualify did so with the idea that people like Ron Paul could be left out.  Too bad times are changing….

I find it amusing that so many pundits still rail against Ron Paul as being an unwinnable candidate and that his ideas are fringe ideas.  Time after time, when dealing directly with people who would vote Republican and not some elderly Democrat supporter who is home on a weekday, Ron Paul brings in the numbers that legitimize his candidacy.  Yet he continues to be ignored, besmirched, or shunned because of his traditional conservative values when it comes to the role of the Federal government.

I still am skeptical as to whether or not Ron Paul will ultimately win the nomination.  I have a suspicion that most primary and caucus voters are predominantly old-guard Republican or Mainstream Conservative, neither of whom have any love for Ron Paul because he does not like bombing women and children in foreign nations (or blowing up dogs or throwing puppies off cliffs).

But I have heard that there are more and more young people who adhere to the ideals of Constitutional Conservatism, as Ron Paul does, and they are the future of this nation, unless we are conquered by an outside power within a generation (which is always a possibility no matter how remote it seems).

Even if Ron Paul loses this year and retires from the life of a public “servant”, his ideas will carry on into the future.  It seems that liberty and freedom are making a comeback and maybe we will be able to make this nation a shining beacon of hope once again.

Hannity and the Scary Clowns

Watched a few minutes of Sean Hannity's Fox "News" interviews of the Iowa Republican candidates last night. Caught some comments of two of the scariest loser clowns, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. Santorum should be in a sanatorium for proposing thoughtlessly an unprovoked attack against Iran. This pro-death asswipe is supposed to be a Catholic? Sick! He was asked what he thought about Ron Paul calling him a liberal. His response (and I paraphrase) was that Ron Paul was from the "Dennis Kucinich foreign policy left-wing" of the Democratic Party, so how can Ron Paul call him a liberal? Well, maybe we should just quote Ron Paul to find out what he meant:

"He voted to double the size of the Department of Education. He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it's come down."-Ron Paul: Santorum is 'very liberal'

Sean Hannity the neocon fool just continued on after that without pursuing what exactly Ron Paul was talking about. As a militarist scumbag, Hannity really only considers someone "conservative" if they support a massive and bloated military budget and aggression all over the world. He seems not to care about much else, and doesn't seem to mind a candidate who is otherwise a big spender of your tax dollars. The irony is, even on defense and war and foreign policy, Ron Paul IS MORE conservative than anyone else running. You have to go back to before the conservative movement was taken over by neocon loons, but still...


And speaking of loons, Bachmann said Ron Paul would do nothing about Iran until Iran launched a nuclear weapon at the U.S. In other words, until Iran decided to commit suicide, for why else would they launch one warhead at America, the strongest military power on earth with a nuclear arsenal large enough to destroy Iran completely? Again, however, Hannity didn’t challenge this nonsense at all.


But Ron Paul, of course, is the one with loony, “fringe” ideas.

George Carlin: The Truth About Republicans

Who Can You Trust?

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?

A: When his lips are moving.


via LRC Blog

FU, Newt Gingrich

via Ornery Bastard

Gingrich to OWS: Get A Job And Take A Bath

Newt Gingrich, speaking at the Thanksgiving Family Forum, tells Occupy Wall Street to take a bath and get a job.




That's right, you dirty, stinking hippies, and get a damn haircut while you're at it! Meanwhile, I'll keep advising Freddie Mac (for a big payday), divorcing my wives, and ignoring the fact that the big banks and corporations aren't free market capitalist enterprises, but crony capitalist "too big to fail" recipients of government handouts and favoritism.

Attacking an anti-establishment, grassroots movement disgusted with the current pro-bankster, pro-corporation Federal government is the path to Republican victory!

Hitler Finds Out Rick Perry Completely Failed at the CNBC Debate

Herman Cain vs. Ron Paul On Predicting The Economic Collapse

via LRC Blog: If President, Cain Says He Will Pick Austrian Economists for Advisors - Kidding!

Given the recent economic turmoil erupting in America, more and more citizens are rallying for a regular audit of the Fed – a statistic Ron Paul says is evident in more than three-fifths of America. As a result, Congressman Paul pinned a question regarding the central bank on pizzaman Herman Cain, a former bigwig with the Kansas City Fed.-Ron Paul Challenges Cain Over Fed

ATTENTION:
MAINSTREAM MEDIA

We the people demand an end to your lies and refusal to admit Ron Paul is a 2012 GOP Frontrunner. On October 19th, 2011, tens of thousands of Americans shall stand together to send you a very clear message. We stand as one with Ron Paul and his mission to change the course of history. This noble struggle is one we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained.-BlackThisOut.com


Media Promotes Herman Cain: Disses Ron Paul