Amazing, Romney still battles Ron Paul in New Jersey

The battle for the soul of the Republican Party is still ongoing.  If you doubt that, take a look at the Romney henchman in New Jersey, who is even now, doing everything within his power to resist the involvement of grass roots Ron Paul people.  What you saw in Tampa, where Ron Paul delegates, mostly young and war veterans and Hispanics were unseated, continues in other ways, unabated in state after state, county after county.

Governor Mitt Romney is conducting a war on two fronts.  On the one hand he is trying to wrest control of the White House from the Democrats in a close election.  But simultaneously, as distracting and draining as it may be, he continues the brutal scrub of any challenge to the American oligarchical system by destroying the last vestiges of democracy within his own Republican Party.

Here’s a typical story, this one coming from New Jersey.

In June a number of Ron Paul activists ran for the Jersey City’s Republican Committee.  They won.  And like innocent Ron Paul winners everywhere they thought that they would be able to assume their new positions.

But the Committee Chairman, threatened by his new members, called his meeting without telling them.  It’s an old story, very familiar to Ron Paul activists.  Russell Maffei, Chairman of the Committee, and a strong Mitt Romney supporter, apparently worried that he would lose his position.

Last month, according to a story in the Hudson Reporter, Maffei was asked if “the underlying dispute really has to do with insurgent Ron Paul supporters coming onto the Committee, Maffei said, ‘Yeah, maybe. Why haven’t any of these people contacted me about working for Romney?’”

A lawsuit may force Maffei and the Committee to allow its duly elected members to participate but the story is yet another example that the brutal battle in the trenches is still ongoing.

Sometimes Romney’s involvement is direct, with people on his own payroll.  (See: Romney and Charlie the Cheater.)  But even if one gives the GOP candidate the benefit of the doubt, and concludes that this is only the spontaneous work of politically inept and threatened, power hungry people at the local level, even them, Romney has never repudiated the tactics.

When the pro Romney governor of Maine, a loyal GOP leader, pleaded with the RNC to seat the duly elected delegation from Maine, in spite of their Ron Paul allegiance, he was ignored and the Romney convention tossed them out, replacing them with unelected toadies as puppet delegates instead.  The governor was genuinely impressed by the involvement of so many young people and thought that his Party would welcome them.  And this New Jersey story sounds like a replay.  It was a Republican establishment  leader, Sean Connelly, the former Chairman of the Hudson County Republican Committee who imagined he was doing a good thing by encouraging the young Ronulans to get involved.  Doesn’t the GOP want to grow?  Don’t they want to win?

It must all look like Alice in Wonderland to the uninitiated.  Why would the GOP hurt itself by keeping out the young, the Hispanic, the Independents, even the Democrats?   But as the Liberty people know, the challenge within the GOP represents a people’s revolution against the establishment, an oligarchy that runs the country and depends on easy money created electronically by the Federal Reserve and loaned out to them through their banks and their corporations at zero percent interest while the rest of us pay through the nose.

The contest did not end in Tampa.  The war for the soul of America goes on.  And the more that the Romney GOP establishment defrauds us, behind the curtain, pulling the levers of power, then the more likely we will be to pull the lever for Gary Johnson, behind the curtain of our voting booth this November.

About these ads

237 Responses to Amazing, Romney still battles Ron Paul in New Jersey

  1. pff136 says:

    Oh I love it! It’s time to let the dogs loose! woof! And they have no idea how big this political movement is! : )

  2. andrea says:

    Doug, do you ever address these things when you are a guest on MSM shows?

    • Doug Wead says:

      Well I haven’t been on since it started happening at the state conventions. Last time I was allowed on was around South Carolina before the state conventions shenanigans started. Believe me, I would love to have a shot.

      • SCBFly says:

        Oh no no no.

        “……was around South Carolina before the state conventions shenanigans started”??? Sorry to say but “SC” and ‘before shenanigans’ do not mix here.

        Shutting down the SC convention and sending us home with the delegate vote uncounted and unreported with a “Thanks y’all for comin'”, I’d count as shenanigans.

        Perhaps you did not get an accurate account of the SC Convention. I was at the SC Convention, on the ballot even and we had no idea as to the vote results because they shut down the convention (adjourned without vote count) and still to this day I do not know what happened to/with the votes/vote tally etc and I did not get the results until after 1:30 p.m. the day after the convention from some guys blog I did not even know. You’d think someone on the ballot would at least deserve an answer up front.

        The whole process was rotten from Iowa forward. The GOP allowed the election to be purchased. Period.

      • Jim says:

        Maybe now you’ll get another chance: Ron Paul was just declared the number one “TOP HOUSE VOTE MISSER”

        http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/major/house

        Will be looking forward to hearing your spin how this self-serving politician hasn’t ripped off the tax-paying constituents he represents by missing 37% of house votes (you know, the job he was elected and is paid to do?).

  3. annebeck58 says:

    It surely did not happen in just a few states.
    In Austin, Texas, I was elected (sure, by default, but elected nonetheless) as my precinct’s chair.
    And when Mitt’s minion in our Travis County Rep Party heard that I could not support Romney, they sent my info to the Texas Rep Party chair, Steve Muniesteri (same Steve who said he “looked FORWARD to” the delegate-lawsuit), to toss me out on my ear. Not only did Steve and Rosemary Edwards, TCRP-Chairwoma, tell me I needed to vacate my seat if I would refuse to back Mitt, Steve emailed me and directly told me to leave the Republican party, completely!
    I did tell them, given that my tenure would be a full two years and we were only looking at the two months left (at that time) of the federal (s)election, and that there were other Reps I could support. Yet, they told me in no uncertain terms, “Get OUT!”
    Now, I am being investigated– much more seriously at this point and this Felony-charge may have already been brought to the Grande-Jury, by the District Attorney who’s seeking an indictment against me. It makes zero sense; their charge. I could not have done what I have been accused of doing and it seems this all points back to me speaking my mind on all of the voter-fraud. So, tag; I am IT.

    I think it’s insane. But, the Bipartisan Crime-Inc really does not like being questioned or having their filthy laundry aired. Sorry for them, but, when I see something wrong I feel a duty to all citizens to speak out. And now I have to play their game.

    • Ann says:

      I am very saddened to hear that Munisteri did this. I don’t doubt you, but it does surprise me. However, this is the second story I’ve heard that made me look twice at a man I had some respect for.

      • @AnneBeck58 says:

        It surprised me, too.
        I thought he was better than this. I now know he’s not. I did save his emails to me, as well as those from Rosemary.
        I really believed they were patriots, because they said so.

    • Cin Warren says:

      Good luck to you ;; you will be in my thoughts and I hope everything works out :)

      • annebeck58 says:

        Thanks, Cin.
        I feel a bit better since speaking with a good attorney yesterday. Problem is I need an atty here, to go through the initial charges with me. After this, if they push forward (and seems they want to), I can some bigger help.

      • annebeck58 says:

        (meant to say: I have some bigger help, bigger names, willing to help, after initial charges, if they go through.)

    • ___j___ says:

      There are actually two separate things here. If you are a precinct chair, you cannot just be ordered to leave by some pooh-bah. You have to be unseated for cause. Did they claim you broke any rule, or just say Mitt-or-the-highway? Because unless there’s an actual rule, they *cannot* just say such things, and strip you of your seat.

      South Carolina has such a rule, and has been using it to strip paulitician folks of their seats. (Might be a state law there even?) Alaska has such a rule, at the party level. EvanAlaska, for example, voluntarily stepped down from his bonus-vote, so he would not be forced to only campaign for Mitt. Rumor has it he’ll return to the repub party for 2014, however. Because if we give up on the repub party forever, we will at that moment lose our only shot at liberty, which is conversion of the repub party from within. Third party candidates are a good testbed, but the Duverger-math of our voting system *guarantees* Dem & Repub will always dominate.

      Does anybody know if Texas, where annebeck58 was (and still is I would argue!) chair of a repub precinct, has a RULE that if the county chair or the state-party-chair feels like it, they can unseat you?

    • ___j___ says:

      The second thing is the attempt to put a felony on Anne, who (besides being an elected precinct chair) was also an election-judge during the repub-primary. She blew the whistle when she noticed a bunch of irregularities at her precinct. From her blog about the matter, it sounds like there were a bunch of seemingly-minor rule violations, which still are violations of the election code and thus serious. But there were two particular irregularities that sound a lot worse when taken together than either would alone.

      First, Anne kept a tally of penmarks on her hand, saying how many folks came into the polling-place that, when asked to affiliate themselves with a party, said “the Ron Paul party” or maybe “republican for THIS election only” or somesuch response. She didn’t peek at the ballots. She didn’t ask anybody who they voted for. She just recorded her opinion, or in some cases, the voters volunteered the information, as a set of not-personally-identifiable penmarks.

      Second, the precinct was pure-electronic-voting, no paper ballots, no voter-verifiable paper-based audit-trail, no nothing. They were all trained to explain to voters that the paper provisional ballots would NOT be actually counted. There was supposed to be a wireless net connection to the central office, so that the voting-software could keep track of all the votes from each precinct. But for most of the day, the wireless from Anne’s precinct was turned off, allegedly by mistake.

      Third, as you prolly have guessed by now, the massive number of penmarks for Ron Paul that Anne had guesstimated on her hand was nowhere *near* matched by the paltry number of Ron Paul votes officially counted for her precinct on that day. Maybe it was just that Anne was so hoping Ron Paul would win, she overestimated how many voters indicated him as their choice? Maybe. Or, perhaps many of those voters that came in planning to vote for Ron Paul, and saying as much, changed their minds at the last second, and picked some other candidate? Maybe. Or, just possibly… fraud? Maybe.

      The city clerk and the county DA have been collecting evidence on the precinct in question, and Anne is being stripped of her new chair, plus accused on felony charges of Revealing Votes. (This is related to keeping the secret ballot — as guaranteed by the constitution if memory serves — so that for example the mafia cannot come to your house after the election and break your knees if you did not vote as they instructed. But of course, it only applies if you can match the *actual* votes to the actual *specific* voters. Anne putting some guesstimate penmarks on her hand seems to hardly qualify. So prolly the felony charge is more related to her refusing to support Mitt….

      At least, that’s what a twin-party conspiracy theorist would say! Not me, oh no, I support Mitt, all hail the Romineeyyyyy… no… noooo! Let go of my keyboard you black-suited naz

      #!_____=3–…3.3.k.6j5^^^^^^^NOCARRIER

  4. Rod Carew says:

    Hi Doug ~

    Thanks for another update…Speechless to these ongoing and Outrageous tactics.They will never achieve what they hope to come out of this…but only more of what we have.And maybe worse. So let Truth keep rolling on like a river. Lets keep doing what’s right and watch for miracles.

  5. joe_liberty says:

    Doug, I love you as a person, but when are you and all the other people going to wake up and realize that this party cannot be “reformed?” It must go to the dung heap of history. The only way to change the system is to vote away from the two party system, even then the rigged system will make up votes that they never had just as they always do. This thing is NOT going away until a total collapse of the American Oligarchial System finally implodes. When it does, it will be too late and we will all have boots on our necks.

    • ___j___ says:

      Joe, I love you as a person… errr… uh. Okay, actually, I don’t even know you, but your username has liberty in it, and I like that part.

      You are saying, when stripped bare, the following things.
      #1. repub party cannot be reformed.
      #2. repub party must be ended/scrapped
      #3. voting third-party might help, but…
      #4. …not if vote-counts are rigged
      #5. therefore we must sit and wait for WWIII
      #6. but even then, we’ll just get a dictator.

      You’ll pardon me if I think you sound a wee bit defeatist. There is a simple mathematical reason why you are wrong from on #1. We don’t have to change every citizen, just people who bother to vote. But, we don’t have to reform *every* single person that has ever voted for a repub. That would involve changing the minds of 60M citizens. Of those, only 30% identify as repubs, plus another 15% that are indep but lean repub. Most of both subgroups just follow the crowd. We don’t even need to change the minds of all the repub-primary-voters, which is still 20M people. Most of *those* people are just followers, as well. Who really actually matters? A few tiny groups.

      There are 3200 county chairs, and 3200 vice-chairs, plus thousands of precinct-chairs. These are all elected positions, at the local level, but typically the races are not competitive: often nobody runs! Voters get into the booths to pick presidents and senators, but get bored with a long ballot… many times they just abstain on the precinct chairs. These people have the BULK of the power in the republican party, with key roles in shaping the delegate-selection process, the platform, and the overall tone of the party in terms of fairness and openness. Total population-count: less than 100k people. Primary-voters required to win these positions: often zero, usually a few hundred neighbors, in rare cases (highly-active big city precincts) perhaps a thousand locals.

      Delegates that go beyond their precinct-level, to the district & county convention, to the state convention, and to the national convention, absolutely one hundred percent control the party rules, the credentials committee, and the content of the party platform. This is true at the state-level in all 56 “states” as Obama would say, plus also at the national level of course. To a lesser extent, they control the choice of potus and vpotus, but various binding-rules *do* limit that power. Usually, whoever has the most superpac money will win most of the primary-elections, because they can reach out to 20M people with teevee. Everything changes if the county chair or vice-chair disagree with those teevee advertisements, though!

      Finally, and most importantly, the precinct & county chairs, plus their shaped-delegations to the state conventions, are responsible for selecting the state party executive committees in all 56 ‘states’… but they are also responsible for electing a state party chair, a state party national-committeeman, and a state party national-committeewoman. Those three people from each state are the controllers of the entire system, at least on paper. In actuality, most of them are beholden to behind-the-scenes leash-holders: wealthy donors from the banking bailout industry, the military industrial complex, big pharma, energy (especially oil), and so on. But this need not be the case. In the state of Maine, despite the efforts of Charlie Cheater and Ben Ginsberg, pauliticians elected Ashley Ryan as national-committeewoman. She stared down John constitution-suicide-pact Sununu at the rules committee in Tampa this year. Her honorable governor (who until then was a Romney supporter) boycotted the national convention, when the credentials committee refused to seat his full delegation. She lost both battles. We only had 25 or 30 votes on our side, and we needed twice that. Maine was stripped, and could not join in nominating Ron Paul. The rules were changed, with the One Rule To Wring Them All, the new rule#12, rammed through the convention-body-as-a-whole via teleprompter-scripting. Obama does it too, of course. http://www.fox19.com/story/19479204/reality-check-dnc-runs-over-delegates-with-scripted-platform-vote

      But, as long as we don’t give up, our loss was only temporary. Ashley just turned 21 this year. Sununu is going to be 77 by the time 2016 rolls around, which is not-so-coincidentally the same age as Ron Paul is this year. Sununu is overweight — he might decide to retire before the next presidential election. Ashley Ryan, given the improved healthcare outcomes for women born in the 1990s compared to men born in the 1930s, and adjusting for the cushy job of being a famous politician, is likely to retire circa 2088.

      For those keeping track, that would be ~20 presidential terms from now. We will win some of those. But we must stand.

    • ___j___ says:

      p.s. As for voting third-party (#3), there is always the worry about the votes being ignored/invalidated/rigged/whatever (#4), but there is a more fundamental problem. Mathematically, the way our voting system actually works, it *must* be dominated by two major parties, making all third-party attempts at actually winning elections doomed.

      This isn’t to say that a third-party candidate cannot EVER win, nor that a third-party candidacy is pointless (Gary Johnson is famous now because he decided to run on the libertarian ticket… after the rules were rigged to keep him out of the republican primary debate). But the math is very clear: over time, dems and repubs *will* dominate. Regardless of the quality of candidates, or type of policy-stances.

      Therefore, it either boils down to taking over the repub party from the inside (#1), as hard as that is going to be, or going Galt (#5). I’m arguing that we still have a shot at a peaceful internal r3V0Jution, where we win positions in the power-structure, and then use those positions to convince everyday repub-primary-voters that liberty is the correct policy-stance. That last part is easy: freedom is popular!

      • annebeck58 says:

        Hey, J.
        As I told you, yesterday, I do agree. But, I also know how impossible it is to stay in, especially if one does not wish to lie or simply doesn’t speak falsehoods easily.
        I have to go my conscience. I had to speak my conscience when I told our county Rep chair and our state Rep chair that I could never support that criminal, Romney. Yet so many people said, “JUST LIE”, “Just PRETEND”. It’s not in me.

        I did tell our chairmen (and/or woman) that I could surely support other Republicans in the (so called) battle this year. It was only Romney Ryan I could not go with. And this is a good enough reason to remove me. It’s been only a whisper of this same statement, by other precinct-chairs or captains, that has removed them all over the country. It takes one neo-con Rep saying so-and-so does not support Romney/Ryan, or is pro-Ron Paul, to get them removed.

        So I get both sides of this argument.
        And I would not lie to them.
        That is really what was behind me having my seat taken away. For this, I would love to see this particular party taken down. I don’t think we have a decent base to start with when those in-charge are nowhere near the patriotic voters we need. They need to be gotten rid of and leaving the party via mass-exodus is probably the way to remove their power.

        By the way, Indies are growing faster than any first/second party. The Republican party is shrinking and I think the only way to stop these horrible people is to remove us from the equation. They will lose money when they don’t have the numbers to support the larger donations. Right now, the Ron Paul patriots are being used as numbers, only. We are (or I was) warm bodies, only, to these people.

      • ___j___ says:

        Anne, I’m not implying that you ought to lie, to anybody. Tell the truth. And if the truth is, you cannot support Romney, but you support the rest of the repub ticket, then you’re in good company. Three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, and three-time presidential candidate Alan Keyes, say pretty much exactly the same. Being in the republican party does not mean you always vote for the party nominee, or they shoot you. That would be the Communist party, now wouldn’t it? Reagan’s 11th commandment is not followed by Mitt, in the primaries or now, so why should Mitt-supporters expect *you* to follow it? They are purely power-grubbing hypocrites.

        “And this is a good enough reason to remove me. …one neo-con Rep saying so-and-so does not support Romney/Ryan, or is pro-Ron Paul, to get them removed.”

        *This* is what I’m fighting against. This is exactly what I am saying we ought to be against. I’m not even saying that you, personally, need to agree with me. If you believe that say-so from some neocon, and a back-room deal with a county chair or a state chair, is enough of a reason to evict an elected precinct chair… well, you are wrong, but it’s (supposed to be) a free country, and you must believe what you wish. Moreover, I don’t think you *believe* it should be that way, I just get the impression that you haven’t the time and energy to fight back at the moment. Which is no shame! You’re under direct attack from the most powerful forces in the country right now, the shady leash-holders that run the twin-party system, and want liberty-folks booted. You came into your chair-slot honestly, and you were treated as an enemy, publically expelled by the local & state leadership, and might even get slammed with a ludicrous felony. That is no joking matter.

        Nobody here would tell you, please Anne you *must* fight. This is the liberty movement, and what we tell you is this: Anne, we are behind you, 100% and beyond. You are in charge of your life. You assess the risks that you are willing to take. You decide whether this battle is one worth fighting. You are an individual, and you have to think for yourself, you have to study the situation and decide. That’s freedom! My argument is not that you ought to do X, or that you ought to do Y, or that you ought anything, except what *you* decide you ought to do. I’m just trying to assert, as strongly as possible, that folks should not accept the authority of their local pooh-bah, their state party-chair, or some gigantic authoritarian rock-monster a hundred feet tall with a flaming sword, that tries to boot them from their seat. That is NOT fair, that is NOT right, and even if you decide to leave under the threat clearly being made on your life and your liberty, all I would ask is that you don’t give them the moral sanction of saying they COULD do what they are doing to you. They ARE doing it, but it’s wrong. Understand what I’m saying?

        p.s. “leaving the party via mass-exodus is probably the way … Indies are growing faster than any first/second party.”

