There are three good Republicans running for the US House from District 14 in Texas;  John Gay, Tim Graney, and Gerald Wall.  Surely between these three gentlemen, the good people of Texas’ 14^th Congressional District will be able to select one who will serve them better than the incumbent Congressman Ron Paul.  He is one of those incumbent who most definitely should be given a pink slip.

They say the acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree.  With a voting record like this, let’s hope this time that truth is wrong.  Why?  Because Rand Paul wants to be the US Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, that’s why.  The people of Kentucky definitely deserve better, and the American people do not need a Libertarian Paul in both houses of government in Washington.

Rand Paul has said that he agrees with his father on most issues but that there are a few minor areas where they disagree.  I wonder if either of them considers these issues “minor?”

The information I have printed below can be found and verified at VoteSmart.org.

FLAG DESECRATION RESOLUTION

Roll no. 296 — Joint Resolution Passed (House)

H J Res 10: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Representative Paul voted NO

ENHANCE ‘AMBER ALERT’ BILL

Roll no. 127 — Conference Report Adopted (House) (400-25)

Vote to adopt the conference report that would combat child crimes, including, but not limited to, enhance the AMBER alert program, provide additional protection for children against sex crimes, and promote stricter sentencing for child pornography and other child sex crime offenders.

Representative Paul voted NO

HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2007

Roll no. 439 — Joint Resolution Failed (House)

Vote to pass a bill that bans human cloning, as defined by the implantation of a cloned egg into a uterus.

Representative Paul voted NO

SAME-SEX MARRAIGE RESOLUTION

Roll no. 378 — Joint Resolution Failed (House)

Vote to pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in the U.S. consists only of the union of a man and a woman, and federal and state constitutions can not be construed to require marriage or legal incidents of marriage be conferred in other unions.

Representative Paul voted NO

CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

Roll no. 261 — Bill Passed (House)

Vote to pass a bill that criminalizes the act of transporting a minor across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and obtain access to abortion services.

Representative Paul voted NO

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Roll no. 201 — Joint Resolution Failed (House)

Vote on a constitutional amendment to clarify that neither the U.S. nor the individual states can establish an official religion and that the people’s right to pray or recognize their religious beliefs on public property shall not be infringed.

Representative Paul voted NO

GUANTANAMO TRANSFER PLAN

Roll no. 370 — Amendment Adopted (House) (220-208)

Vote to pass an amendment that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Congress within sixty days of enactment detailing a plan for the transfer of prisoners out of the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Representative Paul voted YES

REAL ID ACT OF 2005

Roll no. 31 — Bill Passed (House)

HR 418: To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver’s license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.

Representative Paul voted NO

FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS PROTECTION BILL

Roll no. 534 — Bill Passed (House) (283-144)

Vote to pass a bill that provides liability protection for manufacturers, dealers or importers of firearms or ammunition products, as well as their trade associations, for harm caused by criminal or unlawful misuse.

Representative Paul voted NO

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

Roll no. 288 — Resolution Passed (House) (256-153)

H Res 861: Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Representative Paul voted NO

PRICE GOUGING PREVENTION ACT

Roll no. 448 — Bill Failed (House)

Vote to pass a bill that prohibits price-gouging of gasoline and other petroleum based fuels during times of an energy emergency.

Representative Paul voted NO

CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT

Roll no. 479 — Bill Passed (House)
Vote to pass a bill that criminalizes the transportation of pregnant minors across state lines with the intention of the minor obtaining an abortion, with certain exceptions.

Representative Paul voted NO

VIOLENCE AGAINST FETUSES/UNBORN CHILDREN AMENDMENT

Roll no. 88 — Amendment Rejected

Vote to adopt a substitute amendment that assigns additional punishment for violence committed against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy.

Representative Paul voted NO

2009-2010 DEFENSE APPROPRAITIONS

Roll no. 770 — Conference Report Adopted

Vote to adopt a conference report that authorizes $681.02 billion in appropriations for the Department of Defense and for defense activities of the Department of Energy.

Representative Paul voted NO

EXTENDING FEDERAL EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Roll no. 722 — Bill Passed (House)

Vote to pass a bill that extends the availability of federal emergency unemployment compensation for up to 13 weeks for individuals residing in states with an unemployment rate of at least 8.5 percent for the past 3 months.

Representative Paul voted NO

No doubt Congressman Paul would tell us that he voted NO on so many of these because they should not be regulated from the federal level but should be relegated to the states in accordance with the 10^th Amendment.  He may be right in a couple of instances; however, they give a fairly accurate picture of the way he views our military, and unborn life, and the problem faced by many who are unemployed and forced to rely on unemployment benefits.

I suggest to you that a vast majority of his NAY votes have been as a direct result of his Libertarian beliefs.  States rights are wonderful and are protected by the United States Constitution, but there are times when if he believes more in issues such as the protection of life and support for our military he should have voted YEA.

Stop and think for just a moment.  Do we want more of this attitude in Washington?  I think not.

Just say no to the Libertarian take-over of the Republican Party.

The alternatives for Texas are John Gay,  Tim Graney, and Gerald Wall.   The alternative for Kentucky is Bill Johnson.

I have written about the Libertarian Party on a couple of occasions.  Need a refresher?  Read Why Libertarianism is Just Plain Wrong and The Proof IS in the Pudding.

There are many things an American may lose during the course of a lifetime, but the one thing, other than our family and loved ones, that frightens us most is losing our liberty.  Our basic freedoms which are granted by the Constitution of the United States.  That is why you will see and hear the word “Liberty” from every Libertarian candidate running for election.

