Documents obtained by an investigator have revealed that libertarians in the tradition of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin should be considered 'dangerous terrorists.'
The information was disseminated to Missouri law enforcement agencies by the 'Missouri Information Analysis Center,' and was intended to be 'law enforcement sensitive,' or in other words, 'not for public consumption.'
Read the entire report, including documentation, here.
The documents appear to be legit.
Showing posts with label libertarians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarians. Show all posts
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents
People who believe in liberty, the freedom of the individual, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights should swear off of the Democratic Party completely.
The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.
And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.
Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.
The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.
Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.
For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.
This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.
And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.
The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.
I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.
The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.
And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.
Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.
The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.
Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.
For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.
This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.
And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.
The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.
I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
The Dilemma of the Libertarian-Leaning Voter
During a speaking engagement some time ago I fielded a question from the participants concerning my political preferences. The question was this: given that you are obviously libertarian in your views, why, then, do you tend to support Republican candidates?
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Who Is Ron Paul?
Washington, DC (TLS). Although polls show that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came out the winner in the first Republican Presidential debate, another name has surfaced among the eight announced candidates as one who is gaining some support. His name is Ron Paul from Texas.
Ron Paul serves the U.S. House, representing the 14th Congressional district of Texas. Since 1997 he has served the district with distinction as one who never compromises his principles and as an unwavering advocate for upholding the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
Trained as a medical doctor, graduating from the Duke University School of Medicine, Dr. Paul served his country as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He subsequently practiced medicine in Brazoria County, Texas for a number of years as a gynecologist/obstetrician.
Dr. Paul entered politics in the late 1970s and served in the U.S. House until 1984, when he voluntarily relinquished his seat in order to return to his medical practice. He returned to the House in 1997 and has carved out a solid reputation among his colleagues and constituents as a principled man of character who exhibits strong libertarian values. Those values include low taxes, small government, gun rights, strong defense, secure borders and immigration control, and a commitment to the pro-life position.
It is Dr. Paul's views on the Iraq War, however, that is causing the great stir among potential supporters. He has consistently said that the war is illegal according to the U.S. Constitution. His votes have portrayed that conviction. Paul voted against the Iraqi invasion and has repeatedly called for the war's end. He has even been known to say that President Bush should be impeached for sending troops to war.
Polls have shown that many who watched the Republican debate were impressed with Dr. Paul. The reason, I believe, is not simply the Iraq War. Politicians like Ron Paul are rare in America today. He does not jump on anyone's bandwagon, and proposed legislation is always put to the test of the Constitution.
Does the Constitution allow this sort of legislation? Is it consistent with the Founders' original intent?
The sudden interest in the candidacy of Ron Paul may be a signal that a significant portion of the American population is taking a new look at the Constitution as the basis for all law. Perhaps they are tired of big-government socialism AND big-government conservatism.
IF it is really true that the vast majority of the country wants 'change,' as many polls suggest, it is hard to conceive of anyone else in politics today who more fully embodies a complete change in the way government is viewed than Ron Paul.
The majority of candidates in both Parties represent business as usual, the same-old, same-old, a rehashing of old, failed ideas of an ideology that claims big government can solve the nation's ills.
One of the most solidly socialistic nations of Western Europe, France, recently showed the world that European styled Socialism does not work. For the first time in nearly 50 years, a conservative was elected as President of France. This speaks volumes.
To varying degrees ALL of the Democratic candidates are European-styled Socialists. And while the Republicans cannot be lumped together with them, they have their own baggage to carry as purveyors of 'big government conservatism,' which the Bush Administration, I am sorry to say, perfectly portrays.
Ron Paul has been a voice crying in the wilderness in the midst of both Democrats and Republicans, calling them back to the founding principles of small government and fiscal conservatism.
But Paul's philosophy is actually nothing new. It is called 'Constitutional Republicanism,' and it was embraced and espoused by the Founders of a nation called the United States of America.
For more information on Ron Paul, go to his official government website at:
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
Ron Paul serves the U.S. House, representing the 14th Congressional district of Texas. Since 1997 he has served the district with distinction as one who never compromises his principles and as an unwavering advocate for upholding the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
Trained as a medical doctor, graduating from the Duke University School of Medicine, Dr. Paul served his country as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He subsequently practiced medicine in Brazoria County, Texas for a number of years as a gynecologist/obstetrician.