        Here we just disagree. They want us to leave, that’s *why* they are attacking you, and attacking the folks in NJ mentioned by Doug, and attacking the guy in SC that I heard about via youtube. They don’t care if you go independent, they don’t care if you go third-party, all they care about is WHO PICKS THE NOMINEE(S), which happens in the dem-primaries and the repub-primaries of the twin-party system. Mathematically, they are *guaranteed* to dominate. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

        Independents and third-party voters this election have their choice of Obama, or their choice of Romney. Nobody else, even Gary, will get any electoral *college* votes in 2012. Ross Perot was a hundred times richer and three times as popular as Gary Johnson, and he got the exact same thing: zero ecVotes. The primary contests are everything; the general election is just a facade. Ron Paul understood this, finally, after his 1988 candidacy.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Yeah. I never said it was right for true conservative republicans to leave I said it’s the way it’s happening., the way they (we) are being pushed out. And, especially in certain (North-Eastern) states, the Indies are far surpassing the Reps (or new Reps) and the Dems, too. New enlistees to the indy (esp Libertarian) party are mostly Ron-Paul Republicans.

        I did not say you said I should lie. It was other (MANY) Ron Paul Republicans, from all over the USA, who told me to just lie. And I couldn’t. Because I couldn’t I was told to get out.

        This is what I was saying.

        Haven’t we all asked this, “Why is the GOP so completely suicidal this year?”

      • ___j___ says:

        “They will lose money when they don’t have the numbers to support the larger donations.”

        I agree, do not donate to the party! Donate direct to liberty-candidates. The party cannot demand your money, nor your vote, however. They are not the Central Soviet, right?

        But they *do* control the Fed, and the central bank fiat printing press. They don’t need our donations, they can just create indirect bailouts. Repub party is Too Big To Fail (unlike not-quite-Big-enough Bird).

      • annebeck58 says:

        You see, J, this is where we disagree. I don’t see the Repubs as too-big-to-fail. They would not be the first big-establishment party to go away. I think, if enough of us leave (or even stay-in and dismantle them from inside), they can fail. And they should fail.
        It could work, either way, but the party as it is now, filled with terrible people who really do not care about their larger base, should fail. I have said, in recent past, they should go the way of the Whigs and Tories.. But I think the Whigs are (sort of) still around. So, they should go the way of the Tories.

        From within or from without; as long as they take advantage of (financially, vote-wise) the people who actually do the work, the people should take them out. I think the only thing preventing it is the media= FauxsNewzzz and those who wish to be like them, and that the worker-bees believe they are in this. They are only in it as long as they are useful and they don’t have any bright ideas that it’s really their party.

      • ___j___ says:

        “…other (MANY) Ron Paul Republicans, from all over the USA, who told me to just lie. And I couldn’t.”

        Well, they were wrong. We must keep to the high moral ground. Sneaking and lying is not the path to victory. Liberty and justice for all is what we stand for, and people who say we ought to lie are not helping us, any more than people who say we ought to be stockpiling ammo. There is nothing wrong with ammo, but our time is better spent on ideas, as Ron Paul keeps trying to tell us. There clearly *is* something wrong with lying: that makes us no better than the neocons who said Saddam was buying yellowcake, to trick the UN.

        “Because I couldn’t [lie about Mitt] I was told to get out.”

        I believe you. But I disbelieve they have the *rules* on their side. Did they say it was a party rule, or part of the election code? Because although that’s true in some states, like SC laws and AK party-rules from what I’ve heard, never heard that about Texas, land of the open primaries, and with supposedly-better party leadership than in 2008.
        ( http://www.FairConvention.org covers the ‘shenanigans’ that year. ) Authoritarian county chair told you to leave, and the state party chair backed her up… but were they just *saying* get out, or did they have any actual authority to back up the bluster? Because you were elected, so they cannot just order you off the lawn, and expect you to comply. (Again, I’m not really talking about your personal decision here… I’m just trying to understand what we’re up against. If you *wished* to stay, do you feel like you could? Are the rules on your side? Or not?)

        “Why is the GOP so completely suicidal this year?”

        My answer to that question makes me a very bitter person. Because I always thought that the cheating was bad apples. Now I believe that the cheating is orchestrated, by the leash-holders behind both parties, the extremely wealthy donors who want to guarantee future bank-bailouts (Obama & Romney) plus continued energy-profits (Iran & Israel) plus whatever else they demand of their puppet-prez. The twin-party system is what we live under. Romney is willing to fight precinct-chair pauliticians, rather than concentrate on beating Obama, because Romney is just an employee… of the very same firm!

        http://digitaljournal.com/article/290426

        http://loyaltoliberty.com/?p=1728

        http://loyaltoliberty.com/?p=1326

        These two guys are both three-time presidential candidates.
        If anybody understands how the system really works, they do.

        We are in trouble! But we can’t abandon our idea, to convert the repub party back to liberty… because there is no other way, short of declaring independence 1776-style, and battling it out… rifles against nukes. Meaning there is only one way. We must become the party.

        Nobody said that would be easy. It won’t be! Possible, tho:

        https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/amazing-romney-still-battles-ron-paul-in-new-jersey/#comment-32806

      • Rich Grise says:

        “j” says:
        “freedom is popular!”

        Well, it’s popular among those of us who actually have the gumption to go ahead and BE FREE, but I fear that the vast majority don’t really want Freedom – they want Mommy.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Hahaha.
        Rich:
        “They want Mommy.”

        Ha. So true.
        Now watch, someone is gonna get all up in my junk for agreeing with you, again. It just so happens you and I do agree on what most zombies will do and why.

      • ___j___ says:

        Hi Anne — my comment was awaiting moderation… kinda like yours earlier? (Doug: I think you have a spambot-setting on your blog that puts all comments from a certain IP into moderation after they post N times, which makes “serial commenters” like Anne & myself get stuck. Can you up the number to 50 or something?)

        – – –

        Anyways, I wasn’t trying to say the repub party is too big too fail… as in, that *I* believe it must not fail. What I’m saying is that the leash-holders, the big banks and the military-industrial complex and big pharma and all the usual suspects that are the power behind both Obama and Romney, will never allow any third party to get a toehold. And if one of *their* parties begins to slide into oblivion, that they will “bail it out” just like they did for their own banks… with free money, or with special laws passed to save The Party, or with the marines if necessary (declaring martial law).

        If what I say is true, then we cannot cross our fingers and hope for a transition from the repub-to-the-libertarian. But there is a larger problem: I’ve come to understand that the math of our voting system itself guarantees a two-party-dominated political landscape (Duverger). Which means, even if by some miracle the Libertarian Party manages to overthrow the Repub Party, in short order *they* too will end up corrupt. Just like the whig-to-repup transfer that you mentioned… the whig-elements never really went away. All the same folks still in charge behind the scenes!

        By the same analysis, of course, we cannot just hope that once we do manage to win places of power within the republican party, that somehow that alone will magically correct the twin-party system! We need to figure out what sort of root changes are necessary, and then (once we get into positions with sufficient power to make changes) we need to go ahead and actually *make* those changes we figured out. In particular, if we convert our voting-system from plurality-based to auto-max-range-voting (or somesuch), that will help immensely. Part of the reason we have two dominating parties is mathematical, not just historical-aka-accidental. Duverger’s Law is what they call it nowadays, or the independence of clones criterion. Check that stuff out, and you will see why I insist that boycotting the vote, and leaving the repub party, cannot succeed.

        Either we take over the repub party, like Ron Paul and Rand Paul and Justin Amash and so on, or we take over the dem party, like Mark Clayton is attempting in Tennessee. Mathematically, not merely psychologically, those are the only peaceful options we have, not counting going Galt. There is the second amendment, of course… but rifles versus nukes is lose-lose! So, we need to win seats in the hierarchy, and hold onto them as tight as we can. This guy in CD22, again — http://www.dailypaul.com/252831/the-gop-do-i-stay-or-do-i-go

        p.s. Yes, as for zombies that want their mommies to take care of them, I agree that is a difficulty. (I would say, spoiled kids in adult bodies that want their Governess!) Our country has a severe problem with dependency nowadays. Romney was partly right in his comments about the 47% that pay no income-taxes, eh? But only partly. The *real* trouble is the small sliver of the uber-wealthy and the uber-poerful, who are also suffering from dependency, on govt bailouts and govt subsidies and govt crony-capitalism laws and govt pork and govt tax loopholes and on and on… *those* folks are quite powerful-n-wealthy… plus will resist liberty tooth-n-claw, such as encouraging frivolous felonies against paulitician precinct-chairs!

        But look at the other side of the coin. Ron Paul went to Utah, some old man jabbering about monetary policy, and 4000 kids came to watch him, plus 5000 people watched it on youtube within a week. Right smack dab in the middle of the nominee-vs-nominee debates! Those whippersnappers aren’t dependent. They don’t want their mommies. Charity at the private level and the church level will take care of the truly needy, the portion of the nonwealthy 47% that cannot make it on their own in a libertarian society. The problem isn’t the everyday voters, the problem is the powerful folks that use advertising-dollars and welfare-bribes to keep those everyday voters toeing the line. The sheeple are waking up, though!

        The proof is in the math. Ron Paul got 1M votes in 2008, and 2M votes in 2012. I expect Gary Johnson will get 4M votes in 2012, and 8M votes in 2016. Romney and McCain won the nominee slot with just 10M votes, remember? We *are* winning the everyday repub voters over to our side, which means the “vast majority” of them are NOT zombies-that-want-a-governess. However, we will *continue* winning tens of millions only if we stay (mostly) in the repub party — otherwise we will never win more than a couple faithless-elector votes in the electoral college.

        Remember what happened to Perot, after his large popvote which earned him zilch ecVotes. We aren’t doomed to follow that path, as the old saying goes… as long as we study the past.

      • jennifer Nie says:

        J, Great points! Jen.

  6. Jay Tea says:

    Romney is a big ole sack of shit .. I hate his guts so much i grind my teethe when I think about him….. If I had only one wish it would be to have an hour with that guy in a room with no windows.

    • annebeck58 says:

      Too many times I thought I should respond to this comment and here ya go:

      I agree. Though I would not generally put it this way, I do completely agree.

      • Rich Grise says:

        But. “teethe” is a verb.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Yeah. I decided to not pick on that. I mean, the point came across, no?

      • Rich Grise says:

        Yeah, it’s an endless, thankless job being the self-appointed Chief of the Internet Apostrophe, Grammar, and Spelling Police! ;-)

      • ___j___ says:

        @Rich, the editing department suggest insertion of a colon between ‘job’ and ‘being’ for improved clarity. Officially, that title is spelled with an ampersand, by the way! [grin]

        @Jay, and Anne, threatening a presidential candidate with physical violence rewards you with a lifetime of surveillance by the secret service, methinks. Besides the invasion of privacy, it wastes taxdollars, eh? Violence has no place in paulitician politics, folks. Concentrate on voting the bad apples out of power.

      • annebeck58 says:

        J; I agreed with the sentiment.
        Mitt R_Money should be taken out– of the “race”, and I believe he will be.

        I don’t especially believe that any electronic-vote is counted as intended. Prior to this primary, I did. I cannot be lulled into that false sense of “counting”, again.

  7. gordoncaie says:

    All we need is one good BLOW and it all comes down and I cant wait. They cant fight forever, theyre too old and tired- and eventually it will all come falling down on their corrupted, BIG heads.

    People are MORONS if they think the score isnt being kept on what they do.

  8. Rich Grise says:

    It’s too late for me to pull the lever on Gary – my write-in vote for The Good Doctor is already in the snail mail.

    So, if RMoney gets indicted, does that give us another four years of the Hussein?

  9. Rayetta Croft says:

    Doug Wead, you are a great man- thanks for all you do!

  10. ghendric says:

    Romney is a RINO. He used to be a Democrat. Anyone thinking we’re getting a choice is hallucinating. The Republicans have become retarded and they and the Democrats think we’re all too stupid and that we’ll believe anything we hear them say.. boy aren’t they going to be surprised when their little house of cards collapses! lol..

  11. danielnelms says:

    Doug – thank you for sticking your neck out and informing us in such a bold manner. Thank God for the information age. I live here in New Jersey, and I sought to be involved when it was too late to do so in the primaries. It is so encouraging to know that the Liberty movement is alive and well here. Your posts have gone viral in my email box to family and friends… the truth must prevail and voters need to be educated before they go to the polls. America isn’t dumb… the media wants to believe they are. And thanks to men like you, one at a time, the truth will be told, passion will be inspired, and the establishment will go down. Thanks Doug!

  12. During the Primary, Ron Paul gave a speech in front of the NJ Statehouse in Trenton. On that day, Governor Christie was out of the State campaigning for Romney. Symbolic, huh?

  13. @AnneBeck58 says:

    Doug- why am I awaiting moderation now?
    Is it because twitter has linked onto me and my comments??

  14. Great Post. Keep up the fight!

  15. Guy McLendon says:

    Mr. Wead … thanks for the gracious comment about Gov. Johnson. Please consider an outright endorsement of Gary … we’re your natural allies, and it’s self-evident the mission within the GOP is now limited to education.

    • annebeck58 says:

      I hate to sound mean, but Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are not one in the same. They are far from being interchangeable.
      It’s why I would write-in Paul but not vote Johnson.

      • Rich Grise says:

        Hear, hear! There’s just something about Johnson that makes me not trust him. But it’s kind of moot at this point, since my write-in vote-by-mail ballot (for President Ron Paul) has already been sent.

      • annebeck58 says:

        I think it’s that Johnson is quite fresh off of the NeoCON boat. I doubt his attachment to libertarian views, as well as the Libertarian Party. We’ve seen too many snakes in the grass, working with all they have to convince us that they are what they say they are, yet not what they profess to be. Just look at Obama (and Romney too.) These guys will say anything for a vote.
        I feel the same way about Johnson.
        I think Ron Paul sees through him, too, or Dr Paul would back him.

        Maybe it’s just my age. The older I get the less trusting I am?

      • Rhonda says:

        Hello Annebeck,

        The answer to your question is in your statement by you, yourself. You have been volleying for Ron Paul for so long and so hard that you are not yet able to accept that he is actually not in the running off hand anymore at this time and that there is actually someone else who is the present standard bearer to keep the mission of the movement living on. That will come eventually also since as with Dr. Paul, Gary Johnson does have a good history and no one ever said that there ever will be another Ron Paul. That means that as the movement moves on, there will always be variations in its progression. You just have to accept it internally. Gary Johnson has been backing Dr. Paul up since the last stolen election years ago. So where is he acting like a snake in the grass?

        Now, if you want to talk about cutthroats, I suggest you can look towards Rand Paul for starters. Even if he went turncoat because maybe one of Ron Paul’s grandchildren was terrorized (That being a relative of Rand Paul also, by the way), he still turned against the movement and there has been nothing to show to the contrary to this day. Then you can go down the line to those like that Cruz fellow who soaked up all the money and votes from both Pauls’ endorsements and then refused to back up Ron Paul openly, down to the fake “tea partiers” who also got plenty of money and votes to get them into Congress back in 2010 and then became part of the system once in which also includes all the fake “Tea Party” organizations that refuse to back Ron Paul, call themselves tea party extravaganzas, and then have the audacity to never admit that the Tea Party MOVEMENT was started because of Ron Paul. Someday you will see the difference between those people and Gary Johnson and how it is interpreted in the deep recesses of your mind. When that happens you will be willing to let go of Dr. Paul allowing him to retire in peace and move on yourself.

        GARY JOHNSON for viva la movement,
        Rhonda
        October 21, 2012/Sunday

      • annebeck58 says:

        Wrong, Rhonda.
        I have watched and appreciated Dr Ron Paul since I was in college. I agreed with a lot of what he said, but I only decided to support him about a year ago.

        I don’t like specific things about Gary Johnson. This is why I won’t ever vote for Gary Johnson.

        Please stop telling me what I think or don’t think because you seem to not even know what you think.

      • donjusko says:

        If you won’t vote for Johnson, who will you vote for?

      • annebeck58 says:

        Still writing-in Paul.

        I wonder how many times I’ve said this?

      • Rich Grise says:

        So, even people who troll a Ron Paul blog can’t even see him, or acknowledge his existence? I guess we’re in a heap o’ trouble, boy!

      • Rich Grise says:

        I’ve already written in Ron Paul, duh! (Vote early, vote often! ;-) )

        It won’t count; Mexifornia is an all-or-none electoral state; but at least I can sleep nights knowing I Have Done The Right Thing.

        Does anybody know to whom I can complain about the Mexifornia all-or-none electoral thingie?

      • annebeck58 says:

        However, I do hope the answer (my answer) to someone else and in regard to what I don’t like about Gary Johnson is in my statement (it was my response or answer to someone else… duh.)

      • ___j___ says:

        Anne, sorry to hear about your troubles! Can you publish the email exchanges on your blog? What are you being accused of that is actually a felony? (Surely not supporting somebody who isn’t named Mitt. Well… I’m *pretty* sure… uhh. Hmmm.) Don’t give up your precinct seat. We’re rooting for you.

        As for your own vote this November, and what you might encourage other people to do, there is nothing morally wrong with writing in Ron Paul, but pragmatically there is a risk that your entire ballot, including any votes for liberty-candidates at the positions below president, will be invalidated. Texas has certified write-in only.

        If you are not too trusting of Gary Johnson… though I can hardly see that he qualifies as a flip-flopper in the world-class category that Romney and Obama are fighting over!… then you might consider somebody like Virgil Goode, or Rocky Anderson, both certified.

        http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/compare-the-candidates.html

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson

        But as you know from your experience, with the provisional ballots simply being filed away without even counting the votes, any ballot “irregularity” becomes an excuse to TOSS the ballot.

      • Rhonda says:

        Annebeck,

        I warned you once before to watch what you say around here especially since there are many people who will see what you are saying. You seem not to care. Therefore I will not care either.

        What is wrong with you? Are you mentally ill or just a bitch? You asked a question and even if it was not directly asked of me, I answered you since you did not direct it towards anyone in particular. So what that I gave you answer? Who the hell do you think you are shooting your mouth off to me or anyone else for that matter.

        You have the audacity to make fun of Donjusko with your “duh” part of it like he is an idiot? Or was that directed towards me? You do not leave names of whom you are talking to. Why? So we who are reading your public statements can be confused and therefore then it somehow makes you feel you can shoot that mouth of yours off to anyone you choose?

        There is something wrong with you and maybe that is why you are getting that strange legal matter even if it is not able to stand up in a court of law. You shot your mouth off to someone and now some form of payback is coming your way.

        GROW OUT OF IT or keep your mouth shut unless you can stop insulting those who are around you. Even Jim here is more polite than you will ever be and he makes sense, yet you have mused yourself by insulting him also. You have called me a troll. You have yelled for me to get out of this website and that I have no business being here. Maybe it is time for you to look at whose face is in the mirror looking back at you, if it does not break first with your lousy attitude towards most.

        sssssssssss……..

        Rhonda
        October 23/2012/Monday

      • annebeck58 says:

        There goes Rhonda, again.
        Please take a look at yourself and stop projecting.

      • Rich Grise says:

        “Annebeck, I warned you once before to watch what you say around here especially since there are many people who will see what you are saying. You seem not to care. Therefore I will not care either. What is wrong with you? Are you mentally ill or just a bitch? ”

        So, apparently you’re another troll who resorts to name-calling.

        Admittedly, Freedom of Speech includes the Freedom to be a stupe, but, come on!