It is a scare tactic.  They want the American voter to believe that if we value our liberty we must vote for the Liberty Candidate or risk losing our liberty.  If other parties’ candidates discuss our liberty they usually refer to it as “personal freedoms” or “Constitutional rights.”  Just notice the next time you see or hear a political advertisement.  Then as soon as you can get to your computer check out the Republican Liberty Caucus page to see if the candidate has already been endorsed by the RLC.  If the candidate you are looking for is not listed on this page don’t give up your thinking that he or she may be a Libertarian.  The bottom of the RLC page says that other endorsements are coming.  It may be too early for the election in which a Libertarian candidate is seeking your vote.

I found a list of Liberty Candidates that are not necessarily endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus, but they are considered Libertarians just the same.

Adam Kokesh – New Mexico (Congress)
RJ Harris – Oklahoma (Congress)
Rand Paul – Kentucky (Senate)
Peter Schiff – Connecticut (Senate)
Jake Towne – Pennsylvania (Congress)
Jaynee Germond – Oregon (Congress)
Mike Vasovski – South Carolina (Congress)
Paul Lambert – Alabama (Congress)
Ray McBerry – Georgia (Governor)
Chris Simcox – Arizona (Senate)
Debra Medina – Texas (Governor)
Ron Paul – Texas (Congress)
John Dennis – California (Congress)
Randy Brogdon – Oklahoma (Governor)
David Hedrick – Washington (Congress)
David Ratowitz – Illinois (Congress)
Robert Broadus – Maryland (Congress)
Chelene Nightingale – California (Governor)
Dennis Steele – Vermont (Governor)
Mike Beitler – North Carolina (Senate) -running for Libertarian Party
Joseph L. Kennedy – Massachusetts (Senate) – Independent Party (not related to “the Kennedies”)
Bill Connor – South Carolina (Lt. Governor)
Bill Hunt – Orange County, California (Sheriff)

Because of the socially liberal viewpoints of the Libertarian Party, I am more frightened of losing my liberty if we place our trust in them as they ask us to do.  Personally I believe that every freedom I need was granted to me by the Constitution.  The Libertarians will tell you that as well.  The only thing is, they will tell you that the federal government is butting into the states’ rights business.  In some instances they are correct.

If you want your teenage daughter to have an abortion without your knowledge or approval,  vote Libertarian.  If you yourself want an abortion during your 3^rd trimester because you suddenly decided you can’t hack it as a parent, vote Libertarian.  If you want marijuana legalized for your elementary school-aged children under the guise of “medicinal marijuana”, vote Libertarian.  If you want a same-sex couple to be married and figure out some way to have a child, vote Libertarian.  If you want the minority opinion to count more than the majority, vote Libertarian.  If you want isolationsim for America, vote Libertarian.

It seems to be an accepted fact that a third-party candidate has a hard time winning an election.  The usual explanation is that it splits the total vote pulling from the more conservative Republicans and some Democrats leaving the most liberal candidate the winner.  I do not believe this to be true.

A candidate wins an election because he or she gained the largest number of votes based on his or her stated platform.  That is what causes a candidate to lose an election as well.  If there are enough people who do not approve of the policies you say you will work to bring about, you will lose the election – regardless of your party affiliation.

In other words, a Libertarian candidate will not win an election because people do not approve of the Libertarian platform.  Since I believe that to be the case in fact, it seems the most logical way to get your policies approved is to hide them from the voters.  Give yourself a different party affiliation – but only different enough so that voters who do not spend as much time as others investigating the ultimate truth for exactly what a candidate believes will not notice.

These days Republicans who act like Democrats are called RINO – Republican In Name Only.  Democrats who have switched to the Republican Party for the reason of winning an election because of the name association alone are RINO.  I suggest the same applies to Libertarians who run for office listed as Republicans.  They know that the American voting public will not support the Libertarian viewpoint so they disguise it by calling themselves “Conservative Republicans” or “Liberty Republicans.”  The sad thing is that it appears to be working in many instances.

It seems the Libertarian Party’s main goal in life is to “change the Republican Party” into the Libertarian Party.  In every speech I’ve heard or transcript I have read, the Libertarian wants to “change the party.”  No better way to do that than to overtake from within.  Thus the reason they predominately file for candidacy status through the Republican Party.  That is also why you will see so many of them referring to themselves as “Tea Party Candidates.”  The problem with that is that I have yet to locate a Tea Party Organization that acknowleges the candidates as Libertarians and “worthy of support.”

As far as I can tell, TEA Party Nation, the recognized legitimate tea party organization, does not want to change the party platform or planks of the Republican Party.  They seem to merely be asking that the Republican Party return to the platform and planks instead of being filtered through progressive and moderate left-leaning candidates.

Supporters of Liberty candidates have a map of networking which shows you how widespread their movement is to destroy the very freedoms they preach about so strenuously.  They are well organized and do things Acorn never thought of.  They do all of this while smearing legitimate conservative candidates from the Ron Paul Forums.   The goal seems to be to get what they want at the expense of the majority of Americans.  This attitude is no more viable than the Black Panthers “guarding” the voting places while Acorn votes for the dead.

I realize these are my opinions and as such you are not required to agree with me.  Contrary to the opinions expressed in many of my emails of late, we do not have to all share the same opinions to make our world rotate on its axis.  God takes care of that without our help, thank you very much.  There is an easy way to check out what I say.  I do not write anything that I call “the facts” without providing links for you to check me to be sure I printed the statement correctly.  If I don’t have a link, I try to always phrase my opinions so that there is no doubt they are MY opinions.

I have endorsed one of these Liberty Republicans for Governor of Texas.  I knew before I did it that she has strong leanings to the Libertarians.  I also made it clear to her that she is running as a Republican and that if she is elected, I will hold her to the Republican Party Platform on which she will have been elected.  I would do no less for any other candidate.