Dr. Paul entered politics in the late 1970s and served in the U.S. House until 1984, when he voluntarily relinquished his seat in order to return to his medical practice. He returned to the House in 1997 and has carved out a solid reputation among his colleagues and constituents as a principled man of character who exhibits strong libertarian values. Those values include low taxes, small government, gun rights, strong defense, secure borders and immigration control, and a commitment to the pro-life position.
It is Dr. Paul's views on the Iraq War, however, that is causing the great stir among potential supporters. He has consistently said that the war is illegal according to the U.S. Constitution. His votes have portrayed that conviction. Paul voted against the Iraqi invasion and has repeatedly called for the war's end. He has even been known to say that President Bush should be impeached for sending troops to war.
Polls have shown that many who watched the Republican debate were impressed with Dr. Paul. The reason, I believe, is not simply the Iraq War. Politicians like Ron Paul are rare in America today. He does not jump on anyone's bandwagon, and proposed legislation is always put to the test of the Constitution.
Does the Constitution allow this sort of legislation? Is it consistent with the Founders' original intent?
The sudden interest in the candidacy of Ron Paul may be a signal that a significant portion of the American population is taking a new look at the Constitution as the basis for all law. Perhaps they are tired of big-government socialism AND big-government conservatism.
IF it is really true that the vast majority of the country wants 'change,' as many polls suggest, it is hard to conceive of anyone else in politics today who more fully embodies a complete change in the way government is viewed than Ron Paul.
The majority of candidates in both Parties represent business as usual, the same-old, same-old, a rehashing of old, failed ideas of an ideology that claims big government can solve the nation's ills.
One of the most solidly socialistic nations of Western Europe, France, recently showed the world that European styled Socialism does not work. For the first time in nearly 50 years, a conservative was elected as President of France. This speaks volumes.
To varying degrees ALL of the Democratic candidates are European-styled Socialists. And while the Republicans cannot be lumped together with them, they have their own baggage to carry as purveyors of 'big government conservatism,' which the Bush Administration, I am sorry to say, perfectly portrays.
Ron Paul has been a voice crying in the wilderness in the midst of both Democrats and Republicans, calling them back to the founding principles of small government and fiscal conservatism.
But Paul's philosophy is actually nothing new. It is called 'Constitutional Republicanism,' and it was embraced and espoused by the Founders of a nation called the United States of America.
For more information on Ron Paul, go to his official government website at:
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
Sunday, April 22, 2007
The Case for a Fred Thompson Candidacy
Washington, DC (TLS). As they say in politics, things can change overnight. But in these days of instantaneous coverage on the Internet and the primaries moving up to February of 2008, things can change on a dime.
We still have some time to go before we can make any definitive commitment to THE one candidate who can unite libertarians, conservatives, and others who adhere to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. We still like Duncan Hunter, but as the days go by, unless Hunter can begin to amass a war chest that will make him competitive, the likelihood of his being the Republican nominee slowly fades.
Despite Newt Gingrich's popularity with conservatives, and despite his obvious gifts and grasp of the issues, he nonetheless has some negatives that make me nervous...particularly if he is in a showdown with Hillary Clinton. I am not certain that the general population would go for Newt.
This bring us to Fred Thompson. As we have reported on The Liberty Sphere, Thompson's immediate popularity after the mere hint he may run has given conservatives reason to hope again. There are many reasons why Fred Thompson should throw his hat into the ring.
First, Thompson has instant name and face recognition. With that comes free coverage that all the money in the world can't buy. Wherever he goes there is an entourage of admirers and news reporters. The man simply creates a sense of excitement wherever he goes.
This means the campaign cash will most definitely come rolling in.
Second, Thompson has all the right qualities libertarians, conservatives, and independents are looking for--populist appeal, charisma, the quiet but firm resolve of a strong leader, great communication skills, and a very public and no-nonsense support for gun rights, border security, immigration reform, tax cuts, a strong military presence in a dangerous world, and an intent to appoint judges who demonstrate that they have reverence for and are restrained by the U.S. Constitution.
And that means that original intent is the primary guiding principle in interpreting the Constitution.
Third, Thompson doesn't need to be President. This is more important than most people realize. When one reads the writings of the great American statesmen of the past, one gets the strong notion that these men did not enter the public arena because they had some burning personal or selfish desire to be 'career politicians.' They were constrained to enter politics because of the burning issues of the day that had to be addressed.
We have been stung far too many times by career politicians who have had a selfish desire their entire lives to either be President or serve in the Congress. These offices should never be occupied by the power-hungry, but sometimes they are. Ambition can be a good thing, but only to a degree. Selfish ambition in politics is dangerous.