        I’m rather familiar with Anne, and she’s not a bitch or a name-caller. Will you Obammunists please leave us to our discussions? Dr. Paul didn’t even get the nomination, but you continue to troll and name-call? What’s wrong with you people? (Kind of a dumb question – if they knew what was wrong with themselves, they might have a handle on fixing it!)

      • annebeck58 says:

        Haha.
        Yes, Rich.
        It was a threat (warning)? -of what? That she’d call me names? Ouch, that scared me and hurt me (not).
        I have spent time I did not wish to spend with our Rhonda, in the past. I recall, quite well, how she went to crazy-town and that I had talked her down from that edge/precipice. at this time, I would rather not bother with it, especially when it’s the same silliness she went with other times (if she is a she).

        You can go to the comments on my election-judge post to see the multiple comments from Rhonda. I was extra-nice back then. I don’t feel the need to be especially nice to anyone any longer; I am done with people who go there just to go there .

      • Rich Grise says:

        I didn’t write that. I was quoting one of our trolls, to make it clear what I was responding to. (I know, to whom I was responding. Sorry.) Annebeck58, I really respect and admire you for putting all the effort you’re putting into the Liberty Movement.

        But PLEASE don’t quote some troll and attribute it to me, OK?

      • annebeck58 says:

        I don’t know what you mean.
        I can’t find anything I would have attributed to you. If I used her words, I put them in quotes, and I did attribute them to her.

        Sorry if that was confusing– but to tell you the truth, I am confused regarding what I did say that you think I believe(d) you said. Please remind me, okay?

        I just find all of her rants a bit loony. And it’s pretty-much the last thing I need to deal with, especially now!
        But, if something I said put you off (in thinking I was saying you said whatever Rhonda actually said– and dissecting her posts is another story), it was not intentional.

      • Rich Grise says:

        “it was not intentional.”

        OK, fair enough. To err is human,after all. :-)

      • annebeck58 says:

        Sure.
        I have so much on my plate, right now, I don’t see the point of having a go at someone who essentially agrees with me, even if his misuse of a word or two is apparent.
        Some things I just have to let go…

        Stressful day after speaking with a criminal-defense atty yesterday. I don’t suppose anyone has an extra 10K laying about, eh?? What a ridiculous thing the DA is doing, with a big assist by the County Clerk of Travis County. It’s more than a tit-for-tat. It feels like persecution for speaking-out, while everyone should have paid more attention and spoken out, too. Anyone who saw the voting, “irregularities”, should open their mouths, virtually and in public– NOW.
        Otherwise, we are all screwed– or screwed harder and more-so.

      • Rich Grise says:

        It was Rhonda who said it. I was quoting her to make a point. Thanks. :-)

      • annebeck58 says:

        Don’t know if this response to you went through, but yes; I know you had chosen what’s her names words, and I understood it. WP just chose to send the comment to me, as if it was addressed to me.
        c’est la vie.

        Another day in the salt mines..

      • annebeck58 says:

        Hey, Rich.
        I think some responses are ending up in different place(s) than sent to. In fact, the response I just made to “Sybil”, was a reply to Rhonda. Yet, it ended up below the last comment you made to me.
        As it is, I don’t know what’s up with WP, but that comment was absolutely not intended for you, though you are welcome to jump in, if you wish.

      • Rich Grise says:

        To: Annebeck58

        OK, Got it!

      • annebeck58 says:

        Yeah, I get it now.
        I did not quote her, though; I did say something about her “threat” to me and to you, too.
        I found the whole thing, the threat that she’d call me names (which she did), pretty humorous. It was kooky.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Okay, whatever.
        I SAID it was from my own wordpress blogsite. You and anyone can click on my picture to get to my blog. I said the specific blog was that on my experience as election judge. Do I need to hold your hand in order for you to get there again?
        I went back and read the post as well as all of the comments. Your comments were all crazy rants and were mainly about how i was not allowing your comments (yet I do not monitor comments and pretty much anyone—even you– can post.)
        So what is it you want, now? You want a link. I told you how to get there, and you spent plenty of time there before, so just click on my pic and then the title, “my experience as election judge…”
        I mean, you’ve been there plenty of times, Sybil.

      • Rhonda says:

        PS: Correction on date of last comment to someone, although I am not sure to who it was off hand. Today, Monday, for me, happens to be October 22nd.

        (Trying again)
        Rhonda
        October 22, 2012/Monday

      • Rhonda says:

        Ah Rich Grise (and Annebeck),

        It is interesting how you, Rich, can presently talk about name calling and then make a troll accusation just like you did the first day I ever came to this website and asked Anne if she was the moderator here. You and Anne seem to act in unison. You did then, each jumping on the bandwagon to start making your accusations and you still continue it to this day. You, Rich, immediately wasted no time in accusating me of being a troll for asking Anne that question and then she just had to jump and grind on with you claiming the same thing. Maybe the both of your should be the ones who leave here.

        How many times have you called Jim a troll? How many others have you called trolls just because they did not agree with you? Jim was absolutely correct when he said something to the affect of your first thing is to attack and to immediately start to call others names, usually calling them the keyword of being a troll.

        Annebeck said something interesting that maybe she can be given some slack on pertaining to me, but not much. She has made a claim about knowing who I am and of having ordeals with me before. How dense must one be to not see that there is another immediate accusation with no basis to say it? Since you said it Anne, I request that you give at least one link to whatever it is that you are claiming to have had some friction with someone by the name of Rhonda. My goodness. Even if I am the person you are imagining I am, how you can say it without having any other confirmation beyond just the same name in a different website, must make others wonder also.

        So you made the claim about having dealings with a Rhonda Anne. Please give us at least one link (U.R.L.) so we can understand your viciousness just alittle bit more. Thank you.

        Rhonda
        October 23, 2012/Tuesday

        PS: It is interesting also that neither of you mentioned about calling Donjusko an idiot in your own way with that “duh” statement. I guess it would have brought to the attention of others who actually did the name calling.

      • Rich Grise says:

        Rhonda, the fact that you’re a troll isn’t an accusation, it’s an observation. Sorry if the facts hurt your widdle feewings.

      • Rhonda says:

        @AnneBeck58 says:
        October 20, 2012 at 12:40 am

        Doug- why am I awaiting moderation now?
        Is it because twitter has linked onto me and my comments??

        Annebeck (Rich Grise),

        This really is to those who are hearing/reading what you have been saying since you have been RANTING so much around this entire website, they just might miss a few things. The sad part is that all I am concerned with mainly is what you (two) have been saying to me which tends to leave out all the other things that could be picked out from all the RANTS you have been leaving to others.

        Rich might like calling people trolls and since he has done that with Anne following immediately afterwards, it could be a sign that he likes leading Anne on, but Anne is one who seems to be a real hypocrite.

        “Rant” Anne? Me? There is no one who has said more around this entire website than you and you even act as though you are in control by demanding that those who do not agree with you leave this place. So you are a hypocrite Anne on who is the ranting one.

        You mentioned about me saying somethings on your website. You did not like me learning how WordPress worked because I was having problems leaving comments on your website. You say here that I ranted and that you did all you could do to keep your cool because of me asking for help. I insist that everyone here not only read that from you in this thread but what I pasted directly from you at the top in this article about one of your comments being detained in getting out. So when I asked for help, I was ranting and causing trouble, but when it happens to you, you asked for help and all is well? That is called being a hypocrite Anne.

        Yes, that was me on your website. Good for you in realizing that. Who did you say that to recently here Anne? You did not leave a greetings name so you apparently deliberately like creating such confusing moments here and a well versed person would say you like creating confusion in other places also outside of here.

        In one comment on this thread you end by calling me Sybil. Did I spell that correctly because if I did not, you might say I am trying to be confusing also. YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE ANNE and anyone of the many people who you think you can work with can see for themselves that you are lacking credibility and what you say goes one step further that others must beware to not trust you. You said I was threatening you. That is almost a legal claim for me to have against you Anne. You are showing others that you fantasize and exaggerate. I threatened you Anne? Now a false statement like that must have others wondering how truthful your claim is about your present election problem. Our comments, every word of them are here for all to see. No one has all that went back and forth with your claim of persecution. I threatened you?! You are an instigator of the worst kind Anne Beck(ette)

        I have no more to say to either you Anne or Rich. You have in your determination to be the big shots proven your lack of credibility and if anyone from this point on does anything of importance with you, they will be looking over their shoulder watching as to when any minute you will turn on them. So continue on ranting and help me and others here to to keep on having proof of who does the ranting around here and who therefore transfers that from here to obviously into other things like maybe even your election problems you claim you are so innocent on.

        The end,
        Rhonda
        October 24, 2012/Wednesday

      • annebeck58 says:

        You truly don’t get it, do you?

        I was not harassing Doug as you harassed me over some supposedly missing comments. I joked with Doug over why I was in moderation and I figured it out pretty quickly. You, on the other hand, seem to not have a very firm grasp on reality… and I am not only saying you don’t understand wordpress.

    • Surfisher says:

      “Why is this guy not going away” — to Rmoney’s chagrin, Ron Paul packs a full house on October 18th, in Mormon Mitt’s stronghold, the State of Utah!

      Spread this video like wildfire!

      • donjusko says:

        I’m glad Ron Paul is speaking to Universities again. I needed this link, thanks.

      • Rhonda says:

        Donjusko,

        I agree about Dr. Paul speaking again at universities or anywhere for that matter. This is the first I am hearing about it also, although I have seen him on a few television (news?) shows…being used as in the past for both his extraordinary knowledge and of course for the ratings since I will bet that it was announced long before he was on that he was going to be there. I remember noticing that even the “great” Shawn Hannity would at times use the good doctor just for that purpose.

        It is quite amazing how even after the stolen nomination and the fact that in just over two weeks there is going to be this circus of an election, how Dr. Paul can still draw in more people than either of the two “chosen ones”, either of whom is being considered to be our saviors. Hm, I wonder who made the arrangements, his lovely campaign and campaign manager(s) or maybe his real loyal people from his Congressional office(s)?

        Yours,
        Rhonda
        October 21, 2012/Sunday

  16. Rich Liberto says:

    US Revolution 2012 – Ron Paul Grassroots

    • donjusko says:

      The National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, is the new Stamp Act. They are not listening to our petitions. We need more personal liberty and a smaller government. We are out here. Bring the troops home and end these unconstitutional wars. Don’t Tread On Me.

    • ___j___ says:

      Direct link, plus the full text-blurb from the author of the video:

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=g9JAzyLaMM8 US Revolution 2012 – Taking America Back. Published 19 Oct 2012 by RichieL1991.

      The goal is not about likes or views or even subscriptions. It’s simply about informing u.s. citizens, restoring liberty in america, and changing the world. Social networking is a powerful tool to spread information quickly and efficiently. Join us against oppression from government. Enjoy.

      I made this video under the intentions to inform. I have found similarities in the events prior to the Revolutionary War of the late 1700’s compared to our lives in America today. It’s up to us – America to decide how long we can/will put up with the BIG government, greedy business owners, and dishonest politicians.

      Revolutions begin with ideas, concepts, beliefs, morals, and philosophy. The real revolution began in 1765, some ten+ years before the fighting, battles, and declaration of war took place.

      Our government is becoming more tyrannical every pass day, every election. The establishment is in control: Obama, Romney they’re the same. All hope seemed lost, but then came Ron Paul. Even though he didn’t win the primary election (rigged) he planted a seed, the grass roots of liberty in the mind of many younger adults my age (21) and hopefully this will continue. Spread the word and be aware.

      “A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney.
      And a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama”
      – But a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Liberty
      – Or a write-in for Ron Paul is a vote for Liberty

      (all content by RichieL1991 … same age as NCW Ryan, hint hint.)
      (So… Richie: ever consider running for National Committeeman?)

    • ___j___ says:

      This was a good video, and brand new as of Oct 19th also. A bit long, but worth it. Clearly shows how we are returning to the arbitrarily-powerful centralized governments that our founders so despised, and fought to overthrow. Covers many major issues, contrasting 1765 with 2012. A patriot is someone who will stand up to their government when what that government is doing is wrong. Peaceful reform still has a good chance, but time is running short.

      Constructive criticism: would help to add in some specific examples of how both nominees constantly lie, and I would also suggest giving video clips that illustrate one particularly horrific example of how they don’t care about their own people: both cheated their own delegates by rigging the votes at their respective national conventions. Evidence:

      https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/post-paul-what-now/#comment-32200 (obama & romney identical liar-twins)

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY (obama & romney identically defraud their own delegates from every state)

  17. Surfisher says:

    Obama is an abomination that will take us into ruination….

    Romney is ruination that will end in abomination….

    So, I choose neither.

  18. Both my wife and I have decided to pull the L lever. We want to write in Ron Paul but we know the Remnant could have been represented by anyone, not just the Dr.

  19. indielogic says:

    What? No mention of Trygve Olson? It goes much deeper than this, Doug, and I think you know it. I’m just trying to decide if you were part of it or not.

    • annebeck58 says:

      Trygve.
      And Jesse Benton.
      And John Tate.

      There are two people I trust. Dr Paul is one of them. And I trust Doug Wead, too. I do not like how Benton (and Co.) was brought into the Ron Paul camp via Rand. I have never liked Rand’s politics. It’s why I was not surprised at Rand’s endorsement of RMoney. Sickened (especially by the timing?), yes. Surprised; not at all.

      Perhaps Doug now knows about that email (between Benton and the Romney camp?) and is willing to share it? That was passed around in Texas. We were disheartened by it but I don’t know if anyone was, “shocked”.

  20. mary says:

    Not sure why anyone still hopes to change the Republican party or the Democratic party either. Both have chosen paths that are not just unsustainable, but de-evolve not just our country but our humanity. Time for third party people to truly step into the light, b/c the others are choosing darkness for themselves, and trying to drag the rest of us down into the dark w them. More attention should be focused on new parties. Let these two old monsters disappear into obscurity. Really. They have had their chance. Let’s move on. Open a window and let in some fresh air.

    • Surfisher says:

      mary —best post of the month!

      Bravo!

    • annebeck58 says:

      I agree, Mary, save one thing; third-parties (or 2nd parties) do not make it in USA.
      It has everything to do with who has the power, via the money from banksters, whom we’ve bailed out.
      How it goes for the past 4 decades is, we pay taxes and our tax-money goes to those with the power. The power-elite turn that money over to the puppets for the AIPAC, who also own the media, which blacks-out any and all third-parties and anyone else they don’t want getting in their way, such as Ron Paul and even Pat Buchanan.

      The only man who came close to doing anything positive for any so-called, third-party, in recent history was Ross Perot. Of course, Perot had his own money and power and connections so he did not really need the same people (AIPAC and their usual cohorts in Tel Aviv) that, “handle”, our (s)elected officials and nominated candidates.
      Still, even Perot dropped back for some time. Had he not, it could have been possible for us to (actually) have someone other than red or blue as our president. I don’t know a lot about Perot’s falling back as he did, but I have heard different rumors, and would not care to pass them on,

      Maybe we simply need someone with a lot of cash and connections to leave both.first party in order to get this accomplished; to put the Dremp party in her place?
      I wonder if anyone has any idea for the next four years? If we were to ever have a shot at doing this, it would have to begin now, absolutely.
      Can you think of anyone, in particular, who’d be it?

      • Rich Grise says:

        God?

        “The events predicted for 2012 by the ancient Maya are not substantially different than those predicted by sages throughout the millennia. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and other seers have predicted similar events marking ‘the end of time.’ And the Maya are only one of many indigenous cultures that have spoken of their deeply held vision for the events near and immediately after the end of time.

        “All of these prophecies point to a relatively sudden awakening into much greater awareness for some or all of Humanity. What has been well hidden within the folds of your present four-dimensional world will be clearly revealed by the additional Light available in the unfolding of the new, five-dimensional world.”
        http://godchannel.com/grandfatherinterview2.html

      • donjusko says:

        Annebeck, I’m tired of the Dems an GOPs not allowing Perot, Nader, Buchanan, Ron Paul, Johnson and others I can’t think of now, not speak at the debates. This is not freedom, we know that. Vote Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, both are for our liberty.

  21. Owen Gunden says:

    Cool, I am one of the elected Commiteemen in Jersey City helping to oust Maffei. Glad to see we made Doug’s blog :).

  22. Owen Gunden says:

    Also Doug, I had an idea for an article.. I think it would be great to explore the consequences of the Romney nomination in terms of how many volunteers the Republican Party has out on the ground, versus how many they would have had if they had nominated Paul. I personally know dozens locally who would be out on the streets, dedicated, passionate, as much as possible. As it is with Romney, I’ve heard only one guy locally who says he’ll go volunteer in Romney’s ground troop. Also, sadly, the Johnson campaign doesn’t seem to garner the enthusiasm either.

  23. Surfisher says:

    Could we start a betting pool here, with the winner getting the middle of a doughnut?

    If so, I’d like to propose this:

    Seeing that the BO is no longer a shoo-in, what date do you pick it will start another War (to assure its second term)?

    I’d say: Sunday the 4th of November.

    • annebeck58 says:

      I still think October.
      Either Monday, 22 Oct, or Monday, 29 Oct.
      I don’t know how much play it will get,, in msm (I don’t know how covert this one will be). I mean, we’re already making quite a few moves.
      And the only move I want to see is our own soldiers turning around and blowing away the B-State; the “only democracy??” in the mid-east.

      • Surfisher says:

        annebeck58 — I think it will be on a Sunday (when these subhumans seem to always start unconstitutional wars).

        So pick an exact date, and let’s get the pool going ….sadly!

      • annebeck58 says:

        If I have to pick a Sunday, it’s the 28th. But, I still like the 29th better.

  24. Celticreeler says:

    “No good deed shall go unpunished,” as they say. Every low-level establishment hack inflicts their little dose of marginalizing the Ron Paul Republicans–not calling them to staff HQ, dropping them off the email list, end-run around every good initiative they propose–like being a poll challenger, which in my state requires the GOP county chair’s letter of nomination to the county clerk. The GOP has this enormous, blindly faithful army of elected “public servants” (or retirees from those positions) whose most visceral fear is of a NEW IDEA.

    You know, I think they’ve made a very grave tactical error. I would prefer 4 more years of Obama to 8 of Romney + 8 of Ryan, because that’s what Romney’s election will result in this time. Ryan may have a speck of fairness and courage in his body, but after 8 years of careful grooming, and after 8 years of blackmail material is carefully assembled in his dossier, he will be another Romney. He will be “the man who knew too much.”

    • Surfisher says:

      Celticreeler — agree with all, except:

      Mormon Mitt won’t allow Catholic Ryan to be anything but his doormat (to be disposed of when the time comes).

      His 5 Mormon Sons are getting groomed to take over…and create a Dynasty of little Mormon Mitts for decades to come!

      Now, that is truly scary!

    • annebeck58 says:

      I feel ya, Celticreeler;
      In Austin, they are not so fondly referred to as, “Bipartisan Mafia”, because it’s both parties (if one can really call them this) who play the same sort of games. They send out emails stating how “we” must “fight the..(other side”, yet they are not really fighting the other side.
      I proffered my opinion of the vote-fraud in Austin, in my blog– following our “combo primary”. And it’s the (manly Democratic) local//county levels of govt (County Clerk to DA) who are now after me. A couple of weeks back, I received a certified letter telling me that the DA’s office is seeking indictment against me for speaking the truth, and that the person(s) behind it are in the County Clerk’s office. Of course, this person (CC) has the sheriff’s dept at her beck and call.

      These people, from both party(ies) don’t like being challenged, regarding their fraudulent acts. We are supposed to sit idly by while they break every election-code, for if we say anything, we’re the ones brought to trial. I think it’s terrible. Yet they say it’s just how they’ve done it (code-violations and all) for years.