If a Libertarian candidate wants to promote the Libertarian Party platform, tell them to run as Libertarians.  Educate yourself as to the platform the candidate for whom you are considering voting actually supports.  If you agree with only part of it, find another candidate.  If you agree with the things the candidate has said publicly, as in the situation with my support of a Liberty Republican, let them know that you will expect them to continue those same policies if they are elected.

If you are unsure exactly where your candidate stands, confront them with your concerns and discuss the issues that are most important to you.  If the candidate gives you lip-service with his or her answers, you can be assured that is all you will get if he or she is elected.

We have the right to hire and fire our elected officials with our votes.  We must use them to promote those things that concern us in our local, state and federal elections.  We, the voter, the American voter, must tell our elected officials how far we are willing to go with them and what will happen if they cross that line.

For several months, I have been closing following the US Senate race in Kentucky.   I don’t live in Kentucky; therefore the natural question comes, “What business is it of mine?”  Honestly I recognize that it is none of my business.  Keep in mind, however, that what affects one of our United States affects all of our United States by extension.

There is a widely recognized movement across America which is empowering voters everywhere to seek more conservative candidates to carry the message of the common people to our State and Federal governments.  We have been trying to tell the current administration and lawmakers in Washington that we are highly opposed to the spend and tax initiatives they are pushing through both houses of Congress.

They haven’t listened to a word we have said regardless of how loudly we say it.  In 2009 we decided that actions speak louder than words, so the voters elected two conservative Republican Governors, Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia.  We came very close to sending a third message when Doug Hoffman came close to pulling off a miracle by winning the special election in NY-23.

Our message of dissatisfaction continued on January 19 in Massachusetts when Scott Brown was elected to fill what has been called “Ted Kennedy’s seat” following his death.  Scott Brown refers to this as “the people’s seat” and that phrase obviously resonated with Massachusetts voters.  Conservatives outside the state of Massachusetts will have to admit that Senator-Elect Brown is not as conservative as many of us would have liked, but in a head-to-head comparison on the issues in question, he seems like an ultra-conservative next to his opponent in that race, Democrat Martha Coakley.

When I began looking for conservative candidates to support with my writing, I found one that literally stuck out like a sore thumb.  He is so conservative that I felt I must have read something incorrectly.  I continued to watch this candidate and found that I had been right in my first assumption of him.  He is truly conservative from his stance on abortion to his stance on illegal immigration to his support for our military.  Here was a conservative candidate I could vote for – if only he lived in my state.

Many of today’s so-called conservatives use the Libertarian principles of socially liberal individual freedoms to hide in the Republican Party.  They all talk about wanting to rebuild the party as though the phrase that should come next is, “to make the party more user-friendly.”  To them, that “user-friendly” quality forgets that in America the majority want nothing to do with their socially liberal causes.  They use the mantra “states’ rights” to inform the public that issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, legalizing drugs, etc belong to the states and should be decided by the states.  They hope that because of their “if it feels good, do it” attitude, citizens who believe that they could secure enough votes in each state to accomplish these same liberal goals will join with them to secure their elections to offices on the local, state and federal ballots.

There is only one definition of conservative acceptable:  conservative politically and conservative socially.  There is no gray area.  It is up to those of us who are truly conservative to see to it that this doesn’t happen.

As I sat with hundreds of people who believe the same things I do on Sunday night in Lexington, Kentucky, listening to an inspiring speech by Dr. Alan Keyes, I saw myself as I had never done before.  I have compromised my integrity by voting for the lesser of two evils too many times.  I determined that I would not make that mistake again.  If I have to choose to vote for a candidate who agrees with me on only 80% of the issues, I am cheating my convictions on the other 20%.

Each of us must make the decision to hold our public officials accountable to us.  That means that they will hear from the socially liberal voices as well as the conservative voices.  Our conservative voices must be the loudest voices they hear.

Dr. Keyes wrote an outstanding article for his blog site on February 3 that explains the 14^th Amendment rights given to the citizens much better than I.

According to the principles of the US Constitution, people institute government (at any level) in order to secure the unalienable rights given to each person by the Creator, God. It is therefore not legitimate (lawful) for government at any level to use its delegated powers to destroy the security of those rights. The term “limited government” refers in the first instance to this just limit on the use of government power. It makes no sense for politicians to proclaim themselves to be staunch advocates of limited government, but then espouse a position that rejects the premise of limited government when it comes to perhaps the most vital and dangerous power of government, the power to decide who should be put to death. Yet this is exactly what Palin, Rand Paul and other “pro-choice for states” politicians are doing.

Contrary to Palin’s statement of support for Paul, it isn’t enough to send people to Washington who will shake things up. Obama is “shaking things up.” Like Obama’s cry for change, this is a phrase that begs the most important question. Will the result of the shake-up restore liberty or continue its destruction? Will it restore the moral premises of limited, constitutional government or cast them aside? Will it bring government at all levels back under the control of the sovereign people of the United States, or continue the overthrow of their sovereignty?

Advocates of states’ rights need to remember that state governments have no rights that are not derived from the God-endowed individuals in whom all unalienable rights originally reside. Those rights reflect the obligations that arise from the determinations of God (His laws) that make human existence possible. The key to the pro-life position is the understanding that individuals cannot disregard the law of God that authorizes a right without destroying their claim to it. Since government derives its right to act (just power) from the delegation of such individuals, the state can have no right to act that supersedes the individual obligation from which the right arises. Therefore, if individual mothers cannot have the right to decide to murder their innocent children, state legislatures cannot have it either.

Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul confirms that, though personally pro-life she is pro-choice on respect for the unalienable right to life as a matter of constitutional law and public policy. By promoting the demonstrably false notion that state governments can legitimately decide to permit the murder of innocent life, politicians like Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and John McCain also reject the idea that no government can legitimately depart from respect for God-ordain justice (right), which represents the limit in principle on government power at every level. Since this is the basis in principle for the concept of constitutionally limited government, such politicians are not constitutionalists either.

If you will listen to both Bill Johnson’s and Dr. Keyes’ speeches in Lexington you might be surprised at how closely you are in agreement with them.  The speeches are posted in 10 parts of approximately 8 – 10 minutes each.  I suggest you find out for yourself why I support Bill Johnson even from this distance by listening to his speech which begins at the 2:15 mark of Part 4.   Dr. Keyes’ remarks begin following Mr. Johnson’s.

I will not name names, so don’t even bother asking!

I have a friend who has been receiving email updates from a political candidate.  Her inbox was plenty full enough as it was, so she wrote asking to be removed from the email list.  Especially since she knew she was going to be supporting another candidate.  It was a rather nice email in my opinion.

Please remove me from your emailing list.  I cannot nor will I support (outsider number 1) or (candidate number 2).  I am currently working for the opposition, very diligently I might add.  So please remove me from your emailing list.  Thanking you in advance, (her name)

I am really trying to stop laughing so I can tell you what she got back.  Honestly I am.

Yes.  You will be summarily removed.  I sincerely hope that you realize that you are playing right into what the establishment wants you to do.  They offer you up a neocon-lite because they know you will not vote for the establishment candidate and they only wish to pull enough votes away from their true opposition (who is leading in the polls) to allow their anointed candidate (who is second in the polls) to win, and you are helping them do just that.  It is a classic political game.  Your candidate will not win.  He has no chance.  I know how that feels because we’ve been there before when the average masses were still asleep, but it wasn’t because of lack of widespread support (which is the problem with your candidate – he has to lend his own campaign (money) because he does not have a mandate from the people even though he’s been at campaigning for as long as the rest of ‘em).

The problem is that your candidate does not understand, nor desire to obey, the US Constitution.  I have talked to him numerous times and even been in (another organization’s) focus group with him.  He doesn’t understand the separation between State and Federal authority.  He doesn’t even allow questions at his events to any real degree.  I have heard him speak many times.  He is a very *nice* person, I do not doubt that.  He appears to be a “regular” guy and a moral guy.  I’ll give him that.  All those things really don’t matter if he doesn’t respect the rule of law (the US Constitution) in ALL situations nor the separation of Federal and State authority that the States are accorded.  (See the 9^th and 10^th amendments to the US Constitution.)  In other words, even with all his good qualities, he lacks what we really need in these terrible times….that is a thorough knowledge of the US Constitution and the guiding principles of true American liberty, which are the only way to restore our original peace and prosperity.  We need a real statesman who knows the lessons of history.

I pray that you will consider your support and put it towards something besides a shell of true liberty.

Just guessing here, but wouldn’t it have been simpler to just say, “Yes, we’ll remove you from our email list.”  But nooooooooooo.. instead let’s make a big production out of it.

Since I know the candidates involved, I can tell you that her candidate is NOT doing as well as she wanted my friend to believe.  Nor is my friend’s candidate doing as badly as she wanted my friend to believe.  And as for outsider number 1 – he isn’t a candidate for ANYTHING!

A statesman?  Give me a break.  He’s a doctor, for goodness sakes.  Lots of time to spend being a statesman, I’m sure.

He understands and supports the Constitution of the United States?  You tell me.  He wants to repeal the 14^th Amendment.  You know what that is, right?  It’s the one that guarantees that state powers cannot be wielded to usurp our inalienable rights.  The 14^th Amendment was added to our constitution as a remedy for the infamous Dred Scott decision, Scott v Sanford, which denied the inalienable rights of blacks.  For a good explanation on this subject you might enjoy reading an article by a colleague.  She writes, “The 14^th Amendment was added to our constitution as a remedy for the infamous Dred Scott decision, Scott v Sanford, which denied the inalienable rights of blacks.”

I wanted to print this for you because there may come a time when you think you should have your name removed from an email list.  As my wise old mother used to tell me, “Be careful what you ask for.   You might get it.”

Which reminds me.  The 9^th Amendment doesn’t reference states at all – it says that the Constitution cannot be used to deny or disparage any of the rights that are given to the people.  The 10^th Amendment is the one that gives the powers not reserved to the Federal Government directly to the States or to the people.

Now, I have exercised my 1^st Amendment rights.  My friend’s candidate will use his soon to correct some wrongs done to even the writer of the long-winded reply above from the US Senate chamber.

Since Obama himself made the statement that he was born of a Kenyan father, many people in the United States have been yelling at the tops of their lungs, “He does not meet the requirements to be president!”  The only problem is that nobody was listening.

The Founding Fathers were very specific when they wrote the Constitution.  Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

One report says that this clause may have been added at the suggestion of John Jay in a letter to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention, in July 25, 1787.  Jay wrote:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

At the time of Obama’s birth, Kenya was a British Protectorate; therefore Obama Sr. was a British citizen.  A natural-born citizen is a citizen born of two American citizens on American soil.  From his own mouth, Obama disputes his qualification for the office by stating that his father was a British citizen; Obama himself is a dual citizen of Britain and the United States.

The fact that Obama is a United States citizen has never been at issue.  For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

1. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
2. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
3. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

The only problem is, his mother did not meet qualification number 3 because she was under the age of 19 when Obama was born, so it was impossible for her to have lived in the United States for a minimum of 5 years after her 14^th birthday.

That little technicality is basically a washout because as I said before nobody is questioning the fact that he is a United States citizen.  The only complaint is that he is not a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN as required by the Constitution to be even a candidate for the office of president.