Fred Thompson is not driven by some overriding personal and selfish need to be President. He has had a very successful career both as an attorney and as an actor. One gets the sense from Thompson that he is considering entering the race because of a great need, and because citizens who love liberty and freedom--and who believe in the ultimate wisdom of the Constitution--sincerely want him to run.
In this manner he is more like Ronald Reagan than anyone in the field of candidates in either Party. Reagan did not live to be President. He did not crave the power and attention. He had already made his mark and was quite successful--and wealthy--when he entered politics.
But the burning issues of the day beckoned to him. The people who love liberty called to him. And he answered that call magnificently.
It is hoped that Fred Thompson will hear that same call, that same beckoning.
Political pundit and campaign guru Dick Morris has a stunning article on Thompson this week at Townhall.com. Morris says that Thompson needs to jump in the race NOW rather than later, or else it may be too late. Read how Morris makes the case for an immediate Thompson candidacy, and how an announcement now will more than likely catapult him to front-runner status:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/04/20/run_fred,_runnow!
We still have some time to go before we can make any definitive commitment to THE one candidate who can unite libertarians, conservatives, and others who adhere to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. We still like Duncan Hunter, but as the days go by, unless Hunter can begin to amass a war chest that will make him competitive, the likelihood of his being the Republican nominee slowly fades.
Despite Newt Gingrich's popularity with conservatives, and despite his obvious gifts and grasp of the issues, he nonetheless has some negatives that make me nervous...particularly if he is in a showdown with Hillary Clinton. I am not certain that the general population would go for Newt.
This bring us to Fred Thompson. As we have reported on The Liberty Sphere, Thompson's immediate popularity after the mere hint he may run has given conservatives reason to hope again. There are many reasons why Fred Thompson should throw his hat into the ring.
First, Thompson has instant name and face recognition. With that comes free coverage that all the money in the world can't buy. Wherever he goes there is an entourage of admirers and news reporters. The man simply creates a sense of excitement wherever he goes.
This means the campaign cash will most definitely come rolling in.
Second, Thompson has all the right qualities libertarians, conservatives, and independents are looking for--populist appeal, charisma, the quiet but firm resolve of a strong leader, great communication skills, and a very public and no-nonsense support for gun rights, border security, immigration reform, tax cuts, a strong military presence in a dangerous world, and an intent to appoint judges who demonstrate that they have reverence for and are restrained by the U.S. Constitution.
And that means that original intent is the primary guiding principle in interpreting the Constitution.
Third, Thompson doesn't need to be President. This is more important than most people realize. When one reads the writings of the great American statesmen of the past, one gets the strong notion that these men did not enter the public arena because they had some burning personal or selfish desire to be 'career politicians.' They were constrained to enter politics because of the burning issues of the day that had to be addressed.
We have been stung far too many times by career politicians who have had a selfish desire their entire lives to either be President or serve in the Congress. These offices should never be occupied by the power-hungry, but sometimes they are. Ambition can be a good thing, but only to a degree. Selfish ambition in politics is dangerous.
Fred Thompson is not driven by some overriding personal and selfish need to be President. He has had a very successful career both as an attorney and as an actor. One gets the sense from Thompson that he is considering entering the race because of a great need, and because citizens who love liberty and freedom--and who believe in the ultimate wisdom of the Constitution--sincerely want him to run.
In this manner he is more like Ronald Reagan than anyone in the field of candidates in either Party. Reagan did not live to be President. He did not crave the power and attention. He had already made his mark and was quite successful--and wealthy--when he entered politics.
But the burning issues of the day beckoned to him. The people who love liberty called to him. And he answered that call magnificently.
It is hoped that Fred Thompson will hear that same call, that same beckoning.
Political pundit and campaign guru Dick Morris has a stunning article on Thompson this week at Townhall.com. Morris says that Thompson needs to jump in the race NOW rather than later, or else it may be too late. Read how Morris makes the case for an immediate Thompson candidacy, and how an announcement now will more than likely catapult him to front-runner status:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/04/20/run_fred,_runnow!
Friday, February 16, 2007
Conservatives Warn John McCain
Washington, DC (TLS). A coalition of conservative groups has warned Republican Presidential candidate John McCain concerning his support for measures that would eliminate so-called '527s'--those groups that were created after the McCain-Feingold law to silence free speech went into effect. 527s began to spring up as a direct result of the provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, which had the chilling effect of silencing free political speech. The 527s found a loophole in the law which allowed them to raise funds for candidates and policy measures without having to adhere to the provisions of McCain-Feingold.