      -and I really don’t know how to stop this. Becoming a part of “their party” doesn’t seem to help much. But, what else can we do? In actuality- probably not much. And that is frustrating. They have it worked out so no “third party” will ever rise to the fore. So what do we do?

  25. Surfisher says:

    What EXACT Date will the BO start another unconstitutional War (hoping to get reelected)?

    Betting Pool so far (winner gets the middle of a doughnut):

    Surfisher — Nov 4

    annebeck58 — Oct 29

    ———————————————————————————-
    (post your picks, it’s all in fun — guessing when our Nation will get the final nail)

    • Rich Grise says:

      In January, a few days before the coronation of Rombama or Obamney.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Yes, January is possible. But that would not call off the (s)elections. It may prevent an inauguration, but I don’t know if he’d let it go that long. We are in Israel (Occupied Palestine), already. So what is to stop us from attacking Iran?
        Anyone think we may have already started this? No news into EU from Iran (cut-off satellites ?last week?), and if the US MSM doesn’t want to let us know, we won’t know.

      • Rich Grise says:

        Well, the question was, when will the lunatic-in-chief start the next war; Can I put in like 10 quarters and pick the whole range? ;-)
        (I don’t know when the official coronation takes place, so couldn’t be more specific.)

      • annebeck58 says:

        Yes.
        I think the usual timing of the coronation is around the 20th. I had to ignore it in 08, and in 04, and in 00. I suppose I’ll ignore it this time, too.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Then again, with the e-voting, it’s really not necessary to call off the (s)election. The votes go the way they decide, not how we want it. I would rather we all go in and raise our hands for whichever we want. Who cares about it being private or personal, at this point?

    • ___j___ says:

      I submit my claim for the donut hole. War with Iran was declared on 28th September 2010, in order to influence the elections *that* year. Getting re-elected to the whitehouse in 2012 may require heating up the war with Iran, but it was *started* on that particular day. (Alternatively, donjusko might argue for 2011-12-31, the NDAA.)

      #1. Rial spike on 24 sep 2010 == cisada signed 2010-07-01, implemented as EO#13553 on 2010-09-28; also, US v Banki decided 2010-06-dd, plus UN Rez#1929 on 2010-06-dd.

      #2. Rial spike on 14 jun 2011 == cisada EO#13574 on 2011-05-dd

      #3. Rial spike on 27 apr 2012 == ndaa signed 2011-12-31, section 1045 [or 1245 ??] on iran, but 60 days until sanctions take effect (April 2012); cisada EO#13590 on 2011-11-dd.

      http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=IRR&view=5Y

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_sanctions#Ahmadinejad_government

      Dennis Kucinich plus five other dems voted nay to CISADA. Ron Paul the 2012 presidential candidate and Jeff Flake the 2012 senate candidate were the only repubs voting *against* CISADA, because Justin Amash && Rand Paul && Mike Lee and other liberty-candidates of 2010 were not yet elected!

      Point being, even ignoring the possibility of sending a liberty-message with your vote in the presidential race, the 2012 election still does really matter. Please help put some more liberty-leaning folks into congress! If things *do* fall apart, you also better help get some liberty-leaning statehouse folks, and especially county sheriffs. Only votes in 2012 can make such things happen. This is important no matter whether we get Obama, or Romney. Plus, if we luck out and get Gary Johnson, then it *really* will help. He’ll have friends!

  26. s v says:

    We must unite to replace Obama’s govt-growing agenda with Romney’s govt-growing agenda.

  27. satta says:

    The Republican establishment will not give way to the liberty movement without a fight. If we can continue the enthusiasm that we generated during Ron’s primary, I don’t believe they can stop us. But .. if we go back to sleep, our gains will be systematically vacated by any means at their disposal, and we’ll be back to square one before we know it. That would be a shame.

  28. donjusko says:

    If everybody votes for Ron Paul, write-in or not he will win. If everybody vote for Gary Johnson he will win. Johnson is for bringing the troops home and most of Paul’s issues. He seems to be a good bet. Much better than the twins.

    • Surfisher says:

      donjusko — to add to your October 22, 2012 at 3:41 am post “Buy gold”.

      Also, buy a house in Costa Rica.

      • donjusko says:

        Yea, Australia has really gone to the dogs. They just approved more chemtrails. I did get an offer to live on a coffee plantation, but that was a year ago. Vote Johnson and hope for the best.

  29. Surfisher says:

    The BO creature wants to destroy our Freedoms and our Nation!

    But, If Mitt gets into the White House — expect An American Tragedy!

    Mormon Mitt won’t allow Catholic Ryan to be anything but his doormat (to be disposed of when the time comes).

    His 5 Mormon Sons are getting groomed to take over…and create a Dynasty of little Mormon Mitts for decades to come!

    Now, that is truly scary!

  30. donjusko says:

    Damning Evidence Released on Benghazi Attack
    That might get rid of one of them. He did the same thing someplace else a little ago. Rhodesia?

    http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=ulcssleab&v=001g7xYn3eIW2NhTtNheJQV9M9vuJjIgQbuCZFubxvi-cJ-vmIbB7GlMsoFJXClEZeynMnn9o9alQeOwwUsY_DyKVarLTEEZUB41D4cAax9OeMtTKRjXf1-eQ%3D%3D

  31. Andrea says:

    “Doug Wead says:
    October 19, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Well I haven’t been on since it started happening at the state conventions. Last time I was allowed on was around South Carolina before the state conventions shenanigans started. Believe me, I would love to have a shot.

    Doug, I’m sure John Stossel would love to have you on. He’s liberterian-leaning and not afraid of controversy. Also, Ben Swann on Fox in Cincinnati is a Ron Paul supporter with his own segment called “Reality Check” (you may have heard of it by now – Ben is becoming know nationally).

    Please try!

    • ___j___ says:

      Ahhhh, but Andrea, despite those folks being excellent journalists, they have to run their schedule through their boss, which means FOX. Better initial choice would therefore be relatively-liberty-friendly journalists on the dem-leaning side (Rachel Maddow NBC), or independent groups with strong coverage (Jon Stewart ComedyCentral and Michael ‘Lionel’ Lebron on the CW).

      Once the story gets onto those somewhat-dem-leaning places, which will often spin it to hurt Romney only, then FOX journalists like Stossel and Swann *will* be given the green-light to interview Doug for ‘the real story’ in hopes of dampening the impact on Mitt… which is that Obama also cheated his delegates at the DNC, and that Santorum-backers were cheating folks in Missouri and Louisiana. Which in a way helps Romney… but makes the entire twin-party system looks bad. The truth hurts!

  32. annebeck58 says:

    Mitt Romney’s family owns the voting machines, in part, via Solamere (Tagg Romney invested in this company which purchased the Hart e-voting machines, particularly in Ohio.)

    https://rt.com/usa/news/voting-machines-romney-found-975/

    Please do share this with every voter you know. Do not only preach to the choir, which many of us have been guilty of. Share it everywhere and with everyone.

    Yesterday, i spoke with my ninety year-old father about the state of our economy. He did not realize that Bain Cap (Romney) had played such a big part in destroying the US economy by purchasing all kinds of American business and closing them; selling-off the machinery, at huge profits. One of my brothers has been laid-off from his job of about twenty-five years, which is a large (past?) manufacturer in the North-Eastern USA. All of these years, same place, and he’s let go because the economy is so terrible?

    BLAME ROMNEY. Blame Bain. Blame Raytheon. Share what he’s done with all you know. Sure, it may never matter, with Mitt being so close with one of the machine-owners. But, it will (at least) prove our point that Mitt is the most unpopular candidate for president, ever!

  33. Zing, Pow, BOOM!!!!!!!!!
    Keep it up, Doug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  34. Surfisher says:

    Gary Johnson is the only sane choice to vote — or face either of the two evils destroying our nation beyond the point of no return!

    Ron Paul: Mitt Romney Had the Worst Line of the Evening (the third “debate”)!

    Spread this like wildfire!

    • annebeck58 says:

      WHAT???
      Say it ain’t so.
      We are still writing in Ron Paul. I don’t see how anyone for Paul can turn around and vote for Johnson, who is NO Ron Paul.

      wow. Were you hacked??

      • Surfisher says:

        annebeck58 — did you miss my post stating that those in-the-know have informed me that all write-in votes for Ron Paul will be destroyed upon opening the envelopes (so none such will ever get counted)?

        Thus, we need to vote for an alternative — and sure as hell it won’t be the Barack or the Mitt creature!

      • annebeck58 says:

        I guess I missed that.
        However, I really do not think votes (mail-ins) for Paul will be destroyed. I think someone’s pulling you leg, like maybe one (or more) of the Johnson people. They’ve been rabid lately.
        I won’t ever be convinced to go Johnson as his ideas are most times opposite Ron Paul (and hence, me). The guy may be for decriminalizing pot (medical marijuana) but he is not for ending the drug-war, which is huge. There have been about 60 thousand people killed in Mexico in the past 6 years. And it’s the drug-war that created that.
        I also am much more stringent than is Johnson on wars (Humanitarian-wars are not humanitarian.)
        Johnson is right off of the Rep-Neocon-boat. And I am not going to give my vote to lesser than, again.

        I don’t know who you know or how this person thinks this (destruction of votes) will happen, but do what you want. If you want to vote Paul, take a picture of it and fill out an affidavit saying you did vote Paul. Go to WriteInRevolution.com. Okay?

        Why do people think Johnson is a good replacement for Paul? he’s hardly Libertarian, nevermind libertarian.

      • annebeck58 says:

        I am voting for the alternative. It’s Ron Paul.

      • annebeck58 says:

        You don’t know any of, “those in the know”. I, however, do. And you are wrong.

      • ___j___ says:

        Anne, you can vote for Ron Paul if you wish, and use your digicam to provide some proof that you did so, but in many states only certified write-ins will be reported/counted. (Most states require that the write-in person sign some paperwork and submit some signatures, including Texas. Gary Johnson is on the ballot in TX, as well as Jill Stein, whereas Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson are certified in TX, but Ron Paul is not.) Will, therefore, Ron Paul write-in ballots be invalidated in Texas? I guess we’ll find out, after you cast your vote, right? Worth knowing the truth about the rumors of ballot-invalidation, for future elections!

        > how anyone for Paul can turn around and
        > vote for Johnson, who is *NO* Ron Paul.

        As for Gary Johnson, you don’t have to like him, but I don’t think you’ve really researched his positions. His name isn’t Ron Paul, but he is absolutely a liberty-candidate, who deserves to be on the libertarian ticket this year, just like Ron Paul deserved it in 1988.

        “I’m the only candidate running for president of the United States that wants to end the drug war now, legalize marijuana now.” This was Gary a couple days ago in Colorado. He is at present against legalizing extreme drugs that are stronger than marijuana, such as cocaine. If, in your mind, *that* means he’s a liar about ending the drug war — which to me just means the DEA and their international violence, as well as the local cops that spend taxpayer dollars busting “medical marijuana” growers and users, well then that’s a fair position for you to take… but you cannot flatly say GJ will not end the drug war, without saying what you mean by that, right? You also might think that Johnson is just a liar, like Obama & Romney, and once in office he will not do what he says. But his record as NM governor, and before that as a construction business owner, says otherwise: when he says he’ll do something, he does do it. And again, saying GJ won’t end the drug war, because you think he is lying about the issue when he says he will end the drug war, does require that you say a bit more than just “GJ will not end the drug war”, okay? Or maybe I’m wrong! But show me the evidence that I’m wrong.

        As for GJ being a neocon warmonger, I’ve heard this rumor plenty of times, but never seen much in the way of evidence. Obviously as the NM gov there was never a big military under Gary’s control (did he do any warmonger stuff with natguard?), so he would have to have been quoted as saying something warmonger-like, such as “overthrowing Saddam was necessary because he *did* buy that yellowcake from Nigeria to make WMD… the sneaky guy must have hid the evidence just before we invaded and destroyed his country… which is exactly what we’ll do to Iran as soon as I am president”. Clearly, that would be a warmonger. The only thing I’ve ever seen Gary Johnson say in support of warfare as a political tool, is his idea that as president he could issue letters of marque to send some private mercenary contractors into Uganda, to fight this guy and his terrorist group — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony#United_States see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Gun_Preacher about the fighting right now. Which is pretty much exactly the same position that Ron Paul took about the correct Constitutional way to fight Osama and *his* terrorist group back in 2001… and Ron held the same position on terrorists during the 2012 campaign, consistent as usual — http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/why-ron-paul-would-not-have-ordered-osama-bin-laden-killing/

        Gary Johnson is very much like Ron Paul, in terms of their stated policy positions. Even when they differ, it is on *personal* stances for the most part, rather than on policy stances. Gary Johnson is pro-choice personally, but wants the decision to be left in the hands of the states, not the scotus nor the feds. Ron Paul is exactly the same, except he is personally pro-life. For some voters, this is a crucial *character* issue, even when it is not a policy-issue, so this is still an important difference… one of the few that I see.

        There is one other crucial difference between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, which will matter in 2016 and 2020. Ron Paul will be age 85 in 2020, and retired from congress for 8 years, whereas Gary Johnson with luck be a sitting senator, at the ripe age of 67 for the 2020 election… about the same age as Romney was *this* year. Please, write-in Ron Paul for the 2012 election if you think it best. This is the liberty-movement, after all. Do as you see fit. But after this election is over, start looking to the future. What candidate will you vote for in 2016? What candidate will you vote for in 2020?

        Somebody has to face the Hillary-Gillibrand ticket, or whoever the dems put forth. If that somebody is a liberty-candidate who just happens not to be named Ronald Ernest Paul, or even if that somebody is “merely” a tea-candidate, wouldn’t either of those outcomes be ten times better than Mitt, and a hundred times better than eight years of Prez Hillary broadband-internet-is-a-fundamental-human-right Clinton? If the folks in the liberty-movement cannot rally around somebody like Prez Ted Cruz’16 as dramatically better than Prez Hillary, or somebody like Prez Gary Johnson’16 as nigh-infinitely better than Prez Hillary, then I seriously worry we are doomed to ideologically shoot ourselves in the foot, even if we manage to win a majority of the seats in the RNC… because we’d still end up losing to the dems… which itself would be enough to quickly end our RNC majority!

        (As we’ve discussed at length elsewhere, the math says the only candidate with a real shot at beating Hillary’16 is the repub nominee, never a third-party… just as, this election, Romney is the only guy with a real shot at beating Obama. Sigh… which is why I’m sad right now… there are no liberty-candidates with a chance to win in 2012. I still recommend *voting* for liberty-candidates in 2012, however, to send a message to the future, and improve our chances of getting a liberty-nominee in 2016 and 2020. Which means any of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or even sorta Virgil Goode, plus barely Rocky Anderson. I don’t care about unifying around any of them in particular, because none of them will win any ecVotes, so all that matters is the sum total of the popvote that all of them win, together. But in 2016, if one or more of them return to the repub party — both Gary and Virgil won earlier elections as repubs — then we need to pick one of them, or Rand/Amash/SomeOtherRepub, as our Liberty-Candidate Republican-Presidential-Nominee of 2016. Otherwise, we’ll just end up with H.Clinton vs C.Christie, like B.Obama vs M.Romney… meet new-boss, same as old-boss.)

      • annebeck58 says:

        Really?
        Of course I can vote for whomever I want.
        Please stop bothering me with this GJ garbage. I am done and won’t read any more of it.

        Do you have the slightest idea what I am going through for speaking out? Now you want me to just vote for some guy that i have vetted and do NOT LIKE and will NOT agree with.
        Enough.

      • Rhonda says:

        J,

        Very well put about your idea about voting for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and how you see it for the future. As a slight aside from your issue, since you metioned the names of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, I must put my own opinion in about the two of them. Ted Cruz needs to rot on his podium for how he dissed Ron Paul when he was asked to endorse Dr. Paul. He actually looked overjoyed in openly saying he would not while at the same time saying he appreciated the endorsement of Dr. Paul and his son Rand as a bonus for him. Sure he did. No one knew of him until that endorsement and through that, Ted Cruz managed to get a tremendous anount of political donations. Then after he received all of that, he banished our presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. So he can rot on his high horse (in my humble preference).

        Rand Paul is another matter. He is, of course, the son of Ron Paul and made his entry into the world of politics not fully on his own and not fully under the premise of being Ron Paul’s son, but rather he led everyone to believe that he would be the standard bearer of the movement itself someday and presently was all gong-ho within it. So when and how he endorsed Mitt Romney, it showed that he is a turncoat towards the movement. He might not have given his endorsement in such a way as to run or turn against his father, as some have claimed which for reasons I will not go into at this time to back that up, but his “crime” was to knowingly do his endorsement in such a way that it would disorientate those involved within the movement. For him not to know, then I claim that he is not mentally worthy enough to be a candidate for president at all. It does not matter because without any other indication that maybe someone from the Paul family had been terrorized, as an example, then Rand has proven that he will turn against those who are backing him up at the height of importance and that, J, is now the end of my little say that I am aware of is not fully on your issue, but I enjoyed saying all the same.

        Yours,
        Rhonda
        October 28, 2012/Sunday

      • ___j___ says:

        Anne, ummm, nobody is Bothering You with junk for Gary Johnson. You are the one replying to posts about him, and in some instances, saying things that aren’t true about him. I just wanted to correct the mistakes, for other readers of the dougwead blog, which is slightly different from trying to change your own stance. Like who you want, and vote for who you want, and say what you want.

        But if you say bad things about some candidate, that aren’t truthful, that’s not okay. Right? You would correct untruths about Ron Paul, eh? I would say we should do the same about Obama and Romney, on the principle that honesty is the best long-term policy. (As those two guys prove, in the short-term, dishonesty can be a ‘winning’ approach. Just so long as you don’t mind cheating to win. Sigh.) Point being, you can give your opinion, but if somebody else notes that your opinion is non-factual, they aren’t bothering you, they’re helping you out. Which is all I’m trying to do here.

        These are what I disagreed are true: “…won’t ever be convinced to go Johnson as his ideas are most times opposite Ron Paul… he is not for ending the drug-war… [on wars] Johnson is right off of the Rep-Neocon-boat…” Stalin is the opposite of Ron Paul. Obama is mostly the opposite, Romney often the opposite. Gary Johnson is very slightly different from Ron Paul on a very few issues — putting him in the same category as Stalin is unfair, and untrue. In particular, he’s for ending the drug war, and he’s against undeclared war, for the most part holding exactly the same policy-stances as Ron Paul, from what I can tell. See evidence in my post above.

        It is *fine* for you to vote Ron Paul, as I’ve already said. As both surfisher and I noted, though, there is a risk to that pathway, that your presidential-vote, or maybe even your entire ballot (rules are unclear) will be uncounted. That’s almost certainly the case in Texas, where you live. It is also the case in many other states. I have heard that both Maine and California *are* going to count Ron Paul votes, always assuming the local precinct-folk play fair… which as you know from your own experience, reality does not always match oughtality. Whether you decide to take the path anyway, despite the risk, is completely up to you (as I keep saying — this is the liberty movement). But you should know the risks, and other readers should also.

        So do you like me again, or do you think I’m just another Rhonda now? Which brings up another point — you should respond with civility whenever possible, so that the liberty-movement (to include people voting for Ron Paul as well as people voting for Gary Johnson as well as people writing in Jesus Of Nazareth as well as a whole slew of other folks that are strict constitutionalists and want the government out of their business) can stay strong, for the long haul. 2012 is just the beginning, not the last gasp. Rhonda called you some untrue names … and Rhonda, if you’re reading this, that is why Rich called you out as a troll… because you’re trying to pick a verbal fight. Plus, you’re under stress right now. But politics is stressful sometimes, especially when the estab plays nasty. Which they always do! That’s no excuse to be uncivil to folks that are mostly on our side. Play nice, kids. We all hang together, or we all will surely hang separately.