This is the very issue that caused the American Grand Jury to hold numerous sittings to hear evidence.  In each case, they have found unanimously that Obama does not meet the Constitution’s requirements.  You can view a copy of the presentments of the last American Grand Jury at their website.

So why is it that the Democrats are suddenly interested in the Constitutional requirements for the office of President?  American citizens have tried since his own announcement as an American with dual citizenship to get Senators and Representatives for almost every state to stand up and speak out about this.  They have been asked to challenge his eligibility, and to this date only one lone Representative has dared to even discuss it openly, Congressman Nathan Deal from Georgia.

World Net Daily published an article which may be an indication of why the Democrats are so concerned.   Naturally, they do not seem to care that if true, it would mean political chaos in Washington.  They see this as a way to discredit their Republican challengers when faced with the possibilities of sitting at home after the November mid-term elections.

I think they may well be right, but not for the reasons they think.

The WND article by Bob Unruh refers to a memorandum sent to US Senate campaign offices providing what they think is a means to drive a wedge between Republicans who have adopted the so-called “tea-party-standards” and the Democrat and Independent voters.  The memorandum reportedly comes from the office of Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chief Robert Menendez.

The report said Menendez wants to use the questions to “frame” opponents and “drive a wedge” between moderates belonging to the GOP and those who have adopted the tea party standards advocating limited government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and more freedom for Americans.

The Democrat memo said, “Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical – yet time-sensitive – opportunity for Democratic candidates.

“We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.”

The Politico report listed the following questions for Democrat to ask of Republican opponents:

• Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?
• Do you think the 10^th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?
• Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?
• Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
• Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

The memo instructs that if a GOP candidate says no, make his or her “primary opponent or conservative activists know it.”

[…]

The website for the Democrat committee already has started demonizing Republicans in the “tea party” movement challenging Washington’s tax-and-spend agenda, massive health care takeover and plans for huge new energy taxes.

“Is the angry, irrational mob known as the ‘Tea Party’ one and the same as the Republican Party?” the site says. “After a summer of yelling about ’socialism’ and ‘death panels’ at town hall meetings, they have mobilized behind a number of Republican Senate candidates. We saw how energized they were in Massachusetts. If more of these candidates are elected in November, it will become harder and harder to make any progress in Washington.”

Wall Street Journal blogger James Taranto questioned the logic of Democrats raising the eligibility issue.  “Are we given to understand that the Democrats intend to run for office by raising questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president?” he asked. “That has got to be the most brilliant campaign strategy since Michael Dukakis and Max Cleland raised questions about their own patriotism.”

Please read the entire WND article for much more detailed information about this topic.

Obviously the Democrats are running scared.  They are seeing the uprisings from normal everyday people – the ones who elected them in the first place – and while they try to ignore us we can tell that our message is getting through.  They know their jobs are on the line and that the American people are the ones who have the right to hire and fire them when they do not represent the people to whom they are directly responsible.

Americans who are pressing the Obama eligibility issue broadly refer to the congressional hearings that were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen.”  They question why the same attention was not paid to verify Obama’s “natural born citizen” status.  Double standard?

I am distressed by the double standards that are becoming more and more evident on the stage of national politics in America.  A woman who stands up for what she believes is vilified because she has chosen to give birth to a special needs child.  Who led the attacks on her in many instances?  Women’s organizations which promote abortion by implying that a woman does not have an abortion when the circumstances are uncomfortable for her or do not fit in her lifestyle is somehow less a woman than one who chooses life for her child.

Currently, the same sort of uprising is being seen as another woman who chose life for her unborn child against the medical odds presented to her by her physician is being featured on an advertisement scheduled to run during the family event we call “The Super Bowl.”   This woman believes that all life is precious.  She was willing to stare down the odds and delivered a healthy, happy, bouncing baby boy.  Had Pam Tebow not made that choice, who would have won the Heisman Trophy at the end of the Florida Gators’ 2007 football season?

Have you heard the full story behind her decision to give birth to her son, Tim?  Read on:

(Tim) Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in Manilla in the Philippines, to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time.  While pregnant, Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba.  Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life.  She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.

All of the Tebow children were homeschooled by their mother, who worked to instill the family’s Christian beliefs along the way.  In 1996, legislation was passed in Florida allowing homeschooled students to compete in local high school sporting events. The law specifies that homeschooled students may participate on the team of the local school in the school district in which they live.  The Tebows lived in Jacksonville, Florida, and Tim played linebacker and tight end at the local Trinity Christian Academy for one season. Tebow’s preferred position was quarterback, but Trinity football team’s offense did not rely on passing the football, so he began to explore his options to play for a new high school.  He decided to attend Nease High School, which under head coach Craig Howard was known for having a passing offense. With the rest of his family living on a farm in Duval County, Tim and his mother moved into an apartment in nearby St. Johns County, making him eligible to play for the football team at Nease.

Because of the courage of Pam Tebow, the National Organization for Women, a George Soros front group who seem to be afraid of really strong women as role-models unless they have an abortion or two on their resume, are demanding that the advertisement not be aired.

This brings me to the end of this article and my questions to you are these; why is it so wrong for people to want to know that the Constitution of the United States is being upheld as strongly today as it was when it was written and ratified over 225 years ago?  And if being a loving wife and mother does not make a woman a feminist, why does having an abortion?

Ponder these and let me know what you decide.

For over a year, our lives have been in a boiling cauldron of indecision.  Those of us who remember simpler times have seen our worlds turned practically upside down.  We have been threatened with everything from big brother’s interference in our daily lives to death panels.

Many of us had time for a little breather from the new stressful lives we were being forced to live when Sarah Palin was suddenly “out there” with her book signing tour encouraging us to hold on and fight back.  She smiled at us, gave us a reason to laugh from time to time and spread her love for America to our bookstores, grocery stores, Sam’s Clubs, and military bases.