The Liberty Sphere has learned that McCain has sponsored legislation that will effectively put an end to 527 organizations. We also happen to know that McCain has accepted contributions from these very organizations that he claims to stand against.
Hence, the conservative coalition sent McCain a warning--stop with the senseless attempts to silence free political speech or face defections from the ranks of supporters. In short, McCain supporters can easily go elsewhere, withdrawing their support from McCain entirely.
The Liberty Sphere thinks that such withdrawals of support are long overdue. McCain has made no friends among those of us who stand solidly for free speech and 2nd Amendment rights. Not only did he and Liberal Democrat Russ Feingold fleece the American public by passing severe restrictions on free political speech in the name of 'campaign finance reform,' but he also co-sponsored a bill earlier this year that would have silenced bloggers who encourage citizens to contact their lawmakers concerning pending legislation, unless those bloggers get 'permission' from Congress first. Ultra-Liberals Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and a host of other Democrats supported this measure, which was defeated by an amendment offered by Senator McConnell and others that stopped the ominous Nazi-like assault on speech.
And this is not all. McCain is given the lowest rating possible by Gun Owners of America, which has graded him with an 'F-' on gun rights.
Of course, McCain is not alone on that score. ALL of the top tier Presidential candidates in both Parties have also garnered an 'F-', including Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Hussein Obama, and others. Even Mitt Romney's support for gun rights has been tentative through the years.
Conservatives are quietly looking for a place to land as they look ahead to the 2008 Presidential election. Clearly as it stands now, most of us who refer to ourselves as Conservative/libertarian voters are mentally marking 'none of the above' when it comes to the leading contenders in both Parties. Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney simply do not have the solid conservative track record to win the support of most of us, particularly those who live in the heartland, the South, and the western Mountain states.
We are whistling in the dark if we expect John McCain in particular, who has a long track record of votes in the Senate, to suddenly change his ideological core. While McCain can be admired for his unwavering support of the War on Terror, including its tributary in Iraq, conservatives find him hard to stomach on just about every other issue.
In short, I really do not expect him to heed any warning from conservatives.
Read more of the warning to McCain here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200702/POL20070214b.html
The Liberty Sphere has learned that McCain has sponsored legislation that will effectively put an end to 527 organizations. We also happen to know that McCain has accepted contributions from these very organizations that he claims to stand against.
Hence, the conservative coalition sent McCain a warning--stop with the senseless attempts to silence free political speech or face defections from the ranks of supporters. In short, McCain supporters can easily go elsewhere, withdrawing their support from McCain entirely.
The Liberty Sphere thinks that such withdrawals of support are long overdue. McCain has made no friends among those of us who stand solidly for free speech and 2nd Amendment rights. Not only did he and Liberal Democrat Russ Feingold fleece the American public by passing severe restrictions on free political speech in the name of 'campaign finance reform,' but he also co-sponsored a bill earlier this year that would have silenced bloggers who encourage citizens to contact their lawmakers concerning pending legislation, unless those bloggers get 'permission' from Congress first. Ultra-Liberals Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and a host of other Democrats supported this measure, which was defeated by an amendment offered by Senator McConnell and others that stopped the ominous Nazi-like assault on speech.
And this is not all. McCain is given the lowest rating possible by Gun Owners of America, which has graded him with an 'F-' on gun rights.
Of course, McCain is not alone on that score. ALL of the top tier Presidential candidates in both Parties have also garnered an 'F-', including Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Hussein Obama, and others. Even Mitt Romney's support for gun rights has been tentative through the years.
Conservatives are quietly looking for a place to land as they look ahead to the 2008 Presidential election. Clearly as it stands now, most of us who refer to ourselves as Conservative/libertarian voters are mentally marking 'none of the above' when it comes to the leading contenders in both Parties. Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney simply do not have the solid conservative track record to win the support of most of us, particularly those who live in the heartland, the South, and the western Mountain states.
We are whistling in the dark if we expect John McCain in particular, who has a long track record of votes in the Senate, to suddenly change his ideological core. While McCain can be admired for his unwavering support of the War on Terror, including its tributary in Iraq, conservatives find him hard to stomach on just about every other issue.
In short, I really do not expect him to heed any warning from conservatives.
Read more of the warning to McCain here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200702/POL20070214b.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)