      • ___j___ says:

        @surfisher — you want people to vote Gary Johnson, which is great. But saying he is the Only Sane Choice is pretty insulting, which is probably why Anne reacted as she did.

        Writing in RP is going to work just fine, in plenty of states. He got 42k write-in votes back in 2008, those that were counted anyhow (plus plenty of NoneOfTheAbove votes in Nevada), and I expect during 2012 there will be perhaps ten times as many write-in votes for Ron Paul. There’s nothing insane about doing it — Ron has just as much a shot at winning electoral-college votes as Gary Johnson, especially now that the prez-debates are over (GJ was kept out of all three).

        What you meant was, I presume, that Gary is the only sane choice among the triplet of Gary/Obama/Romney… but in that case, say *that* rather than just saying Gary is the *only* sane choice whatsoever. Folks that want Virgil Goode, or even Rocky Anderson, or to write-in Ron Paul, are just casting their own protest vote in their own way.

      • ___j___ says:

        @Rhonda, yes, people complain about Rand endorsing the-repub-nominee… but look back at the timing. He only did it in mid-June, after it became clear that Romney was going to win the plurality of delegates from Texas, and 100% of the delegates from California… more than enough to mathematically guarantee Mitt the nominee slot. Pay attention to Rand’s stances on policy issues, and pay attention to his actual voting-record in the Senate, and his filibuster record. But don’t just look at them in a vacuum — compare them to McConnell, the estab-repub with the other senate seat from Kentucky. Compare what Rand does, to what Harry Reid does. Compare what Rand does, to what Gillibrand does (Romney-type replacement in Hillary’s seat).

        You can complain about Rand endorsing the wrong guy… but it was for good reasons, and it was *after* Ron Paul could win the seat, mathematically, because of state-binding-rules. Youtube has Rand giving them. I’ve typed them up elsewhere on the dougwead blog. Even if you disagree, which is fine… does that mean Rand is now your greatest enemy, the baddest apple of the senate? Please! He’s the best senator we have, or maybe tied for first with Mike Lee. I fully agree we could possibly do better… but let not the perfect be the enemy of the good, as the old Greek saying goes. Rand is *good*.

        As for Ted Cruz, pretty much the same story. Not perfect, but likely to be way better than the alternative of Sadler, who wants to raise taxes to deal with the deficit (albeit fairly and across the board… unlike Obama’s plan to eat the rich… Sadler is pretty good, for a statist!).

        There were a couple of small fry candidates in the Texas senate race repub primary, which were likely more Ron-Paul-liberty-candidates than Ted Cruz. Lela Pittinger, and Joe Addison, if memory serves. But they lost the primary. By landslides. Because winning elections isn’t just about policy-stances. You have to have cash, and big-name endorsements. Otherwise the estab-candidate *always* wins. Even if you have money & friends, the estab-candidate USUALLY still wins.

        Ted Cruz is a tea-party-guy, with cash from FreedomWorks, and big-name endorsements from all the best senators, including Rand. His positions are strongly constitutional with a big does of tea-party, plus a few places where he toes the party line (he seems to agree with Mitt on healthcare… sigh). But look at the alternatives. You wanted senator Dewhurst, establishment drone? You wanted senator Leppert, former dempub big-city mayor? Ted Cruz barely made it into the run-off, by six-tenths of a percent, because all his tea-party-cash and all his liberty-endorsements were *barely* enough to overcome the establishment-guy Dewhurst.

        In fact, without the dempub Leppert in the primary-race, splitting some of the Dewhurst-voters off, Ted Cruz would have *lost*. Look at the presidential race. If the Santorum and the Newt had stayed in the race until Tampa, then we could have had a chance at a brokered convention. With them out, and with Ron Paul running low on cash and/or being threatened by the Romney staffers, depending on which story you believe, there was no chance for a brokered convention. Leppert stayed in to the end, and therefore Dewhurst beat Cruz, and we’ll have a decent tea-party senator from Texas to join Rand in the senate this year. That’s a good thing, right?

        Anyway, I agree with you, that both Rand and Ted Cruz ought to have endorsed ronpaul2012, because that would have been awesome, right? They did what they did, because they decided to play politics rather than stand on principle. Similarly, many folks in the liberty-movement are voting for somebody besides Ron Paul this November, for pragmatic reasons. There’s something to be said for pragmatism: better to have Ted Cruz, than Dewhurst, and proving loyalty to the repub nominee *may* have been the move that symbolically pushed Ted Cruz over the edge, and gave him that crucial 0.6% of the primary-voters, forcing a run-off election with Dewhurst… which Ted Cruz won quite handily. I’m hoping that Cruz will vote with Rand, and for the Constitution, when he’s in the senate. But hey, if his voting doesn’t match his rhetoric, then you will be proven correct, and I’ll have to eat humble pie. [grin]

        In the long run, this larger issue *is* a serious difficulty for us liberty-movement folks. We need to get some priorities, for what we want from our candidates, and straighten out any candidates that fail us. The sort of endorsement-thing that you are talking about isn’t really a policy stance, like no-undeclared-wars, right? It’s a loyalty stance. Do we want part of the ‘rules’ of the liberty movement to be, that if you don’t endorse other liberty-candidates, that we withdraw our support? That is how the repubs and the dems run things, obviously — only three folks in congress (Ron Paul + Justin Amash + Walter Jones) are refusing the romineey, bucking the unwritten rule. My question is, do we *want* to have that unwritten rule for liberty-candidates? Or do we just want to focus on policy-stances, and especially voting records?

        I would argue we don’t. Because when loyalty is the standard, then good people like Rand get called turncoats, and pretty darn good people like Cruz get told to rot. I’m not saying your feelings are wrong, or that anything you said is incorrect. They did fail to endorse our guy. They did endorse a bad guy, instead. They were playing politics, rather than standing on principle. But the question is, do we want to punish them for *that* sort of failure, if they still *vote* for the Good on the floor of the senate? Or, do we want to treat mal-endorsement as a ‘crime’ of some sort, as you talked about? What penalties ought to apply? Who ought to decide when a loyalty-crime has been committed? What counts as evidence?

        Remember the lesson of the 1789 revolution, when the French folks tried to follow the 1776 revolution here in the USA. Loyalty to the revolutionary ideology was paramount, and they invented the guillotine to deal with all those found to be unloyal in some way, shape, or form… including Lavosier. So, they ended up with a dictator, in the form of Napolean. I’m not saying you, Rhonda, are trying to advocate off-with-their-heads positions. Clearly you are not — you are unhappy with Rand and with Cruz, because you see them as betraying the liberty-movement by failing to endorse the liberty-candidate in a particular horse race. But what I *am* saying is the warning of history: the sans-culottes based their movement on loyalty back in the day, and the establishment-republican-party largely bases their actions now on loyalty. Do we want that to also be our criterion? Or do we want to let actions speak louder than words, with votes counting far more than rhetoric?

        “..I am aware of is not fully on your issue, but I enjoyed saying all the same.” Heh heh. And I enjoyed reading it. Then wrote my usual overly-verbose response, which I hope you will enjoy. And, notice we’ve kept it civil, even though we clearly disagree pretty strongly about e.g. whether Rand is now a Bad Guy, or not. Possibly the most important long-term goal for the liberty-movement is to try and live up to Ron Paul’s example, discussing the hard issues, yet without getting bogged down in mudslinging.

      • Rhonda says:

        J,

        I do not know if this is going to reply directly under your comment to me or not so I am pasting the end of it here for you to see what I am replying to…….

        “..I am aware of is not fully on your issue, but I enjoyed saying all the same.” Heh heh. And I enjoyed reading it. Then wrote my usual overly-verbose response, which I hope you will enjoy. And, notice we’ve kept it civil, even though we clearly disagree pretty strongly about e.g. whether Rand is now a Bad Guy, or not. Possibly the most important long-term goal for the liberty-movement is to try and live up to Ron Paul’s example, discussing the hard issues, yet without getting bogged down in mudslinging.”

        Yes, J, it was long, but was also without any mudslinging. As I have said to you before, you speak well, but as you, yourself, note here, you can get “breathy” and therefore it tends to get the reader lost in all the details. Also sometimes when you say as much as you do, you can also fuzzy up the context of what you are saying by saying your statement with actually two different, if not totally opposite, views of your issue. Even so, you summed up what you said to me quite well demonstrating that you know that yourself. Therefore I am glad that since there was no mudslinging, you had fun saying all that you did to me. Now I would like to attempt to explain myself once again to you, and of course to others who seem to say the overall basic same thing that you said to me about Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

        When you ask me if either of the two are so bad, I must reiterate what I have been bringing out as well as a few others. Ted Cruz used Ron Paul as well as Rand Paul, but what he did by denying openly in the fashion that he did not to endorse Ron Paul after Ron Paul’s endorsement of him got his name out into the public and got him that all powerful dollar you refer to to be able to battle his competitor. Therefore as with Romney and the rest of the Republican cronies as well as the media, Cruz did what he did to belittle and make a fool of both Dr. Paul as well as his supporters. So your question to me about him being better than his competitor is put into the “lesser of two evils” category.

        The same goes for Rand in his endorsement of Romney. It is not that he endorsed Romney, but it was HOW he went about doing it. It was a well calculated plan that had nothing to do with him making brownie points to either having a speaking spot at the convention or to get a pat on the back when he makes his speeches while up on the floor of the senate. Anyone who really cannot see that, has not been studying events of the past five years since Ron Paul made his bid back in 2007 and more so when Rand made his at the beginning of 2009.

        Just look how awful Ron Paul, his supporters, and his delegates were openly treated this year by all the Republicans as well as the Democrat media. Now we are expected to believe that just because Rand endorsed Romney that all is going to change? Even Obama did not “change” things as it was expected would happen when he got in back in 2008.

        No, even if Rand did what he did about the endorsement the way he did it because Ron Paul was getting cold feet and decided he needed a way to back out of getting the big chair and his son decided on his own to do what he did in the hopes that it would create chaos within the movement to help out his dad, it still was done only for the purpose of what happened. He is part of the best con artist people in the world or else they could not be in their position.

        There are those even now who are still saying he did it to play politics and that therefore he now is going to be accepted as being the nominee in 2016 while they see him talking mostly against the others on the senate floor as he did before he endorsed Romney as though now he is as slick as Slick Willie in being accepted no matter what he does because of what he did with that one endorsement. The only brownie points he might get is that the calculation of the chaos could not have been done by anyone else so well and therefore he might be rewarded with a “bone” of some sort since Ron Paul was becoming a true formidable foe to the status quo with his growing supporters making up a very powerful movement.

        So your question/statement to me about how good he is I must
        say the same thing as with Ted Cruz. It is one of those “lesser of two evils” types. Again, unless Rand did what he did the WAY HE DID IT because of helping out his father in needing an out in going any further up the nomination ladder, or one of Ron’s grandchildren was terrorized, as an example, Rand proved that he will turn against those who support him at a whim and in his buisness, there is no doubt that it was not done on his own but with several other powerful people making it a true conspiracy in the dictionary defination of the term.

        I will end by saying at least you say it correctly that we will have to see how both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul act in their positions since as of right now both of them have proven to be turncoats and one has done it with a smirk of joy in his voice and action, that being Ted Cruz. Rand has years to now earn his own following, if he can, and not like many who now are talking about him running in 2016 for the presidency mainly because he is Ron Paul’s son. Heck, in exactly one month from now on December 21st, the Mayan calander ends and maybe so will the world as we know it–hehe.

        Yours,
        Rhonda
        November 21, 2012/Wednesday

      • annebeck58 says:

        Now, Rhonda. I hope you finally understand that I agree with much of what you just said. Ted Cruz did use Ron Paul and the support Ron Paul had amassed to win his seat. I saw that one coming because I had researched Ted Cruz. It’s why I did not vote for Cruz in the end.
        And I completely agree that it was not Rand’s support of Romney that bothered me (I expected it because, again, I’ve paid attention to Rand– hoping Rand would be like his father, which he is not..); it was mainly the timing of Rand’s announcement. However, i do not believe that Ron Paul suffered from cold-feet. I believe Ron Paul, who said he did not wish to perpetuate the ill-will toward his supporters. I believe Ron Paul, who said he did not wish for us to keep up our hopes in what was an obviously losing battle against the (zionist) machine..
        Other than these few (albeit minor) points, I do agree with you.
        So I really don’t know why you decided to come up against me, initially. It took all I had, at times, to remain pleasant toward you.., on this blog and in my own blog, too. I never disallowed or removed a single comment of yours, yet you accused me of same.
        And it was only when you chose to use my comments to respond to others, while (especially) making snarky comments about me, that I was bothered. How high-school-ish of the pair of you.

        I suggest you go back to the comments of mine (the timeline, perhaps) to understand what I was saying, in the first place- and then look at what you repeatedly wrote to me (in opposition) to figure out how this all transpired.
        Surely, rather than responding to my comments, both you and “j” could have simply begun a new comment thread at the bottom of the page. That would have prevented me getting these “responses” to what I wrote and would have prevented hard-feelings or ill-will.
        Of course, y’all could just check that little box and request to be notified of FOLLOW-UP comments via email.. then you could respond to ANY comment, as I have now done to you.

        Regardless; it’s over. Mitt R-Money lost, and he came out the fallguy I always said he was. Obama’s in, and the people of the world (especially the mid-east) had better begin building some deep bomb-shelters. As we just saw for the past week, in Gaza, bombs will fall. People; civilians will be murdered, including children and their civilian parents, and the USA will mostly ignore it.
        I’ve moved on.
        I hope you will, too.
        Cheers.

        @

      • Rhonda says:

        Annebeck,

        Interesting that you should comment to me at all, but since you did, I give you credit for that and shall respond to you (as nicely as possible).

        It is so nice that we can agree on something. No, I do not believe that Ron Paul in actuality got cold feet, but something happened that was bad enough for him to change his strong driving direction for him to say he was going to stop his campaigning when it came to going to New Jersey or any other state that he had not been too at that time. It was not that he announced that he was stopping campaigning, but like Rand, it was HOW he did it. A person is the way a person is with only slight modifications to proceed with the daily changes in life. Whatever that was that made him bring out that statement the way he did has not yet been openly presented so we can only make surmises. So until that comes out and comes out good enough to be believed, we only have to go on what transpired.

        You once again bring out your feelings towards me and not just by my statements here in this blog, but at your own website. I told you I will not elaborate on that subject anymore, but you just said something that maybe needs further clarification on.

        When I first came here, I asked for help specifying that I was having trouble with how postings were done here. You were all over the place so I asked you for help. How you interpreted that is on record. I also came to your personal website and I needed help posting also. Sadly it seems that I, who needed help, have surpassed you in one respect since I have seen you not say what you did to me here, but to several others, Surfisher most recently in particular.

        As is our agreement with Rand Paul’s way or approach on how he went about endorsing Romney, you have left out something in your complaint about others making comments to others but under your comments. My comment to J gave me the answer, thanks to you. What I did for the first time was to reply to my e-mail notification, as I am presently doing, something you seem to only do. Sadly what that does is to not have given you the opportunity of seeing and therefore fully understanding how some of us (others) reply. Those whom you have complained to about making comments that come to you that are meant for others are not doing that. What they are doing is coming to the website itself and scrolling down and when they see a comment they want to reply to, there is usually not a reply link to click onto other than the original comment in the thread. Therefore it is not conducive to stating a whole new thread as you suggest here.

        Sadly, they do what I have complained to you about with me. Since they are replying to someone else but can only do it under a link further up in the thread, they do not start off their greeting with the name of the person they are replying to. Therefore there becomes the confusion that you see differently in your e-mail notifications. Those people, including maybe ones who are here often like Surfisher, seem not to check the little box that you are talking about. Actually, as the problem I told you I was having in your website, depending upon the browser being used, a commenter might not even see that little check box.

        So my point here is to give out more helpful information as I asked for the first time I entered into this and your website. I would like to suggest and ask of you that when you receive such bothersome comments in the future, that you do make it known, but at that time to help along the situation and explain to the person that it would be helpful for the little box at the end of the comment section to be checked and if it is not seen, to ask the owner of the website if something can be done to help post a better received or notified comment in the future. It would also help to bring out that once the little checkbox is checked, answers will be sent to that person’s e-mail account and any replies can be done more directly and actually easier by that means. Of course there will still be comments left here by those who do not check the little box and for whatever reason will not be sent out, but at least the problem you express will be able to be 95% corrected.

        That little bit of information is something I have in all of my personal e-mails permanently embedded, but in a much shorter version. Not only has there virtually never been any confusion in the thousands of e-mails I respond to every year, but it generally is copied shortly after my correspondents get used it.

        As you say…

        Cheers,
        Rhonda
        November 23, 2012/Friday

      • annebeck58 says:

        Rhonda;
        I only have a moment and will respond to you, again, about receiving follow-up emails to your comments (or not) and/or comments directed toward you in your dashboard (if you have a wordpress blog.)
        I did tell you, months back, all you need to do is click on the box (below this comment box), which is a direction: “Notify me of follow-up comments via email”. You had thanked me, in the past, for explaining to you how you would be able to comment back to anyone who’s written a comment to you. I gave you accurate information/ When you receive the emails, there is a (large blue) button, for “reply”. When you click on that button, it directs you back to the person whom you prefer to talk with and it saves comments going, instead, to another person (especially when you’re talking with someone else in a negative manner about the commenter whose comment you are incidentally responding to.)

        I did not send you an ugly response. Yet, true to form, you did back at me.
        Now, please learn how to use wordpress so that i do not have to receive your responses to others, simply because you were too lazy or could not be bothered to prevent it. It will save the other person multiple responses to a comment which you did not wish to respond to, in the first place.
        I do not know how you understood it once but cannot recall it, now, especially as you’ve repeatedly been asked to stop.

        Done.

      • Rhonda says:

        Annebeck,

        Thank you for acknowledging that I did indeed only ask you for help and that you willing gave it to me and was so good at it that you generated a “thank you” from me. That is what I have been saying all along so I say thank you again….”thank you”.

        What you say to me is also what I ended my comment with by giving you my point in all that I was saying, which therefore was/is the issue, not the lead-in I was saying. My suggestion is that you explain to others such as Surfisher or J about using the check box at the end of the comment block and that the reply button upon the e-mail notification will allow a reply to be laid directly under the intended comment being replied to. Of course J already explained to you that he understands what you are saying and why he is not doing that. Since I notice that J does mention most of the time to whom he is replying to, there should be no problem with that. All you have to do is delete something that is not directed toward you. Of course if that means you are getting too many notifications, then I will once again thank you, but this time I thank you for J since his explanation to you is saying that there were just too many notifications also so he does not check the little box any longer.

        It is so nice that we can finally agree on something that expands to others such as J. I would like to suggest that maybe you take some time to join a beauty pageant. I am sure it will have a great influence on your type of agreeable attitude. The girls there will treat you accordingly. After all, I said to you once before out here that you must be qualified to be part of one. Call it a contest, if not a pageant, but that is just my suggestion, not the issue of this comment.

        My issue extends to one more added thing. I do not have, nor have I ever said I did or indicated that I had a Word Press account. Talking about a “dashboard” means little to me. I might have said to you that I am aware that this blog and yours are both powered by Word Press, so how you could think I said that while talking about my memory of something that I have only used in all these months as much as you have seen me use its services, beats me. Of course I thank you for that statement in this thread also since it helps to understand better what you have been thinking of me, that being something I have no idea what could have made you think of a wrong bit of information.