Then came our Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.  Maybe we were able to put our worries aside for a few hours – long enough to realize that as bad as we viewed our new world, things could be much worse.  They could, couldn’t they?  Well, couldn’t they?

Along came a distraction for all of us.  Massachusetts did the absolutely unthinkable – they elected a Republican in a special election to represent them in the US Senate.

Our newspapers, magazines and television are filled with “trust me” ads and more of the usual “support this – support that” campaign.  We cried with and prayed for the people of Haiti as they were so disastrously  affected by a hurricane.

Just when we thought our voices were being totally ignored by the people we had elected to represent us, we began to see a little change in a few of those people.  Those who had been shouting things like, “we have to tell the American people what they need because they don’t know what they need,” are now saying things like, “I don’t think the votes are there to pass this.”

You probably got this email as well, but many times we don’t open emails which say “FWD” because we are just plainly tired of more bad news – especially with our morning coffee.  I very rarely open forwards, and I never do if they are from people who are only acquaintances – not really good friends.  Everyone has many of those people on our email lists.

I opened this email from a lady I know through one of the organizations we both belong to.  I am very glad I did.  This email provided the first totally soul-lifting laugh I have had in… my goodness, I don’t remember the last time I laughed this hard.  I had to stop several times to wipe the tears from my eyes and catch my breath. You may not laugh as hard as I did, but maybe it will bring you a full smile if not a real laugh.

I had always thought that people who treated their pets like full-fledged family members must have nothing in their lives they felt deserving of their love and attention.  I had a Siamese cat.  I have always loved cats, but even my precious cat did not stop me from realizing he was an animal whom I loved having around – from time to time.  Then I got my adorable Pekingese puppies – one by one, they stole my heart and changed my life.

As each one of them went to “pet heaven”, I cried with the loss, felt the emptiness and moved on promising myself I would never have pets again.  I could enjoy watching other people with their pets and ooh and ahh over them enjoying their sweetness without getting “involved. “

It’s a short email, but if you didn’t read it, you should have.  That’s why I’m putting it on the front page for you.  We as a nation need to lighten our moods if even for the length of time it takes to read this.

If you are like me and thought you had forgotten how to laugh, read on:

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE PETS, THIS IS A TRUE STORY. FOR THOSE THAT
DON’T, IT IS A TRUE STORY.

The following was found posted very low on a refrigerator door.

Dear Dogs and Cats:

The dishes with the paw prints are yours and contain your food.  The other dishes are mine and contain my food.  Placing a paw print in the middle of my plate and food does not stake a claim for it becoming your food and dish, nor do I find that aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.

The stairway was not designed by NASCAR and is not a racetrack.  Racing me to the bottom is not the object.  Tripping me doesn’t help because I fall faster than you can run.

I cannot buy anything bigger than a king sized bed.  I am very sorry about this.  Do not think I will continue sleeping on the couch to ensure your comfort, however.  Dogs and cats can actually curl up in a ball when they sleep.  It is not necessary to sleep perpendicular to each other stretched out to the fullest extent possible.  I also know that sticking tails straight out and having tongues hanging out on the other end to maximize space is nothing but sarcasm.

For the last time, there is no secret exit from the bathroom!  If, by some miracle, I beat you there and manage to get the door shut, it is not necessary to claw, whine, meow, try to turn the knob or get your paw under the edge in an attempt to open the door. I must exit through the same door I entered.  Also, I have been using the bathroom for years - canine/feline attendance is not required.

The proper order for kissing is:
Kiss me first then go smell the other dog or cat’s butt.  I cannot stress this enough.

Finally, in fairness, dear pets, I have posted the following message on the front door:

TO ALL  NON-PET OWNERS WHO VISIT AND LIKE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT OUR  PETS:

(1) They live here. You don’t.
(2) If you don’t want their hair on your clothes, stay off the furniture.  That’s why they call it ‘fur’-niture.
(3) I like my pets a lot better than I like most people.
(4) To you, they are animals. To me, they are adopted sons/daughters who are short, hairy, walk on all fours and don’t speak clearly.

Remember, dogs and cats are better than kids because they:
(1) eat less
(2) don’t ask for money all the time
(3) are easier to train
(4) normally come when called
(5) never  ask to drive the car
(6) don’t smoke or drink
(7)  don’t want to wear your clothes
(8) don’t have to buy  the latest fashions
(9) don’t need a gazillion dollars  for college and
(10) if  they get pregnant, you can sell their children …

On January 11, I posted an article about why the Libertarian Party scares me for America.  In that article, I provided information from their own party platform.  For many people, that may not have been enough even with my comments added.

Today, I was sent the following information in the words of the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky, Ken Moellman.  Mr. Moellman posted this on the LPKY forum calling it a “clarification.”  He was right.  It certainly clarified a lot of things for me.  I was right all along, and Mr. Moellman gave me the proof.

My comments will be added to the section for which they apply highlighted by using a different color and separated by brackets.

I wanted to take a moment to clarify the latest press release, since you can’t write a novel in a press release.

Let’s start out again by reiterating that Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. (emphasis his)

[Do you wonder why?  How about this for the reason:  In May, 2009 Dr. Rand Paul stated "I know that third party candidates can’t win in KY. Although I’m a Libertarian at heart, I’ve decided to run as a Republican. Once I win I’ll be able to promote my father’s principles and work towards reforming the Republican party."]

Libertarians, as you all should already know, agree with Democrats and Republicans on certain issues, though not always for the same reasons.

We have classically agreed with Republicans on economic freedom. In the 1980’s, Reagan preached a message of economic liberty that rang true for many of our members: Reducing taxes, eliminating barriers to entry, etc. The Republicans of the early 90’s advocated returning power from the federal government to the states, and that also attracted Libertarians. This is our influence from Goldwater.

We have classically agreed with Democrats when it came to social freedom: Live and let live, people have a right to make their own lifestyle decisions as long as they don’t force them upon others. This is our influence from the hippie movement.

[Here they go again.  No religious consideration allowed.  The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:21-26)  By supporting state amendments to gay marriage, it is forcing this lifestyle on me for acceptance, and according to my faith, I CANNOT accept it.  Child pornography and sexual abuse are sinfully wrong as well as being socially wrong, and this Libertarian statement that someone else’s lifestyle decision to participate in this kind of behavior is okay as long as they don’t get caught because then it forces our laws to deal with the offenders simply does not hold water – hippie movement or not!  Abortion is murder regardless of whether you view it as a “chosen lifestyle” or not.  It ends a life – a human life – and has sometimes disasterous effects on a woman’s body.  By using our laws to allow abortions, I am being forced to accept the lifestyle that I abhor.  How can that be right in their eyes?]

The confusion is due to both the Republicans and Democrats having strayed from the points where we once classically agreed with them. Republicans voted for the Bank Bailout and ran massive deficits from 2000 through 2006. Democrats now want to force people into certain lifestyle choices, such national healthcare.

[It’s okay to not force people into the lifestyle choice of a national healthcare program, but not okay for them to force legalized murder in the form of a lifestyle choice?  Where is the logic in that line of thinking?]

And make no mistake, our non-agression principle is what drives us to be economic conservatives and socially tolerant (formerly, liberal). So there are places where we haven’t agreed with either party.

[Is this a clue that the Libertarian Party is a liberal organization which does not espouse true conservative values?]

Real fiscal and social conservatives are rare these days, especially in politics. Omnibus bills are not a new development. They existed and were passed all through the GWB administration. Social conservativism lives on, but it’s slightly different than 20 years ago. I can’t quite pin-point the difference. Maybe someone else can tell me.

Just as rare are the true fiscal and social liberals. Today, a social “liberal” as defined by popular vernacular is one who wants to take all of your money redistribute it, and to take your personal healthcare choices and mandate a “minimum”.

So, when a candidate like Rand Paul pops up, who is a fiscal and social conservative, in the way things used to be in the 1980s, his opponents label him a “Libertarian”, for multiple reasons. And Rand Paul even more-so.

(1) Modern Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. That’s led to the rise of the TEA Party movement. Perhaps you’ve heard of that (heh).

[He neglected to mention how many Democrats ALSO participate in the TEA Party movement.  TEA stands for TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.  I should think that is a movement that MANY Americans would agree with.]

(2) His father is Ron Paul is/was a Libertarian. Ron was our 1988 Presidential Candidate. But does this mean that the son MUST believe everything that the father espouses? Of course not. That’s what the media and his opponents are trying to make you believe, though.

[Would Rand Paul’s own words help with this?  He confirms, “I agree with my father on all but minor issues.”  In this quote Dr. Paul says that one of those “minor issues” is earmarks which his father is well-known for supporting.]

(3) The opponents are losing, and they’re losing traction fast. Recent polls show that TEA Party candidates are much more popular than establishment Republican candidates. Rand Paul is a TEA Party candidate.

[Once again, the TEA Party movement is a movement based on the continuing increase in taxes.  They are NOT a political partytherefore they have no candidates of their own.]

Now, I will not fault the man for being a fiscal conservative. As I’m a fiscal conservative myself, I appreciate his stands on fiscal issues. This is where Libertarians and Republicans had traditionally agreed.

But we disagree on social issues. He is a social conservative and advocates the continued use of government to maintain that social conservativism. I’m socially tolerant, living a socially conservative lifestyle by choice. This is where we part company, and what definitively makes Rand Paul a “TEA Party” Republican, not a Libertarian.

I hope this is clear, and this is a thread open to discussion, so please feel free to comment.

For those within the LPKY party structure, that are confused about these statements and the FEC regulations I’ve been warning of, for the past year: I am defending the LPKY, not promoting Rand Paul. I did not ask for this fight, but we must defend our party. We are not Rand Paul, and Rand Paul is not us. It does not serve us well to allow the GOP smear machine to associate the two.

You are correct, Mr. Moellman.  It does NOT serve you well when a candidate for ANY political office says he is Libertarian at heart but running as a Republican because he knows he wouldn’t win as the third party candidate.  You are right to distance yourself from him.  It gives your policies a better chance of being instituted.  You are an intelligent man, Mr. Moellman.  Sometimes, intelligence is a good thing, but at other times it attempts to hide the forest by planting more trees.  Not a good call, Mr. Moellman.

Kentucky voters are intelligent, too, Mr. Moellman.  They will see straight through this subterfuge of your and your party’s statements and Dr. Paul’s beliefs.  They will elect the only truly conservative candidate in the race for US Senator for Kentucky, Mr. Bill Johnson, the REAL conservative – the REAL Republican.

I choose to believe the words of a Kentucky citizen and registered voter who like me supports conservative values and conservative candidates.  Lisa Graas has an excellent post on this topic that I would encourage you to read.

Mr. Moellman has proven the points I made in my earlier article.  I am right to be sceptical and even frightened for my country by their opinions and public platform.

Every once in awhile, even a Democrat can get a little scared.  Senator Ben Nelson has caught nothing but heat from all sides in his “Cornhusker Kickback” sweetheart deal he was so proud to secure for Nebraska.  At least, he was until the stuff started hitting the fan – and much of it was coming from Nebraska.

Then they started falling like dominoes… Dems “deciding” to retire and not seek reelection in 2010.  Yeah, right!  They want to spend more time with their families.  Sure they do.  Truth be told, they know they will lose this election and they are just plain scared to death of losing.  Many of them are doing the same things they’ve done in the Senate or the House since they were first elected.. refusing to stand up and face the music.

Poor old Ben Nelson – I truly expect his “retirement” announcement any day now.  In the meantime, did you see this letter he supposedly wrote to Harry Reid?  Check it out.  Especially if you haven’t had a good laugh yet today.

“Nelson Asks Reid to Drop Medicaid Break for Nebraska”

Haa Haa… good one, Ben!

When I decided that I would “endorse” particular Conservative candidates for national or state offices in the elections to be held this year, I defined the word as meaning supporting with my words and providing a platform for the candidate’s message.  I am the first to admit that the few hundred readers I have here at this website on any given day are far from the thousands of readers some blogs produce.  Still, I know that my readers expect me to take a stand for conservative candidates and issues because of my support for Governor Sarah Palin.

I would be untruthful to them and to myself if I did anything differently.  I recognized immediately that an endorsement from a small-time blogger doesn’t carry the weight, and probably shouldn’t carry the weight, of a big-name corporation or even a more widely-read blogger.  Still, my voice is important to the candidates I choose to support simply because it is one more place they get a little advertising while being able to use their advertising dollars more effectively.  Word of mouth is a POWERFUL advertisement!

One of the candidates I support is Bill Johnson, candidate for US Senate for Kentucky. Please notice my choice of words – Bill Johnson FOR Kentucky.  In almost every instance those are the words I choose because not only is Bill Johnson FROM Kentucky, he is also working FOR Kentucky.  To me, that is a huge commitment from a political candidate.  Mr. Johnson has made this commitment while none of the others running against him have.  He is working FOR the state he loves.  Remind you of anyone else you know?  I’ll give you a hint… her initials are Sarah Palin.

Rand Paul is a RINO.  The only reason he is running as a Republican is because the Libertarian Party has such negative name association.  They have EARNED that name association by their very party platform.  Somewhere there is an unwritten rule that if you don’t run for office for one of the two major political parties you have no chance of winning an election.

My response to that is if getting elected is your main priority, you may be right.  But if you want to be elected to serve the people of your constituency, they will support your candidacy regardless of your party affiliation.

The organizations who “endorse” various candidates do so for one reason – BACK SCRATCHING.   Such is the reason behind the endorsement of the Gun Owners of America for Rand Paul.  This press release from the Bill Johnson campaign proves my point as only the truth can prove a point of this magnitude.

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA ENDORSEMENT OF RAND PAUL ABOUT MONEY
Individual rights of the unborn are less important than guns

ELKTON — Kentucky GOP Senate Candidate Bill Johnson today issued the following statement about the Gun Owners of America’s endorsement of Rand Paul.

“My campaign contacted the Gun Owners of America (GOA) leadership today for an understanding of the recent endorsement of Rand Paul.  Mr. John Velleco of GOA explained that the organization based their endorsement on campaign finance reports and their longstanding relationship with the elder Ron Paul.

“That does not make sense.  Apparently, a grassroots campaign with minimal funding and no Washington network is unworthy of support from the Gun Owners of America.  The endorsement of GOA was for sale and sold to the campaign with the most money.

“The Gun Owners of America leadership has turned its back on a gulf war veteran and active gun owner for the sake of money.  Additionally, they have chosen to endorse a candidate in Rand Paul who has turned his back on the unborn and our individual right to equal protection of the 14th amendment.  I proudly stand with the National Rifle Association and their view that the 14th amendment provides a foundation for the individual right to own guns.

“Score one for the Washington establishment.  However, the Pauls’ will soon learn that Kentucky voters will not be as easily bought as was the endorsement of the GOA.  It would also be refreshing if the recently endorsed Rand Paul would actually demonstrate some competency with a firearm.”

I suggest that before you support a candidate – ANY candidate for ANY office – that you carefully examine the reasons for the endorsement.  It might give you a different opinion of the candidate you thought your support would benefit.

Bill Johnson’s conservative message rings even more true with me today than it did months ago when I had added his name and the link to his campaign web site to the sidebar of this blog.  At that time, he had not even filed for office.   I had not spoken with him personally or with anyone else in his campaign.  I have now, and my support for him has not wavered.  He IS the voice of conservatism for Kentucky in the senatorial election.

With pride in my country and dedication to my beliefs, I am very proud to endorse Bill Johnson, candidate for the US Senate FOR Kentucky.

I thought it might be a good idea to give everyone a little head’s up so we can all plan our celebration parties accordingly.  It takes a lot of planning, you know, to paint all our states RED.

Here is a list of the Primary Elections for all states listed in date order:

PRIMARIES IN DATE ORDER

• Jan. 29 – Special Election – Massachusetts

• Feb. 2 –     Illinois

• Mar. 2 –     Texas

• May 4 –     Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio

• May 11 –     Nebraska, West Virginia

• May 18 –     Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania

• May 25 –     Idaho

• June 1 –     Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico

• June 8 -    California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia

• June 22 –     Utah

• July 20 –     Georgia

• July 27 –     Oklahoma

• Aug. 3 –     Kansas, Michigan, Missouri

• Aug. 5 –     Tennessee

• Aug. 10 –     Colorado, Connecticut

• Aug. 17 –     Washington, Wyoming

• Aug. 24 –     Alaska, Arizona, Florida

• Aug. 28 –     Louisiana (1st party Congressional)

• Sept. 14 –     Delaware, DC, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin

• Sept. 18 –     Hawaii

• Oct. 2 –     Louisiana (State Primary & 2nd party Congressional runoff)

NOVEMBER 2 – NATIONAL CELEBRATIONS – HANDING WALKING PAPERS TO LIBERALS ACROSS AMERICA!