        Then again, people have a tendency of overlaying their own beliefs and actions upon others. Since you are out here so often, it is probable that you could have thought I must know as much as you being that it is now so natural to you without you being aware that I have only been out what, maybe ten times? Of course, now that I think more about it, that could not be since Ron Paul supporters do claim to be more aware of what is happening around them and therefore can “feel” another’s “pain” better than the average person. Whatever the case might be, the point here is to inform you that I do not have a Word Press account and you have been my main mentor so I end now by once again saying…”thank you”.

        Yours,
        Rhonda
        November 23, 2012/Friday

  35. annebeck58 says:

    It’s far too easy to fool some of the people all of the time…

  36. Surfisher says:

    Third-Party Candidates debate

    My take grading the four:

    The Green lady made some good points — overall decent performance. C+

    The Justice guy was mostly a wack-job — F

    The Constitution guy tried too hard to sound like a homespun southerner —and, while making some small valid points, contributed little, so is graded at D-

    Gary Johnson — the Libertarian — was nearly SPOT ON on all issues! A- (deducting for the pro-choice statement, which seems to matter to some).
    —————————————————-
    Therefore:

    VOTE for GARY JOHNSON — AND NO ONE ELSE — or give up on our Free Nation!

  37. aurelbarber says:

    Mr.Wead, it was not an intentional misspelling of your name, but a mistake. The real motive of my involvement in “YOUR” cause its because Liberty its an universal cause, for wich i fought many years without hope, till now. I think that the majority of the RON PAUL MOVEMENT dont realize in what they”re in. Your ENEMY is my ENEMY too. It is the same People that created the Communism and perpetuated till the END.They are neither Europeans, nor Americans, neither Jewish, nor Christians or Muslems. They are the ones hwo control the MONEY SUPPLY IN THE WORLD. I dont want to see another slaugther like in Russia and Eastern Europe where 15% of the population was elimineted, the best of them! The same will happen in America soon, if you DONT UNITE ALL THE FRACTIONS UNDER THE BANNER OF WRITE-IN RON PAUL BACKED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. There is no ELECTION, CAST VOTES, etc. It doesnt matter who you vote for, it wont count. Please WAKE-UP IN THE NAME OF GOD, LIBERTY, HUMAN RIGHTS and put aside any Querell, Issue, false Pride. There is no Left or Right, only YOU abainst THEM. Go to WAG THE DOG Site and spread the Message.
    Its very important to complete the TAKE-OVER of the REP.PARTY, Nobody can persuade unwilling or ignorant People to take part of a Revolution, its a FAKT, but you dont need that to complete your Goal.
    Dont waste your time, money, energy, etc. on other issues. I pray to GOD that you”ll understand, its not a game, its a matter of life or dead.
    Sincerly yours
    aurel barber

    • ___j___ says:

      Aurel, some things you say are correct, others I don’t have much hope for. People *should* vote in 2012, to send a message about what sort of candidates they want to seen in 2016 — that can be a Ron Paul write-in vote, but it can also be a vote for Gary Johnson, or Virgil Goode, or even a write-in vote for James Madison. Whatever vote you cast, use a camera to take a picture of your ballot, even a cellfon cam, as evidence of how you voted. (Especially important for write-in votes… so we can find out precinct-by-precinct whether some clerk was busy “invalidating” any ballots they did not happen to agree with.)

      As for uniting 100 million registered voters behind Ron Paul write-in votes in the last couple weeks before the election, that is simply not going to happen. Doug Wead is not a king, nor a magician, who can *order* people in the liberty-movement to write-in Ron Paul, or wave his wand and wake up the sheeple that don’t usually bother to vote. Besides, there is no time to get them registered as voters, and to get Ron Paul certified as a write-in, and so on. Ron Paul will not be the president in 2013. You can still advocate writing in his name: that is an honorable and moral way to cast a vote!

      As for your longer-term worries, about the trans-national trans-ethnic central-banking cartel, methinks you are quite correct that they are running the show right now, and that to beat them we must complete our restoration of the Republican party to their founding principles of liberty and justice for all. Which means we must wrest control of the RNC from those elite pooh-bahs, by voting them out, seat by seat and state by state. This has already started to happen, in Maine, in Alaska, and in other states where we have enough precinct chairs and convention delegates that love liberty. But *this* task won’t be finished in 2013, either. Even if we get a liberty-candidate as the repub nominee for president in 2016, we still may not have fixed the RNC.

      But we will get a liberty-president, and we will get a liberty-RNC, as long as we don’t give up after the 2012 election. Keep fighting for liberty! From right now, through all of 2013, the 2014 convention, and all of 2015, until we achieve our goal, in 2016 or 2020 or however long it takes us. Obama isn’t really a clone of Stalin, and Romney isn’t really a clone of Hitler — although both are very bad candidates, I don’t believe a mere 4 more years will truly finalize the police state in the USA. Look at the crowds when Ron Paul gives a speech, even now when he is no longer running. We are not yet East Germany! There is still time left on the clock; liberty has not yet been snuffed.

    • annebeck58 says:

      I agree with you, Aurel.
      And I wish we could get everyone who shifted from Ron Paul to (ugh) Gary Johnson, back to writing-in Ron Paul.
      This craziness of, “they’ll destroy every ballot with Ron Paul on it”, is obviously meant to trick us into not doing this. And like most rumors, it should be ignored. Problem is enough will believe it and do what is not in our best interest. Gary Johnson is fresh off of the NeoCon truck and I will never go with him.

      I completely agree with you on who is using us, like many other nations, as chess pieces. It sickens me.

  38. ___j___ says:

    Anne, you live in Texas. I bet you that proverbial middle-of-the-donut that your write-in ballot for Ron Paul will not be counted… although I’m unsure whether your *entire* ballot will be invalidated, including your vote for Cruz over Sandler in the senate, or just your presidential vote. Some states, like California, count *all* the names on the ballot, and don’t even require certification of any sort. But that’s only about 5 out of 50.

    http://elections.dentoncounty.com/go.asp?Dept=82&Link=971

    FAQ#38 == Can I vote for a write-in candidate? Yes. [explanation snipped except final sentence]… Only names ON THE LIST of certified write-in candidates will be COUNTED. [emphasis added] http://www.co.cooke.tx.us/ips/export/sites/cooke/downloads/Election/WriteInCandidatesTexas.pdf

    Here is the list of states where write-ins *may* count, if the local precinct clerk plays fair with the ballots: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?389509-States-no-signature-needed-from-Dr.-Paul-write-ins-count-AL-IA-WI-PA-CA-VT-NH-DE Possibility of 55 ecVotes if Ron Paul beats the ~7M zombies that will vote for Obama in CA, plus another 55 in the seven other states that count write-ins. 270 required.

    • Surfisher says:

      ___j___

      Spot on. The Establishment fears Ron Paul so much that they will do anything to stop him and his (our) movement for Liberty on the election level (since so far they have not been able to control the internet, and thus shut us down completely)!

      The Major Networks will show after the election NOTHING for Ron Paul (not even that he got ANY of the Vote, for that would be admitting that some actually dared to write-in his name).

      The Apparatchiks have been told to shred all write-in ballots where Ron Paul’s name appears (for proof just watch after the election and see if Ron Paul is even mentioned, let alone how many votes he got)!

      Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 States — so a vote for him is a vote COUNTED against the wannabe despots of America! (Plus, if he breaks the 5+% level, the Libertarian Party (Ron Paul’s original party) will be eligible for federal funds to the tune of about 90 million dollars for the next election — and no longer will be a financial shoe-string operation!!!)

      VOTE GARY JOHNSON (or write-in Ron Paul) — as long as you vote for what you realize is BEST for our Nation, and NOT get bamboozled into voting again for the “lesser” of two evils (this path only leads to more and bigger evil, for the next coming term)!!!

    • annebeck58 says:

      I would rather have my write-in not counted than have my e-vote counted for either Rombama or Obamney.
      And I still can sleep knowing my conscience is clear. I voted for whom I supported and was not pushed into going with anyone I don’t like. I am not talking don’t like their personalities (which is the case) but the policy of the “heads” is too much for me to ever go along with.

      Johnson is too soon away from being a neocon republican so I will not be voting for him. Sure, he now wears a “peace-sign tee”, but it’s not enough to convince me that he’s really for peace. Surely, he does not think about this or foreign aid as I do, or as Ron Paul does.
      This voting-season has about put me off from voting, possibly ever again. Too much fraud and game-play, including the disgusting manner in which Ron Paul was treated (as were we, and as are we, still). How dare Fox and friends (the other snewzz outlets) just completely blow him off? Can you imagine how it would have gone if he had been given a fair-shake with the media? I would bet he would be our next president. But they, the PTB including the msm, would never allow this.

      • ___j___ says:

        Anne, you are correct that Johnson supports some foreign aid, in particular to Israel. (I didn’t know that until today.) He does not want any wars that aren’t declared by congress, which is also Ron Paul’s position, but he seems more like a tea-party candidate on foreign aid, who wants to end foreign aid to places like Egypt, but keep supplying foreign aid to places like Israel.

        Which is playing favorites, and is going to cause blowback, in the form of increased terrorism against USA targets (foreign ones like our embassies as well as possibly domestic ones as well). So here is a case where Gary Johnson does actually differ substantially from Ron Paul, not just in rhetoric but in a policy-stance, and therefore ends up Doing The Wrong Thing, at least in my book.

        Johnson still treats foreign wars correctly, methinks, but foreign aid he definitely deals with incorrectly. The federal government has no business using our taxdollars to fund foreign welfare, any more than they ought to be funding domestic welfare. Both scenarios are better dealt with via private charities, and (for domestic welfare) state-level programs in the short run, which can gradually be phased out as private charity gains traction once again.

        People thinking about voting for Gary should be aware of this one. Fiscally, the foreign aid budget is only 50 billion or so, which is a drop in the bucket of our 1200-billion-or-so deficit spending. But this issue is a principle thing, and also a long-term-thing (no entangling alliances means no playing favorites with foreign aid my friends). There are not many other options on the ballot that *will* cut foreign aid, of course, but if this is a dealkiller for you in 2012, better do some research to see who is on your state’s ballot that groks foreign aid correctly.

        As for 2014 and 2016, maybe we can convince Gary he’s wrong, and get him to see the long-term consequences of foreign aid to allies. There’s a place for that, such as the Marshall Plan which was used to rebuild West Germany… thereby crushing Stalin’s efforts to rule all of Europe… but we should only even *consider* foreign aid when we are at war, or when we are on the brink of war (as in the cold war). But unless we are willing to every penny of foreign aid as an entangling alliance, that could easily drag us into a hot war, we should send none.

        p.s. Yes, the controlled media was disgusting this year. I always knew there was a bias, but I thought it was just journalists tending to be from a specific demographic group. And I thought there was nothing more. But this year changed my view. Even CSPAN, which refused to televise the name of Ron Paul when the called the roll… basically, the people that own the big bailout-recipients are the very same people that own the media, and own the superpacs which spend all that money in the media. Apparently, with some strings attached.

      • annebeck58 says:

        You are making the distinction between war declared by Congress while I am talking about war that should never be. He’s for, “humanitarian war”, and I see nothing humanitarian about war.
        His hardline on funding Izrahell bothers me to no end. Any president who does not see this as a MAJOR problem for the USA, at this time, will never get my vote.
        And he is NOT for closing the (far too many) military bases all over the world, including those we’re still working on installing in Australia (and they do not want US there, either; it’s bad-form for many reasons but makes them appear ready to go up against their Asian friends).
        No matter how much you say, you will not convince me to vote Gary Johnson. So I really don’t know why you keep bothering.

        Perhaps your time would be better spent comisserating with Surfisher who went from all-Paul all the time to GJ, overnight? Check out her/his thousands of comments about Paul and against all others, in Doug’s blogs (all of them) to see why I might be irritated with one who’d so randomly and easily flip.

        I won’t be doing this. Regardless of anything, I won’t do it. Done discussing it now.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Please start responding to the people you mean to respond to. WordPress has it set up so it’s quite easy. All you need to do is hit that, REPLY button, from within the emails they send you.
        Don’t get the emails? I can’t help you of you don’t see why. You can also respond from your bar- above. So it’s not necessary to send these comments for others to me. Jeez.

      • ___j___ says:

        (Anne, about the reply-thing, I use the website, which only permits replying to the top-two-levels. I used to email-follow, but it was too much email! That is why you sometimes get my comments to other folks… it is a wordpress configuration problem… kinda like that your-comment-is-awaiting-moderation message that we both have seen from time to time. Anyway, not intending to fill your inbox, but the website doesn’t let me reply directly to a three-deep comment.)

      • ___j___ says:

        “[Gary Johnson’s] hardline on funding Izrahell bothers me to no end. Any president who does not see this as a MAJOR problem for the USA, at this time, will never get my vote.”

        Which is absolutely your right. And, as you have gathered by now, I’m not trying to change your mind on that. It is a dealbreaker policy-issue for you. While I agree with you on the policy, it is not a dealbreaker for me, because given the choice between Barack/Mitt/Gary/Virgil, every single one of them supporting foreign aid to Israel, my pick is pretty clear… either I don’t vote, or I make the choice based on other issues, like ending the *current* unconstitutional wars to cut military spending (only GJ), or following the constitution (GJ or VG). I’m in one of those states where write-ins will not be counted.

        “you will not convince me to vote Gary Johnson. So I really don’t know why you keep bothering.” You misunderstand my goal. I’m discussing the candidates with you, partly for my own knowledge — you taught me that Gary supports some foreign aid which is one difference between him and Ron Paul that I didn’t know — but also for the lurkers that may read what we say. Most people research their vote for about an hour, right before heading to the polls. The search engines, or their buddies, might send them to our conversation.

        p.s. Just like his stance on foreign aid, Gary’s stance on closing bases is that we should only keep those that are vital to our national security, and in particular, that most of the bases on the warsaw-pact line need to be closed. (I knew this already. Ron Paul would also keep SOME bases open… but you are prolly correct that Gary would keep more.)

      • annebeck58 says:

        So why not choose one of Surfisher’s thousands of comments to respond to? It would make the amount of emails I receive less.
        Besides, Surfisher is putting out some disinfo, again, and should be challenged.
        I’ve asked and insisted that my comments not receive responses that are not directed to me multiple times. Yet it goes on and on and on… showing up in both my email (from this blog) and in my dashboard, too.

  39. Surfisher says:

    Would ask all that find merit in the below to SPREAD IT! Thanks.
    ————————————————————————————–

    VOTE for Gary Johnson (do not write-in Ron Paul, please)!

    Here is why:

    The Establishment fears Ron Paul so much that they will do anything to stop him and his (our) movement for Liberty on the election level (since so far they have not been able to control the internet, and thus shut us down completely)!

    The Major Networks will show after the election NOTHING for Ron Paul (not even that he got ANY of the Vote, for that would be admitting that some actually dared to write-in his name).

    The Apparatchiks have been instructed to shred all write-in ballots where Ron Paul’s name appears (for proof just watch after the election and see if Ron Paul is even mentioned, let alone how many votes he got)!

    Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 States — so a vote for him is a vote COUNTED against the wannabe despots of America! (Plus, if he breaks the 5+% level, the Libertarian Party (Ron Paul’s original party) will be eligible for federal funds to the tune of about 90 million dollars for the next election — and no longer will be a financial shoe-string operation!!!).

    VOTE GARY JOHNSON (or write-in Ron Paul if you must) — as long as you vote for what you realize is BEST for our Nation, and NOT get bamboozled into voting again for the “lesser of two evils”: the Kenyan Barack or Mitt the Mormon (this path only leads to more and bigger evil, for the next election cycle…should there be one)!!!

    • ___j___ says:

      Actually, estab-repub-lawyers kicked Gary off the ballot in Oklahoma, so he’s only on the ballot in 49 states plus DC (which is 50 out of 51… but not all fifty states).

      Also, because of his brief participation in the repub primaries, Michigan is forcing Gary to be a write-in candidate there. Worth mentioning, because folks in Michigan might otherwise not realize they *can* vote for Gary Johnson.

      As for voters in Oklahoma, if they want their ballot to be counted, they have the option of writing in Virgil Goode, who is running on the constitution ticket this year (Gary Johnson & Rocky Anderson were both kept off the ballot… and Oklahoma doesn’t count uncertified write-ins from what I can gather).

      • Surfisher says:

        ___j___

        Thanks for that new info.

        I’ll start qualifying my posts with “almost”, “nearly”, “most likely”, etc.

        No write-ins in my State — so either No Vote, Protest Write-in Vote for Ron Paul (my first inclination…knowing it won’t be counted) or either of the two puppets (NEVER) or Gary Johnson.

        So, the only sane vote (in this case) most likely is for Gary Johnson.

  40. Michael says:

    Banking and investing is nothing like gamble. Bankers and investors want certainty that things will go their way. Gamblers only want the rush, the stinging sensation of the possible (though uncertain) victory. They are not the gamblers the ones that are willing and able to make things happen so that they win.
    Romney will win, unless he screw everything up in the last second, and unless the people that massively voted for Obama in ’08, somehow, repeat their feat, ruining again the plans of the guys who pull the strings, right?

    Christians should write-in ‘Jesus’. Ron Paul fans should write-in ‘Ron Paul’, and see if he gets more than the 42,426 he got four year’s ago (I predict 207,000 votes). Those who want to vote for Gary Johnson, should hope to slightly exceed Bob Barr’s 523,515 votes and nothing more. I would love to see Virgil Goode get some electoral votes, but it’s very unlikely, since many republican voters seem more than willing to vote a their non-conservative, polytheist, unchristian, pro-bail-out, anti-4th amendmendt, wind-vane candidate.

    • ___j___ says:

      Michael, from my understanding, they ‘guys who pull the strings’ are firmly in control of both Obama and Romney. Either way, the bailouts and the wars will continue, right? Look at their donors, and look at all the places they have nigh-identical policies, differing only on minor details of exactly *how* to do the bailouts, exactly *how* to implement socialized medicine, exactly *how* to go to war with Iran.

      Your advice about how to vote is pretty good. Send a message to the candidates and campaign-staffers of 2014 and 2016, telling them we want candidates that don’t lie, and aren’t puppets for shady interests. There are some practical difficulties, though; some states won’t count uncertified write-ins (for Jesus nor for Ron Paul), so check your state law beforehand. Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson are available in most states, but not 100% of them, so again, check the internet for your state *before* you head down to vote this November. But please do vote! Send that message.

      As for your predictions, I’m guessing a bit higher for Ron Paul, say 400k, and much higher for Gary Johnson — there are seven million voters in just Ohio, and sometimes he polls at 10% there, which is more votes from one state than Bob Barr managed from all of them. My prediction is that Gary will get at least 5M votes, many of them disgruntled pauliticians (2M) that refuse to vote for Mitt, plus many disgruntled anti-war dems that refuse to vote for drone-strikes.

  41. Michael says:

    I have a question.

    When and why was created this winner-take-all system in the allocation of Electoral vote?
    Wouldn’t it be better if the electoral vote were proportional to the popular vote?
    Why don’t change the rules in the last minute, so that Mitt Romney knew how that feels.

    Anther question. Suppose Obama and Romney die from a heart attack or a lightning strike or smashed by a grand piano, in November the 5th. What would happen then? Who will the people choose for the job? That would be a great occasion for a man that deserves a second chance as a President: Jimmy Carter. Wouldn’t that be nice? I got another great candidate: Michael Bloomberg, who, like Romney, is not a Christian, and like Obama, loves everything that Texas’ Republicans hate.

  42. Surfisher says:

    Doug — time to pull your head off of the history accounting, and MAKE A STAND! Time is of the essence!

    We can forgive Ron Paul for remaining silent on who he would endorse (he has done enough to awaken our Nation)!

    But, you have a mind of your own — so should PROCLAIM YOUR ENDORSEMENT NOW (since your word carries justifiable weight here)!

    Will you do so NOW?!

    • annebeck58 says:

      Isn’t that invading his privacy? If he wanted to change his choice from Paul to anyone else, it would be his choice and I don’t think he owes it to anyone to endorse any particular candidate.
      Besides, I would hope nobody’s endorsement, either way, would sway anyone into voting for someone they have been with for this entire season. We’re seeing an awful lot of this from the biggest pro-whomever people and it blows my mind.

      • Surfisher says:

        anne — Doug is old enough to speak for himself.

      • annebeck58 says:

        How quickly you jumped on the Johnson bus.
        Makes me see just how short that bus is.

        You really are something. So easily lead. I suppose I should not be surprised.

      • annebeck58 says:

        You are something else.
        You went so quickly and completely from, I will ONLY vote Paul, even if I have to write him in, to: DO NOT write in Paul, I have to question your sanity.

        It’s enough.
        So don’t bother me again. Just do not reply to my comments because you’ve shown you make no sense and do make poor decisions (or are easily led in a completely different direction.)
        Johnson and Paul are completely different and as I do agree with Paul (and Paul with ME), I will not be casting any vote for Johnson. Why would Ron Paul NOT lend his voice and vote to Johnson if Johnson were any where close to him in theory?
        Obvious.

        And, done.

      • ___j___ says:

        @Anne, Ron Paul does like Gary Johnson, quite a bit. (And vice-versa.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40RyysZcWc

        Back in 2008, Ron Paul ended up endorsing Chuck Baldwin on the constitution-ticket, , which this year features Virgil Goode (plus also a blanket pseudo-endorsement for 3rd-party candidates of any sort who were willing to sign a balanced-budget-troops-home pledge).

        http://www.dailypaul.com/196532/did-ron-paul-ever-give-his-endorsement-to-cynthia-mckinney

        Anyways, my thinking is that Paul won’t endorse anybody this year, most likely because of a no-pressure-but-if-you-do-not-agree-we-will-keep-you-out-of-the-debates-and-destroy-you ‘agreement’ with the establishment back in 2011… or maybe even 2009…? This is just my own hypothesis, backed by no evidence. But similar things happened, so it’s not an outlandish worry. https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/post-paul-what-now/#comment-30926 We’ll see whether or not Ron Paul ends up Officially Endorsing anybody for 2012, or not.

        @surfisher, you are free to ask Doug his opinion, but you *are* being pushy when you say we can forgive Ron Paul for not endorsing any person (as yet), and thereby imply that we *cannot* forgive Doug for failing to endorse somebody. This is the liberty-movement. He can do as he sees fit. If he wants to endorse somebody, fine. If not, fine.

    • Surfisher says:

      Amazing that the people have been bamboozled into thinking that either Barack or Mitt are a solution — when both are AGAINST these principles upon which our Nation was built!

      PRINCIPLES we must stand by!

      “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….” Thomas Jefferson

      “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

      “When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” DOROTHY THOMPSON

      “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.” FREDERICK DOUGLAS

      “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” —Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

      “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” EDMUND BURKE

      “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
      —————————————————-

      Voting for either anti-American would be legitimizing the further government corruption that seems to have no end!

      VOTE for Garry Johnson — who stands for these principles, or face the dire consequences of failing to do so — TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA!

  43. Surfisher says:

    Doug —

    If you are to endorse Gary Johnson — you’ll see him breaking the 5+% needed!

    If Ron Paul does — that message would reverberate throughout the internet, and watch History in the making!

    Both your silences are deafening, and sadly unpatriotic at this crucial junction of our Nation’s path (the Rand Paul gambit will not pay out…events have indicated this to the point of certainty).

    It would take a one man’s sentence to better the course of our Nation — will you both have the wisdom to utter it?!

    • Jim says:

      You are missing the Big Picture. Ron Paul and Doug Wead have nothing to gain financially from a Gary Johnson endorsement,

  44. aurelbarber says:

    Winning Strategy, a la long. I”m wondering if your naivity is fake or real, because if its fake, you”ll foul yourself and this Movement will fade away or more sinister, will die. If its real, WAKE UP, because your LIFE and the LIFE of your family, friends is going to end after this Farse ( Election ). ALL THE LAWS are in place ( Patriot Act; NDAA; CISPA; SOPA; etc ), Dont get involved in 3 Party SCAM; WRITE-IN RON PAUL BACKED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. The reason for doing that is explained on the WRITE-IN RON PAUL 2012 WEBSITE.
    The Strategy on WAG THE DOG. The WEMEN IN AMERICA are understanding and fighting this WAR OF ATTRICION, that most MEN DONT. Either you”ll understand, or you”ll die and the HOPE for FREEDOM, too. 2012 has been the biggest FREEDOM-LIBERTY MOVEMENT OF ALL THE TIME; DONT LET IT DIE!
    Sincerly yours
    aurel barber

    • annebeck58 says:

      I agree aurel.
      These people, so completely committed to the revolution, so easily drop out when they are wooed by yet another newly third-party guy (I still say Johnson is more Republican in a bad way than Paul ever was)..
      All of this indignation, “I’ll be voting Paul, one way or another”, from certain folk here, who are now settling back into the, “Don’t vote Paul, vote Johnson”, thing. How surprising.

      Yeah.
      Not.
      And certain folk are now trying to “force” Doug Wead to declare his support of Johnson, too. Well, maybe Doug sees something similar in Johnson that we see? Maybe Doug’s committed to voting for Paul? I know I am.
      And I am sick of mamby-pamby punks who drop out before it’s over. They should go to some Johnson blogsite and bother people there.

      • ___j___ says:

        Anne, be civil. You are name-calling. This is not the Ron Paul Fansite, this is Doug Wead’s blog devoted to history, liberty, and sundry topics. Some website like http://www.dailyPAUL.com might be less appropriate for Gary Johnson fans for example… but not this website we are at now.

        Anyways, I agree that in the long run, the siren call of third parties is not going to help us *win* elections. (It might help us win hearts and minds though, which is why I hope Gary Johnson does very well in popvotes this year.) To win electoral college votes, or even seats in congress, we need to win repub-primaries, we need to win repub-precinct-chair-seats, and we need to win hearts-n-minds. The first pair of that triplet requires running repub-candidates, not third-party.

        As for 2012, though, it is all over but the general [s]election. The powers that be have given us a wooden nickel, with Obama on one side, and Romney on the other side, and no matter which one wins, we the citizens will lose. (Most citizens fail to even *realize* the dilemna exists… but they still lose, right along with us that do know.)

        Voting in 2012 is *still* important, because it sends a message through time, forward to 2014 and 2016. We won’t have a president Ron Paul in 2013 (or even a president Gary Johnson… who as much as you dislike him would still be a vast improvement over Obama & Mitt….) Voting for Ron Paul, or for Gary Johnson, or for Virgil Goode, or for Rocky Anderson, or for Jesus of Nazareth, or for Ronald Reagan, or for James Madison… all those are valid responses to the reality. Please, do as you see fit. But allow others the same liberty.

        Point being, I know you are under stress with your local county pooh-bahs trying to put you through the meat-grinder for your support of Ron Paul, and therefore feel some stress when folks on the internet also support candidates that aren’t Ron Paul, but take a deep breath, and regain your perspective. Liberty is worth fighting for. We all hoped that it would be 2013 that marked the turning of the tide. Maybe, in historical hindsight, we will see that 2012 *was* just that. But there is still a long way to go, yet — miles before we sleep. “Keep Calm And Carry On, Y’All.” ( http://www.EmpowerTexans.com )

      • Surfisher says:

        ___j___ Great post.

        It is over — as you state. The key is that the Perfidy that is the Republican Party NOW, is not to be rewarded by a Rmoney win! That would spell disaster to any inroads that the Liberty Movement has made!

        Shame that Reason could not overcome lies and cheating this time around!

      • annebeck58 says:

        Perhaps you should spend time in the Republican boards, trying to get others to NOT vote Romney, rather than posting and reposting the same stuff in this one blog?
        Maybe you should lay off of Doug Wead.
        Doug is nothing more than a voter, as of now, and he does not owe it to you or to any of us to state who he’ll vote for. Yet you continue… and again?

        YOU are using my comments, with the knowledge that each of your inane responses go to my email box. Perhaps you want to respond via the REPLY button in your own email box and not to me, again?

  45. Well, it’s looking like both Obamney and Rombama are pretending to fight Sandy in New Jersey now.

    Things are of catastrophic magnitude in New Jersey right now, condolences to people of New Jersey and other neighboring states hit very badly.

  46. Jim says:

    Ron Paul is the inspiration behind H.Res. 580 – The “Sunlight Resolution” – Expose Washington Corruption

    H.Res. 580 requires that a Member of Congress seeking travel reimbursement provide an “itemized description of the expense, including the specific flight number, and use a credit card provided by the House of Representatives.”

    But why is this so important?

    Because on Feb. 6, 2012, Roll Call – the Newspaper of Capitol Hill Since 1955, published the first of several articles: “Records Show Ron Paul Trips Paid Twice”; followed on Feb. 21 by, “Associate Confronted Ron Paul About Flights”.

    According to Roll Call, Ron Paul received reimbursement for travel expenses he claims to have been “official” while at the same time, asking people who support his principles through TLC and other groups to pay him directly for the costs of those same trips. Use of a personal credit card and allocating expenses is at the heart of this double billing. H.Res. 580 would require use of an official credit card for official business.

    On February 22, 2012, Roll Call reported that “In response to reports that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was double-reimbursed for travel, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) is drawing up a resolution to strengthen travel reporting requirements in the House.” (Read Article)

    Rep. Quigley’s bill is H.Res. 580. The related Senate bill is S.Res. 288. These bills are critical to rebuilding the personal integrity of Congress.

    A Master Chart that TLC prepared and sent to Rep. Paul links over $20,000 of travel expenses he billed to TLC between 1998 and 2005 with travel expenses that official House documents reveal were also reimbursed to him through the House of Representatives. (see Documentation and Analysis) The actual total could be much more than $20,000 — that figure recaptures only the most obvious duplicate payments. Furthermore, TLC is only one of several organizations or committees Roll Call uncovered that were double billed for travel by Dr. Paul.

    That’s why Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) put Ron Paul on their 2012 “Most Corrupt” list for “improperly seeking double reimbursements for travel expenses.”

    And that’s why Rep. Quigley’s legislation is urgently needed.

    A follow-up Roll Call article from May 15, 2012, shows how difficult it is to get a Member to return money: “Nonprofit Prods Ron Paul for Repayment.”

    But it gets worse. In 2009 when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker, the House actually took a step backward and made it easier for a Member of Congress to bill twice for the same travel and not have that double billing discovered.

    The Feb. 22nd Roll Call article reported that after 2009 “the House for the first time released its quarterly expense reports online.” “Hurray” you say – “that makes it easier to check up on my representative!” But according to Roll Call “…Congressional administrators erased a vast array of details on the expenditures,” before they began posting them online, “making it impossible to determine what much of the money was actually spent on.”

    The House did taxpayers no favors when they hid critical data. As Roll Call reported, the 2009 changes “make it almost impossible to track whether Members are being paid by taxpayers and other groups for the same items.”

    TAKE ACTION NOW!

    Hold Congress accountable. Call the Capitol Hill switchboard (202) 225-3121 and ask for your U.S. Representative – tell them to become a co-sponsor of H.Res. 580. Then call Rep. Mike Quigley directly (202) 225-4061 to say “Thank you!” and urge him to push for passage before the end of the current Congress and commit to reintroducing the same resolution in January.

    Need more information? Review documentation on which this investigation and findings are based at Documentation and Analysis.

    http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/home.asp

    • ___j___ says:

      CREW is a democrat hit-group, that spends their time smearing *anti-corruption* repubs like Ron Paul and Darrell Issa. Quigley is a democrat, from Chicago, who for Some Undisclosed Reason just so happened to suddenly become interested in attacking Ron Paul… right around the time of the Maine primary. Hmmmmm. Given the info that is available to the public, we cannot disprove the hit-piece… but of course, that is the nature of all smear campaigns… make wild accusations, then pretend that the *target* of the accusations must disprove them, rather than the maker of the accusations proving them… guilty until proven innocent, in other words. I’ve reviewed the available evidence, nothing has been proven that I saw, see link below.

      These facts are not disputed by Jim, who personally dislikes Ron Paul, Doug Wead, Jesse Benton, and pretty much (but not quite!) anything related to the liberty-movement, for the sketchiest of ‘reasons’, typically founded in exactly the sort of hit-piece he covers above. Here is our previous conversation on the matter. https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/post-paul-what-now/#comment-31350 Note how Jim contributes nothing positive, only continually regurgitates the negative media hit-pieces.

      That said, Jim does not hate Gary Johnson, so perhaps there is still hope for him to someday actually *help* increase liberty, rather than spending all his time attacking members of the liberty-movement, hoping to purge the BAD apples… including Ron Paul… who, Jim is quite firmly convinced, is a secret Nazi sympathizer… sigh.

      HR580 is good legislation, from what I can tell, although I haven’t read it all the way through, just the summary-stuff. Jim, why don’t you contribute something that might actually help: read the legislation, and post a *detailed* summary here, including any buried gotchas?

      • Surfisher says:

        ___j___

        Jim is the forum’s troll.

        No-one pays attention to it (since it hates Ron Paul and all Real Americans)!

      • ___j___ says:

        I know he often behaves like a concern-troll. But he’s quite intelligent. And he’s *not* really working for Mitt, nor for Obama, even though sometimes it may seem like it. He’s just very, very angry, so much so that it blinds him to the Good, and makes him think the worst of people, even people like Ron Paul.

        I’m trying to channel his energy into something more positive, and bring him fully into the liberty-movement. He’s on the fringe now. If he could learn to be civil, and to have some *perspective* on reality, he might be an asset. He sure has excellent sources on when attacks against the liberty movement crop up in the media. Either he knows an insider, or he *is* an insider, or he just spends twenty hours a day on youtube. I’m curious if he knows who hired the guy that wrote the Ron-Paul-is-a-Nazi ebook, for instance.

        Anyhoo, rather than regurgitating those attacks, I’d like to recruit him to help us refute them for what they are. He has a keen sense of corruption, even if his smear-campaign-detector is totally broken. I’ll do my best not to feed any troll-like behavior, to keep from messing up Doug’s blog, and any email-subscriber’s inbox-feeds.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Jim had some sort of a falling-out with Doug over Amway.
        Both were Amway salesmen at some point in their lives and it seems Jim never made it very far up the pyramid. He quite obviously resents Doug Wead for this.
        His “reasoned” rationale for disliking Ron Paul has never been stated. It could be only because Doug got and relished his job with Dr Paul that’s set-off Jim.
        That’s all.
        And now you see why I am disgusted with this insistent Surfisher.
        I am sick of being told what i NEED to do by this person who was A B S O L U T E L Y with Ron Paul no matter what, yet has so easily turned against the write-in revolution. The write-in campaign (as there are more than one) is NOT ONLY for people in Maine, as Richard Gilbert has been working– with many of us– to get Ron Paul as a valid and counted write-in candidate in MANY states. I do not need to be repeatedly told to take his/her advice– as do we ALL- and go with a guy we don’t like, after much research. Would you not be irritated if you’d researched a candidate and found him lacking, to have some idiot telling you what to do?

        I do not need to be admonished by ANYONE. I am doing what I want to do and only what I want to do. And i am sick of you trying to have this person’s back in commenting to me when you know very little of the backstory.

        And it’s insane that Surfisher so easily allowed the Libertarian party, who accepted this Republican Johnson as their candidate, would do this.
        It’s like it’s upside-down day whenever this person makes a comment.
        I also resent his/her going at Doug, who happens to now be a private civilian with the right to make up his own mind, too. This insistence is overbearing and irritating. And this repeating of comment about how Doug somehow owes it to Surfisher to state his choice/ his vote is tiresome.

        And I wish everyone would stop using my comments to respond to others. This sends the comments to my email and to my dashboard.

      • Surfisher says:

        ___j___

        Jim is an Israeli plant/troll/shill — its only goal is to assure what’s best for Israel, not for the American people.

      • Jim says:

        ___j___ the quote I posted is NOT from CREW but from LIBERTY COMMITTEE which describes itself in it’s meta tag as “Group of LIBERTARIAN Congressmen dedicated to the advancement of liberty. “(see in top google result for LC).
        Click the link. It’s on their home page :

        http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/home.asp

      • ___j___ says:

        Jim, yeah, LibertyCommittee is technically not the same as CREW, and Quigley the Chicago dem is technically a free agent acting on his own, and Roll Call is (on paper so to speak) not tied into any of them. For that matter, the guy that wrote the ron-paul-is-a-closet-nazi-ebook, and then decided to give it away for free, is also not connected here. But my hypothesis is a good old-fashioned conspiracy theory, of the relatively plain-jane smear-campaign sort. I’ve never been partial to those, but after seeing the teleprompter-scripting at both the RNC and the DNC natcons, the twin-party idea seems to fit the facts.

        So, conspiracy: somebody is paying money/favors to have these folks say these things, and most particularly, to get them to come forth at the particular *times* that they did. The CREW report, and the first Quigley bill, were almost simultaneous. I strongly doubt their honesty. The first rollcall article covered that in February, cf the primaries of that month, and Doug Wead’s comments about being threatened with a PR-atomic-bomb. I believe this was a warning shot. Ron Paul doesn’t attack Mitt as much as he does the others, thereafter.

        The guy from the LibertyCommittee has known about this stuff for years and years, right? Back from when he had a falling-out with Ron Paul, personally, over a beef about using Ron Paul’s likeness to lobby for policy-positions Ron Paul was against? So there is bad blood between those two. Doesn’t prove the LibertyCmte guy is *not* truthsaying, but does give a motive for not doing so… and a motive for the hypothesized smear-campaigners to prod him, to end his multi-year silence at just the mid-May time he was needed. Which, to my eyes not-so-coincidentally, also just happened to be when Gingrich and Santorum had dropped out, and Romney wanted to sweep the rest of the primaries, without Ron Paul giving tons of speeches. So, some “new” dirt is dug up, and a new rollcall article hits the streets… and Ron Paul ends active campaigning.

        My *hunch* is that the LibertyCmte guy has a semi-legitimate beef, but without more data (see our previous conversation for the specifics of which pieces are missing), really hard to tell. Small potatoes, certainly — the amount of money we’re talking about is a single-digit-percentage of the cash that Ron Paul voluntarily returned to the House coffers annually! Also, from my analysis it is quite possible the extra money was double-paid to the airlines, rather than double-paid to Ron Paul… or just human error. Which leads us to my other hunch: that the reason the LibertyCmte guy brought up the subject after all those years wasn’t some moral concern about keeping some rising political candidate honest — there was an external motivator.

        Anyways, we might be able to unravel the mess, if we spend enough time with it, call the involved parties, talk to bystanders. Certainly, I would love to know who prompted Flock to reblog about the six-month-old story, right after the natcon in Tampa. While I’m wishing for ponies, I’d like a transcript of Charlie Nejedely’s emails and foncalls for the past 18 months!

        p.s. As for the Israelis, in my book they’re a-okay, although I don’t always agree with their security-related tactics. I do think we should end foreign aid to them, along with everybody else… not because they aren’t our allies, but because they *are* our allies, and as good allies, we don’t want to play favorites with them that will cause many of the non-favored-nations to therefore hate Israel (nor the USA for that matter). We should only use our power for good, in other words… which means, somewhat paradoxically, that in some peacetime cases we must withhold casual government-level subsidies *from* the good guys, and depend rather on private internationally-directed charity. Just like domestically….

      • Jim says:

        Another urban myth:
        “the amount of money we’re talking about is a single-digit-percentage of the cash that Ron Paul voluntarily returned to the House coffers annually!”
        Prove it. Post the documentation.

    • Jim says:

      PS: no press releases from Lew Rockwell or the Congressman’s office: just hard documentation from the US Treasury.

  47. Surfisher says:

    Amazing that the people have been bamboozled into thinking that either Barack or Mitt are a solution — when both are AGAINST these principles upon which our Nation was built!

    PRINCIPLES we must stand by!

    “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….” Thomas Jefferson

    “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

    “When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” DOROTHY THOMPSON

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” —Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” EDMUND BURKE

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
    —————————————————-

    Voting for either anti-American would be legitimizing the further government corruption that seems to have no end!

  48. Surfisher says:

    Barack wants to destroy our Freedoms and our Nation — he is the evil we know!

    But, if Mitt gets into the White House — expect An American Tragedy!

    His 5 Mormon Sons are getting groomed to take over…and create a Dynasty of little Mormon Mitts for decades to come!

    Now, that is truly scary!
    ————————————-

    Vote Gary Johnson — do not vote for the lesser of these two evils!

    • Surfisher says:

      FYI — The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune!

      Now another Mormon could do the same to our entire Nation…if it gets elected!

      Vote for Anyone, but Mitt the American Destroyer!
      ——————————————————————–

      I chose to vote for Ron Paul’s Libertarian Party — Gary Johnson this time, who is on all 50 State Ballots. And should Ron Paul run again in 2016, he’s only option will be the Libertarian Ticket!!!!!

      A Vote for the Libertarian Candidate NOW, is a vote for Ron Paul later!

  49. Surfisher says:

    Doug — still mute on endorsement?!

    I guess patriotism has a limit in your circles….

    • ___j___ says:

      @surfisher, you are being insulting. Doug, as a true patriot, can vote for whomever he wishes, and endorse if-n-when he so pleases. (The true patriot is the one who will stand up to the government when they are doing something wrong. –Ron Paul, speaking in generalities, but also quite perfectly describing Doug’s blog entry here.)

      This is the liberty-movement, not the Salem witch-trials, nor the sans-culottes tribunals. I tire of these loyalty tests.

      If you cannot yet study the situation, make up your own mind about what to do, and then gladly do it, without worrying about what other people may think, then I suggest you watch the video again, until you can. https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/post-paul-what-now/#comment-31843

      • Surfisher says:

        ___j___

        Respect your views.

        But, would you disagree that if Ron Paul endorses right NOW the Libertarian Ticket — Gary Johnson will eclipse the 5+% needed for the Libertarian Party (Ron Paul’s Original Party) by a significant percentage that will not only assure Federal Funds, but also make such vote news worthy?

        Doug Wead was Ron Paul’s Senior Adviser, as such, he cannot escape the responsibility to do his best!

      • Surfisher, Unfortunately just like the GOP, Libertarian Party has been taken over by Koch Brothers and infiltrated as well. It’s called “controlled opposition”.

        Not saying Gary Johnson himself personally is or isn’t controlled opposition. I haven’t taken time for detailed investigation on him. I know for sure he is no Ron Paul. And Ron Paul himself happens to be technically on the ballot in my state.

        Remember George Washington said the downfall of United States will be rooted in blind allegiance to political parties? Even if hypothetically Libertarian Party crossed 5% threshold for 2016, it will be easy for the puppet masters to setup a smoke and mirrors show.

        Speaking for myself, I wrote in Ron Paul’s in, created an affidavit proving it & holding my local elections commissioner to count it.

      • annebeck58 says:

        And, Chiefe? Didn’t they (the PTB) actually change that percentage necessary to fifteen-percent? I think they did.
        Yes, the Koch brothers did essentially purchase GJ when they bought into the Libertarian party. Heck, they bought the best of all worlds when the did that. There are some wonderful people affiliated with the Libs and i even cast my ballot for more than a few of them locally, but, with the Koch brothers in it now, finding out who’s who is going to be more than a bit daunting.
        It was the Koch brothers who brought the recent Republican Johnson into the party and garnered him the nod. Otherwise, I cannot see any true Libertarian nominating Johnson, a basic unknown, over many others who also ran for that nod. Johnson’s had the cash and all else of the Koch brothers behind him this season.
        It is one reason I cannot and will not vote for him. And it’s one reason why Johnson is so willing to put Israhell first.

        I think Johnson’s foreign policy is one reason Ron Paul would not endorse him. I know it keeps me from agreeing with GJ.

      • ___j___ says:

        There are two percentages being confused here. There is an FEC statutory minimum of 5% of the votes in a general election which gives the party winning that many popvotes a chunk of federal funds, which can be used in the next election (cf McCain-Feingold). So, since Gary is on the libertarian ticket this year, if he gets to 5% of the voters which is ~6M people maybe, depending on turnout, then in 2016 the libertarian presidential candidate will have a bunch of cash. Ironically, all of it coercively-acquired taxpayer funds… how very non-libertarian, to use taxpayer monies for advocating libertarianism!

        The other percentage, the 15% thing, is the necessary threshold that candidates must repeatedly achieve in nationwide *polls* in order to be given a podium-slot by the committee-on-prez-debates. The FEC-5% thing and the debate-15% thing are not interconnected in any way, beyond both being related to the presidential race. However, if Gary were to get beyond the 5% threshold in 2012, then the libertarian candidate in 2016 might have a decent chance of getting past the 15% polling line, and therefore (theoretically) get into the prez debates.

        In practice, the whole *point* of the prez-debate-cmte is basically to keep out 3rd-party candidates. They learned their lesson after Perot in 1992, and kept him out in 1996, cancelling the first scheduled prez-debate partly because of that very reason. Tweaking the 5% rule of 2012 as applicable in 2016 would take an act of congress, and is unlikely to be retroactively applied (see article one section nine — no ex post facto laws). Tweaking the 15% “rule” can happen at any time, or new rules of any sort can simply be added, if the people running the twin-party system see fit to do so… my hunch is they will.

  50. Surfisher says:

    Doug — Qvo Vadis?

    Still mute on endorsement?!

    I guess patriotism has a limit in your circles….

  51. annebeck58 says:

    If anyone recalls, I did say something very big (maybe big enough to cancel (s)elections) would take place on the 29th. Hello, Sandy.
    And as far as my vote is concerned; I just received MY mail-ballot and wrote-in CONGRESSMAN RONALD E. PAUL.
    So my vote is no longer up for discussion. (this means YOU — not you, Doug Wead.)

    • ___j___ says:

      Anne, have you every considered a career as a geophysicist? Or at least, as a nightly news weather forecaster? When’s the next hurricane due, if one may be so bold as to ask? [grin]

      Seriously, though, I would be quite curious to find out what will happen with your write-in ballot, after the results for your precinct are in. Will they report it as “Ron Paul” … or as “other” … or simply not report anything, but give a total-ballot-count which exceeds the sum of all the votes-counted-for-named-candidates? We shall see. Please post an update here when you find out the answer.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Well, given that I do not really follow weather-trends unless I have plans for travel, I would say that weather-girl is out. Besides, what i got was not via any forecasts. It had everything to do with a dream about 6 weeks past.
        Regarding my write-in for Paul, it it counted (or not) in two places. First, the county/state political workers get it. They probably won’t count it at all (but it does not negate the rest of my choices, either.) It merely gives them my take on this complete b/s that we’ve dealt with.
        But, my vote (write-in) will be counted by Ron Paul. The write-in revolution will be counting and presenting my vote to Dr Paul, and that’s good enough for me. Perhaps it will help to convince him to go ahead and throw his hat into the ring for Gov of Texas, in 2 years? I hope so. At least he will know that I cared enough about having my say I did what I needed to do.

        I am glad you finally figured out the Koch brothers, and I do think Johnson is essentially owned by them. The whole “libertarian party” is now owned by them. Johnson came over only after not getting enough Republicans to go with him (early on this season). So he had to know who he was getting into bed with. Besides, where did he come up with the funds to beat someone like Bob Barr (Libs like Barr)? I would say that came directly from the Koch’s, who happen to OWN quite a few governors in this country. Remember, Johnson was gov of N Mexico.
        Nothing shocks me any more.
        It bothers me.
        But nothing really surprises me, even the Libertarians wanting their share of the taxpayer’s voting-money pie.. which is not all that libertarian of them, is it?

  52. Surfisher says:

    The Chiefe (@the_chiefe71) says:
    November 1, 2012 at 1:57 am
    “…Speaking for myself, I wrote in Ron Paul’s in, created an affidavit proving it & holding my local elections commissioner to count it.”

    Congrats — You can hold your head high for voting your conscience!

    Few will be able to do so after this “election”…and there’s the pity for our nearly finished Nation!

  53. Surfisher says:

    ___j___ — on endorsement.

    Ron Paul is holding out for his son!

    Doug Wead has no such filial obligation!

    Should he, Doug, endorse Gary Johnson — we may just avoid the monstrosity of Mormon Mitt getting into the white House…with his 5 Mormon Sons waiting in line…for more rapaciousness over decades to come!

    • Surfisher says:

      P.S.

      In case one is unaware —The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune!
      (that is how the Mormons got financial power to jump start their cult)

      Now another Mormon is at the precipice of getting to do the same to our entire Nation!

    • annebeck58 says:

      No, he is NOT.
      Ron Paul has never said anything positive about Rand’s politics, and there is a reason for this. They do not agree on a LOT of issues.
      Anyone who thinks Ron Paul would stoop to “holding out for his son”, based on pure nepotism, is just not thinking.
      I mean:
      HONESTLY!

      Do you ever think about what you’re saying??

    • annebeck58 says:

      And, on the Gary Johnson issue: IF Gary Johnson’s political ideologies were aligned WITH Ron Paul, Ron Paul WOULD surely endorse him. Your comments make less and less sense.
      Anyone who’s paid attention to (and researched) all of these men should comprehend ALL of this.

      Silliness!

  54. Surfisher says:

    Your input is appreciated — want to make a point-on and concise message that is easily understood by the masses (to start posting 2 days before the “election” on many sites). Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions/corrections.
    —————————————————————-

    Just say NO to Rmoney — VOTE for ANYONE but Mormon Mitt!

    FYI — The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune (that is how the Mormons got financial power to jump start their cult)!

    Now another Mormon wants to do the same to our entire Nation!
    And his 5 Mormon Sons are waiting in line to finish US off!

    *Vote FOR Gary Johnson* — Do NOT vote for Mormon Mitt (or Barack Hussein) the lesser of two evils!

  55. Surfisher says:

    Unless you VOTE for Gary Johnson — we won’t have an Election, but puppet Selection!

    You want a prediction — here is an APODICTIC one:

    The American People LOOSE, regardless which one of these two puppets (Barack Hussein or Mormon Mitt) gets “elected”!

    • annebeck58 says:

      Except for one thing; Koch Brothers own Johnson, too.
      We will still have (s)elections as much as we’ve had (recently). It’s just that your vote(s) won’t count as you may have wished. Why would they have to get rid of elections? It’s their biggest money maker, from Dems to Reps to (now?) Libertarians, like Johnson.. bought out by the same Zionist animals that also bought the others. Do a quick search: Why Not Johnson? for more information as to why NOT Gary (like my maryjane tee?) Johnson..
      the guy is far from having any sort of libertarian leanings like Ron Paul or even like me.
      Romney is a very bad second choice. Obama may not even be as bad as Romney. I do think it’s a close count between those two. But, Johnson is no better than them. He wouldn’t even end the war on drugs, nevermind other wars, which he’s said he’s all for….

      Anyone who went with Johnson just because he’s not Obama or Romney is as bad as any Rep who’s gone Romney because he’s not Obama.
      People really need to do one thing: RESEARCH these people before giving them YOUR vote (and of course, vote on PAPER and not via machine– ever!)

      • Surfisher says:

        anne — so we lose no mater what we do…?

        Write-in Ron Paul may be counted in a few states, Gary Johnson is not worthy of our vote.

        So Barack Hussein and Mormon Mitt get to play God.

        How sad is that!

      • annebeck58 says:

        At least, with my write-in vote, I have stuck to my guns and voted MY conscience.
        I will not be fooled by yet another zionist-backed guy who will say (and do) anything to get selected. And I include Johnson in that gang.

  56. Surfisher says:

    Unless you VOTE for Gary Johnson — we won’t have an Election, but puppet Selection!

    You want a prediction — here is an APODICTIC one:

    The American People LOOSE, regardless which one of these two puppets (Barack Hussein or Mormon Mitt) gets “elected”!

    (PLEASE, SPREAD THIS — THERE IS TIME LEFT TO INFLUENCE THE UNDECIDED!)

    • annebeck58 says:

      Why not read this about the newly-tie-dyed-marijuana-supporter, the used to be tie-wearing button-downed Republican, the newly crazy enough to CROWD-SURF atop a group of supporters, to show just how un-presidential he is?
      Here’s part of why to not vote Johnson, or;
      “what IS Wrong With Gary Johnson?”

      http://countryaboveparty.blog.com/wrong-johnson/

      I mean, really? How are some so easily and quickly snowed to go with Gary (don’t remember what I think) Johnson??

      • Surfisher says:

        anne —

        If Mormon Mitt gets into the White House — he’ll start purges against Ron Paul’s supporters to make comrade Stalin proud.

      • annebeck58 says:

        I cannot begin to imagine what you mean with your use of the word, “purge”, and would not wager a guess. But, that kind of alarmist attitude with no specifics as to what it means, is no better than what comes from the other side: Obamney.

        Do you think repeating this sort of drivel makes anyone change their vote for Johnson? I hope it does not!

      • annebeck58 says:

        I’d still like to know what you mean by that word. “purge”. If you think he’s going to get rid of Paul supporters from government, well; there is none, so that’s not it. If you are saying he’ll kill Ron Paul supporters, I have to say; COME ON.

        You’ve truly gone offa the deep end.

      • Surfisher says:

        Here are some numbers that will sober you up!

        A lot Less than Half of the eligible voters bothered to cast their votes this time around.
        So the “winner” got less than 1/4 — meaning over 75% of the American People do not care for Lil’ Hussein!

        1) The 2012 “election” was reduced by 12 Million (that is a huge decline from last election — showing that nearly 10% of the previous voters decided that NEITHER is worth the effort)!

        2) Who voted for Barack Hussein — and how this reflects on who determines our Nation’s path?

        a) 99% Lesbians and Gays
        b) 98% African Americans
        c) 95% Latinos (Mexicans)
        d) 92% Jews
        e) 91% Unmarried Mothers

        Qvo Vadis America?

      • annebeck58 says:

        Many Paul voters decided it wasn’t worth supporting ANY of the candidates– and I do not blame them at all. Quite a few used mail-in paper ballots.., which have not been counted. And some used provisional (paper) ballots in precincts other than their “home-precincts” as directed by County GOP idiots (or were they idiots?). They may never be counted! In fact, provisional ballots are usually not counted.
        So, I am sure more showed up to vote. They just did not vote with e-machines (and who can blame them?). They did not show up for Rombama or Obamney and, again; who can blame ‘em?
        When the GOP and the MSM decided to blackout Ron Paul, they also blacked-out Ron Paul’s supporters. And this, as they say, is all she wrote.

      • annebeck58 says:

        By the way; I have not read the rest of your bigoted comment. Way to put-off all sorts of people by calling, “them”, all out.
        That this is written to me, as if I would agree with any of it, is beyond disgusting. I do not wish to have your thoughts attached to my words. It was bad enough when you went on and on with your, “Mormon Mitt” drivel, but then you went ahead and called-out anyone not like you.
        Darling, I am also not like you; for this, I am quite satisfied in my life. You are showing the worst side of the “Bigots R Us” GOP, and I won’t be aligned with it.
        Despicable.

      • annebeck58 says:

        PLEASE do not respond to me with such racist and bigoted words, as if I would ever agree. It’s irritating and despicable.
        People are different; all people are different, and even I am different than many or most within the GOP. I just would never go along with what you’ve said as I find it deplorable, especially in this day and age.
        Why do you feel so free to disparage all sorts of people? They are ALL Americans, whether you like it, or not. I find associating with you more difficult than would I have a problem associating with any of the “groups” of people you’ve disparaged.
        Enough of this.

  57. Surfisher says:

    Doug — Qvo Vadis?

  58. Surfisher says:

    Just Say NO to Rmoney — VOTE for ANYONE but Mormon Mitt!

    Keep Mitt’s mittens off of the White House — or face An American Tragedy!

    The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune (that is how the Mormons got financial power to jump start their cult)!

    Now another Mormon wants to do the same to our entire Nation!
    And his 5 Mormon Sons are waiting in line of a Rmoney Dynasty to finish US off!

    *Vote FOR Gary Johnson* — Do NOT vote for Mormon Mitt (or Barack Hussein) the lesser of two evils!

  59. Surfisher says:

    Bye, bye, birdie…let’s hope this chicken hawk is never heard of again!

    Ron Paul’s supporters want to thank you “dear” Mitt for the way you trampled us on your blind path to become the next Dictator — it’s called Divine Justice, and we served it to you cold!

  60. Surfisher says:

    Principles we must stand by!

    “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….” Thomas Jefferson

    “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

    “Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them — and then, the opportunity to choose.” C. WRIGHT MILLS

    “When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” DOROTHY THOMPSON

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” EDMUND BURKE

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN

    “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.
    But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.” — Written in a letter by then former President Theodore Roosevelt on January 3, 1919 to the president of the American Defense Society.

  61. Surfisher says:

    Ron Paul schools Barack Hussein:
    “If you don’t know the Constitution (the one you swore to protect) you shouldn’t be in Office.”

    10 minute video — spread it like wildfire!

    (also, note how without a teleprompter Lil’ Hussein can’t put two words together without mumbling, bumbling and stumbling)

  62. Surfisher says:

    BREAKING NEWS!

    ***Petition for Texas to secede from US reaches threshold for White House response***

    The People are finally Waking Up!
    —————————————————-

    The petition on WhiteHouse.gov asks the Obama administration to “peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government.” The petition had surpassed 34,000 signatures as of Monday evening.

    Similar petitions from other states have also been filed including: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee. However, unlike the petition from Texas, none of these states had reached the 25,000-signature threshold to get an official White House response as of Monday evening.

  63. Surfisher says:

    Ron Paul: You’re Not FREE if you Can’t Secede from an Oppressive Government

    “In a free country, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When the people have very clearly withdrawn their consent for a law, the discussion should be over. If the Feds refuse to accept that and continue to run roughshod over the people, at what point do we acknowledge that that is not freedom anymore? At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government? And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free?”

    Spread this 4 minute message like wildfire!

    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8RrBCT_NXI&feature=player_embedded)

    My Take:

    The District of Columbia (Washington, DC) — where the White House and all Federal Governmental Agencies reside — have passed the point by their anti-American-anti-Constitution ACTIVITIES that they have FORFEITED THE RIGHT to be called the USA. De facto, THEY have already SECEDED from the Union by constitutional default, and any State that wants to secede from THEM is a State that wants to RETURN BACK to the Original CONSTITUTIONAL USA!

  64. I love what you guys are usually up too. This kind of
    clever work and reporting! Keep up the great works guys I’ve added you guys to blogroll.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 485 other followers

%d bloggers like this: