If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.


Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010


Come November ...


Each republican candidate for president in the last six presidential elections (including this one) has been less a ‘republican’ than the one who preceded him. George Bush is less a Constitutional scholar, and reveres the Constitution and the sovereignty of America, less than did his father. George senior was less of a Constitutional scholar, and revered the Constitution and the sovereignty of America, exponentially less than did Ronald Reagan. And John McCain doesn’t know the meaning of reverence for the Constitution, or allegiance to protecting America’s sovereignty.

Each time we genuine conservatives support one of these turncoats, we define-down the republican party. It has now reached a point at which I no longer even recognize the party in which I have been registered for forty years. It has become a party that shares more with the democrats than it does with those courageous anti-slavery activists who painstakingly laid the party’s sublime foundation in an act of defiance against a tyrannical federal government more than a century and a half ago.

The only genuine republicans I can name today who are either currently serving in Washington, are serving as voices of conservatism in academia or the media, or who have been participants in this primary election cycle (James Inhofe, Rick Santorum, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Thomas Sowell, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, and John Bolton, among them) represent a dying breed. They are throwbacks to what conservatism used to represent, and, as such, they are no longer welcome as leaders in today’s republican party. Their voices are stifled by their ‘fellow republicans’, and they are perceived as part of a ‘fringe element’. As things stand now, none of them would anymore stand a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining powerful political office, let alone the presidency.

What does that say about the republican party of 2008? It says that, over the past two decades, we registered republicans have allowed our party to incrementally exclude true conservatives for consideration to hold the highest offices in the land. And how have we done that? We have ‘gone along to get along’. We have held our collective noses and agreed to put in office men who are less and less like genuine American patriots, and more and more like leftist democrats, with each election cycle. And the phony republicans we have put in office have consistently worked with the democrats to stifle any efforts made by genuine conservatives to re-ignite the conservative voice in Washington. And the Constitution and America’s sovereignty be damned.

When Rick Santorum was the third most powerful man in the senate, John McCain invariably sided with the democrats every time Santorum or another conservative attempted to bring legislation to the floor that would steer this republic back in the right direction. McCain often wouldn’t allow conservative legislation to even see the light of day on the senate floor. For that reason, Santorum despises McCain, and has stated that he will never vote for him, commenting that McCain has been as much an enemy of conservative, pro-American thought as most democrats on the Hill.

My husband, who is every bit as conservative as I, plans to vote for Hillary in November. He is going to do so because, should McCain win the election, the mainstream media will continuously paint him as a ‘conservative’ (just as they are now), and, when he makes toxic mistakes (most likely in decisions regarding illegal immigration, abortion, stem cell research, tax increases, global warming legislation, granting due-process rights to terrorists, and the like), those mistakes will be portrayed as having been committed by a ‘conservative’ president. After which, you can count on the fact that no genuine conservative will occupy the White House again in our lifetimes.

Whether Clinton or McCain occupies the White House for the next four years, America is in for a rude awakening. I would prefer that a liberal democrat/avowed socialist be blamed for the geopolitical/economic earthquakes that are looming over the horizon. At least that way we will have the whisper of a hope that a genuine conservative may be able to eventually take the reins and pick up the pieces.

I could not, in good conscience, cast a vote for Hillary (my voting finger would spontaneously combust for sure). But neither will I continue to vote for leftists-in-conservative-clothing. Such imposters have succeeded in re-defining my party, handcuffing their genuine republican counterparts, and corrupting my government beyond recognition. And if an avowed anti-American leftist must damage our beloved republic for four years in order for the republican party to recognize that it had better return to its roots, then that may well be the terrible price we must pay in order to embark on that long-overdue journey.

I’ll be sitting out the election in November, at least where the presidential ballot is concerned, for the first time since I became eligible to vote – forty years ago. I will no longer play an active role in the hi-jacking of the republican party … or the suicide of our beloved republic.

~ joanie


john galt said...


(Standing ovation here!)

Anonymous said...

I haven't yet decided what I'm going to do in the general election, but you make a pretty strong argument for sitting this one out.

johnsteever said...

Santorum: McCain Presidency Very Dangerous


Anonymous said...

John McCain’s War Secrets:


Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain:


John Cooper said...

I may vote for Hillary, too, but if I do, I'll be vigorously pressing the touch screen with my *middle* finger.

We conservatives hold the same position in the Republican party as do the blacks in the Democrat party. We vote for whatever the elitists in the RNC crams down our throats. After gagging on them for four (or eight) years, we jump up and say, "Thank you sir! May I have another?"

The usual argument is, "He's better than the other guy", or "What about the Supreme Court?", or in John McCain’s case, “Calm down”.

This first argument is foolish because electing someone like Bush or McCain takes America down the road to serfdom just as surely (but a little more slowly) as electing a Gore, Kerry, Hillary, or Obama, so the end result is the same. BUT, it destroys the very ideas that conservatives stand.

If one claims to be a “conservative”, it is assumed that he or she believes in constitutionally-limited government rather than the all-encompassing nanny state that the left envisions. Conservatives (used to) believe in self-reliance and paying their own way in life. Conservatives (used to) believe that the federal government has become too intrusive and usurped way to much power over our lives, and therefore should be cut back where they have overstepped their Constitutional limits.

The argument over the "great harm" that will come to the Country if liberal justices are appointed to the SCOTUS isn't borne out by the facts either. Many (about 2/3rds, I believe) of the justices appointed by Republican presidents have turned out to be liberals or moderates: Souter (Bush 41), Stevens (Ford), Powell and Burger (Nixon). Only time will tell about Roberts and Alito.

Looking at the history of the Republican party, *most* Republican presidents have acted pretty much like Democrats. Reagan was an anomaly.

Take Richard Nixon for example. He took America off the gold standard and the U.S. dollar is now worth less than 20% of what it was then. He gave us wage and price controls, saddled us with the EPA, the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act, banned DDT condemning hundreds of millions to death by malaria. Oh, yes, and he gave us "Peace With Honor[TM]" in Vietnam.

Bush 41 continued the trend, but Bush 43 has probably bettered Nixon’s record for affronts to conservativism. Number one by far on my are the massive increase in federal power and spending under his administration. Every single thing this president has done has had the effect of increasing the power of the federal government. (At least *I* can’t name a single thing that Bush has done which has devolved power to the States or to the People, where it rightfully belongs under the 9th and 10th Amendments.) From Katrina to the war on terror, it’s been, “The federal government knows best - let us handle it.” That’s the Democrat enthymeme, not the conservative.

He’s increased federal domestic spending at rates not seen since LBJ - and that’s not even including the cost of the war on terror. Bill Clinton was a piker compared to George W. Bush , who’s latest $3.14 *trillion* budget is *twice* that of Bill Clinton’s in 1996.

And it’s not just the magnitude of the money, it’s *what* he is choosing to spend it on. $45 billion of *our* money down the rat hole to Africa? (How many condoms do they need, anyway?) Heck, Clinton only gave them $9 billion. (So why aren’t the dems smoking cigars, playing their bongos and dancing in the streets?)

Just as LBJs Medicare ponzi-scheme is on the brink of failure, what does Bush do? Why, he adds more unfunded benefits, of course. Medicare is already spending more than it's taking in, and will be technically bankrupt in less than five years. That was not the act of a conservative.

Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively (2000-2003).

Bush’s has let his EPA run amok. That (unconstitutional) organization has designated the very essence of all life on earth - carbon dioxide - as a “pollutant” - an absurd decision which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court. Bush’s EPA has prevented power plants from upgrading older equipment without a full EIR. America will be like South Africa pretty soon at the rate we're not building power plants.

The Department of Education keeps getting bigger and bigger as American children keep getting dumber and dumber.

Bush has basically ordered the Border Patrol not to enforce the border, and has refused to faithfully execute the office of President by building the wall that Congress ordered. But we’re supposed to take him seriously in this war on terror? He still is offering student visas to students from Saudi Arabia, too.

McCain will be even worse. At CPAC yesterday, he tried to pass himself off as a conservative - in other words, he lied. I think Ann Coulter is right. Hillary is both smarter and more honest than John McCain. At least we'll all know where she'll be coming from.

If America is to be destroyed, let history record that it was a Democrat who did it.

all_good_men said...

The love of power trumps the love of the Constitution.

If McCain were elected President, republicans in congress would have to go along with whatever he recommends or else be seen as opposing their leader. At least with a democrat in the White House they could pretend to care about the Constitution and oppose the erosion of our liberties.

Jeff Head said...

I understand and respect your decision Joanie. Those of whom we speak have given you, indeed have given all of us ample reason to do exactly as you and yours intend. It is a disgusting, shameful situation we all find ourselves in.

For my part, because I honestly believe that despite the significant areas where I heartily and hotly disagree with McCain...who is no conservative and who regularly abets with those dedicated to fundamentally changing this nation...and knowing that we MUST fight him tooth and nail in those areas just as if though there were a democrat in the white house by shining a 1,000,000 candle-power light on all he does just like "we the people" did over the 1st run at amnesty, I say that knowing those things I also know that we at least have chance to hold ground in equally critical areas like abortion, the war against Islamic Jihad, with the Supreme Court (where we actually have chance to gain critical ground..."good" ground as was stated at Gettysburg), and in some other areas, I will cast my vote accordingly if I must...all the while asking God in Heaven to intervene somehow, miraculously, with options none of have even contemplated yet. I will faithfully be watching for that too even as I say these things.

Joanie, please do not mistake any of this as any kind of unqualified support for McCain. It is not.

I do not like his temperment, I do not like his arogance, I disdain the way he has betrays conservative priniples. But I honestly believe that Hillary or Obama (in fact perhaps more so with Obama) will be far worse. The ground we lose on the Supreme Court alone could well resonate and beset our children and grand-children for most of their lives. The potential consequences of ceding the war could claim many of those same lives.

I would not be voting for McCain in good conscience at all...I would be voting wholly against Hillary or Obama in good conscience and with the only available candidate who has a chance to prevent them from taking office.

The idea of giving abortion, the war, and the supreme court wholly over to either of them after so much sacrifice (the lives on 9-11, the lives in Iraq and Afghanistan of those who have trusted us, the tens of million on the innocent lost through abortion, and those who have worked so hard these 36 and more years to gain the progress we have made) the very thought of giving those things over as well, wells up inside me and resounds a resounding NO in answer.

As we hold McCain's feet to the fire, as we maintain THAT ground that we can, we can, at the same time do all you suggest and lay the framework and foundation for reclaiming what we have lost. We can start in this election cycle with Congressmen and Senators who will be running thathave the principles this republic was written on wrtiien on their hearts. We must look for such men and women, we must encourage and support them....for our city councils, school boards, state legislators, Governors, on up. For that is what it will take...which has been true all along this slipper road our nation has traveled politically and morally and that has deleivered us into this sorry place and position.

But all is not lost. I believe we can, with faith in God and those who yet recognize His hand and who even recognize and hold fast to the foundation principles that undergird our Republic, we can yet retrieve all that has been lost.

Please let your beloved read what I have witten here. I do not ask that in any vain thought that I might change his freely arrived at decision...more in the hopes that you both may understand my own.

God bless you Joanie. You are a patriot who articulates your passion and love for this country and the intrinsic values that it rests upon as well or better than almost anyone I know, and then backs it up with action as a way of life. Would that we had 20 million more exactly like you in that regard.

God have mercy upon our Republic, God look down upon us in this, our hour of dire need, and hold us in His hand for the sake of the millions and millions who yet reverence His name and that of His Son. God, please, we plead, bless America and open doors to allow the faithful remnant in this nation to influence and turn this tide through thy Spirit and in accordance with thy will...even in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Anonymous said...

Very well said!

Anonymous said...

I had lowered my sights to vote for McCain in November, but now I'm going to give that decision much more thought. Thank you.

cw-patriot said...

John, you just provided powerful 'specifics' in support of my broad generalities. Your post should be required reading for every American before he enters the voting booth in November.

Absolutely brilliant commentary.

Thank you!

Proudpodunknative said...

I agree, Joanie. Yours and John Cooper's comments here should be required reading for every voter. If they still want to vote for Hillary or Obama or McCain, so be it.

paul Nicholas said...

McCain will welcome another fifty million illegals into this country, thereby also increasing the likelihood that terrorists will use our two thousand mile unsecured border with Mexico to construct their future jihad.

Hillary vs. McCain. It's a lose-lose choice.

BarbaraNicholas said...

McCain's "conservative rating" isn't much different than Hillary’s. The only time he acted like a conservative was when he needed to pattern himself after Reagan for political purposes.

Anonymous said...

From Eisenhower to Nixon to both Bushes, conservatives have heard conservative rhetoric from Republican presidential candidates. Each time, they were disappointed – even betrayed – by the people and the party they had trusted---Richard Viguerie

danthemangottschall said...

I'll be checking to see if there is anything I need to vote against on my state ballot. If there isn't, I'll stay home, enjoy a burger and a frosty one, and watch the meaningless results on the tube.

Good words, Joanie.

marcus aurelius said...

It's time to shrink the big tent and start over.

Brad Zimmerman said...

McCain should explain to conservatives Arizona's federal and state funding for the facilitation of border-crossing via the Arizona-Mexico Commission, and the Border Infrastructure Project implemented in collaboration with federal, state and local government agencies.


Anonymous said...


First_Salute said...

Jeff, Joanie, Sir Richard, and John ...

Yes, but, I'm voting Republican - straight ticket.

John McCain has become a victim of his own creation: 24/7 he must constantly try to not hit his foot, that he McCain-matically is aiming at.

His trigger finger is on his own pistole, that never rests; he is his own Mexican Standoff.

I consider that, his own "check and imbalance." It enables him to make enemies everywhere, quickly, sharply, and precipitously, such that he will suffer his own Al Haig Moment of his own doing.

Fine with me.

Take this McCannon and let him try to not hit anything. He will either manage to miss enough, and remain afloat, or riddle his own hull, soon enough.

I would rather he do that where it is more obvious, than in all the corridors of Senatorial power where he has hidden his record.

Put him in the limelight; he may sober up?

Comparing that kind of catalyst to the others, Obama and Clinton, is one thing that the Republican Ringleaders are going to be constantly, also, 24/7, stressing about ... up to, thru, and after the elections, if McCain wins.

OK by me, that the "RINO leadership" should so "win" the duty of being dragged all around at the end of McCain's leash.

OK by me, that McCain resents even their admonishments, with every sneeze of his, that causes them all to leap and put their fingers in between his hammer and the charge.

In addition, I'm not worried about Republicans' moving away from the conservative base, at all. I'm not worried about conservatives taking any blame.

Because I know who we are.

I know where we stand on many, wonderful, lasting principles, that have been so well-written about, on these pages.

I'm staying with George Washington and our troops.

Feb. 8, 2008

Anonymous said...

Who are you people kidding? When November rolls around, you know damn well you'll be voting for McCain. Get real!

jim said...

Modern Conservative Endorses John McCain


It looks like "modern" conservatives are just about as relevant as "modern" math, "modern" entertainment, "modern" music, etc.

daveburkett said...

McCain Not Yet Energizing Conservatives

(It looks like the Associated Press isn't familiar with the term "when hell freezes over.")


Anonymous said...

Thank you for this. I printed it out and will be giving it to many people.

First_Salute said...

Anonymous said:

"Who are you people kidding?
Get real!"

Maybe you could try to not order people around, and instead, state your own piece, why you will apparently vote for McCain?

Feb. 8, 2008

John Cooper said...


Sorry for the mistakes and "funny" grammar in my earlier post. The power went out just as I was about to hit the "Post" button, and I had to re-do the entire thing. Luckily I had saved an earlier version to disc. (Memo to self: Buy that APS battery backup soon.)

As an example of what we'll get with a president who's a congenital liar (but not an "exceptionally good liar" like Bill Clinton) McCain promised at CPAC to cut back government spending, and never, NEVER sign a bill containing pork.

Hours later he flew back to D.C. and voted for the "stimulus package", putting each American man, woman, and child in America in debt for $564.78 if I did the math right ($170 billion divided by 301,139,947). So a family of four will receive a check for $600, and their grandchildren will have to pay back roughly $10,000 after factoring in 4% interest for 30 years.

Michelle Malkin says Stay positive and stay focused, but I'm more of a mind to start a third party - "The Wolverines"

calbrindisi said...

You are a precious national treasure, Joanie.

robmaroni said...

Joanie, here's what your man Krauthammer says about the situation:

Conservatives are on the eternal search for a new Reagan. They refuse to accept the fact that a movement leader who is also a gifted politician is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. But there’s an even more profound reason why no Reagan showed up this election cycle and why the apostate sheriff is going to win the nomination. The reason is George W. Bush. He redefined conservatism with a “compassionate” variant that is a distinct departure from classic Reaganism.

Bush muddied the ideological waters of conservatism. It was Bush who teamed with Teddy Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind, a federal venture into education that would have been anathema to (the early) Reagan. It was Bush who signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. It was Bush who strongly supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. It was Bush who on his own created a vast new entitlement program, the Medicare drug benefit. And it was Bush who conducted a foreign policy so expansive and, at times, redemptive as to send paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and traditional conservatives like George Will into apoplexy and despair (respectively).

Who in the end prepared the ground for the McCain ascendancy? Not Feingold. Not Kennedy. Not even Giuliani. It was George W. Bush. Bush begat McCain.

He's good but you say it better.

First_Salute said...

NEWS ...


"Broad rally in commodities keeps inflation at foreground"

by Moming Zhou


"U.S consumer prices rose at a 5.6% annual rate in the final three months of 2007, a pace that spooks many economists, with energy prices jumping at a 37% annual rate, the Labor Department reported last month. Even the core rate, which excludes food and energy, increased at a 2.7% annual rate during the December quarter."

Feb. 8, 2008

James said...

I just have one question, what's wrong with Ron Paul. It seems to me that he has the most conservative views of anyone. Perfect for our party and America. Yet the media pertends he doesn't exist.

John Cooper said...

james asks, "What's wrong with Ron Paul?"

That's easy: His foolish (and historically inaccurate) idea that if America would just leave the rest of the world alone, they would be nice to us.

Were it not for that gap in his otherwise brilliant thinking, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Ann Coulter agrees with me, saying "That idea doesn't work in an age of ICBMs and nuclear proliferation". I would add that it didn't work in the age of the Barbary Pirates, either.

She wasn't invited to CPAC this year (gutless Republicans, again), but showed up anyway and gave a great (and very funny) hour-long speech. Video here: Ann Coulter at CPAC

John Cooper said...


I really like Charles Krauthammer, too. He's a very thoughtful man.

I especially like to watch his facial expressions on "The Beltway Boys" when one of the liberals on the panel says something especially stupid.

Now that the media have (pretty much) succeeded in getting McCain nominated, it's going to be painful to watch what they're going to do to him now.

We're already hearing rumors of propaganda tapes he made for the North Vietnamese while he was a POW.

My prediction: The media is going to needle him until he lets loose with his renowned temper on national TV. They're simply going to destroy the man.

John Cooper said...

It's starting already: Swiftboating McCain

"We already know that when he [was a POW], he collaborated with the communists."

First_Salute said...

NEWS ...

* * *

Observations by Manuel Miranda, who worked in Iraq for a year. Her memo (dated Feb. 5, 2008) to Ambassador Crocker. Link:


"The purpose of the Surge, now one year old, was to pacify Iraq to allow the GOI to stand up. The State Department has not done its part coincident with the Commanding General's effort. This is not the fault of intelligent and hard working individuals skilled at the functions of the "normal embassy." The problem is institutional. The State Department bureaucracy is not equipped to handle the urgency of America's Iraq investment in blood and taxpayer funds. You lack the 'fierce urgency of now.'"

* * *

Feb. 9, 2008

First_Salute said...

P.S. Manuel Miranda - could be a he.



First_Salute said...


Scroll to:

"Islam's Battle For The White House"

* * *

Feb. 10, 2008

Luis said...

Your article is as sad as it is well written, Joanie.

It is a sad day when the political process seems to offer no real options to those who love their country.

As a foreigner I will not attempt to analyse the least worst option in your election but I can see the argument that it is better to to let people see the reality of a Clinton or an Obama win rather than vote for an imposter. It is not a happy choice, either way.

These seem strange and uncertain times. I am writing from a country where the most senior cleric has apparently expressed support for the introduction of some form of Sharia law. Not words one would have once expected in England from the Archbishop of Canterbury !

In times like these all one can try to do to protect those closest to us and spread the word amongst family and friends that it doesn't have to be like this. Hopefully in time others will arise who can take a lead that is not offered today.

Long may your voice continue to be heard.

stonemason said...

I just checked in here for the first time in a couple days.

Joanie, this may be your most excellent writing yet. It expresses what is on most true Americans' minds and describes our frustration perfectly.

Thank you!

cw-patriot said...

Take this McCannon and let him try to not hit anything. He will either manage to miss enough, and remain afloat, or riddle his own hull, soon enough.

I love it, F_S!

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...


Good point re: the promise and the stimulus package vote. Most of us know they're all inveterate liars at this point. Perhaps we ought to start recording who breaks his promises most quickly. McCain's vying for the top spot already, it would appear.

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...

James, Ron Paul is a great American whose ideas, other than as they relate to our 'interactions' with other countries, are brilliant, pracitcal, and Constitutionally valid.

But his hands-off attitude regarding the Islamic threat (in addition to other foreign relations issues) is very misguided. I cannot figure out whether he is simply dangerously naive, or whether he takes his (generally brilliant) libertarian mind too much to the extreme where our safety and sovereignty are concerned.

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...


Krauthammer is a god. 'Nuf said? :)

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...

Luis, I read about the Archbishop’s suggestion in this morning’s newspaper. From what I understand, Sharia law is based completely on the teachings of the Koran and the Archbishop wants England to adopt part of this system of Muslim law, in order to ‘accommodate' Muslims who feel ‘torn’ between their Islamic heritage and their new British home.

It would appear that the inmates are running the asylum, not only in the political realm, but such nonsense is seeping into the religious realm as well – and not only in the U.S. but in England, too.

‘Compromise’, ‘accommodation’, ‘tolerance’, and ‘diversity’ are all fine and good, when practiced in the original sense of the words. But such terms have become so perverted as to defy logic.

There was a time when immigrants from other countries came to America and England, desiring only to build a life for themselves. It was understood that, in order to do so, they were expected to learn about our history, seek to become a part of our culture, and eventually develop an allegiance to our roots and our way of life. Nowhere in that equation was there the demand, or even the assumption, that our society would bend, or re-mold itself, in order to incorporate their former culture into ours.

We live in frightening times.

In times like these all one can try to do to protect those closest to us and spread the word amongst family and friends that it doesn't have to be like this. Hopefully in time others will arise who can take a lead that is not offered today.

Wise words indeed. Thank you, Luis.

~ joanie

livefreeordie said...

Super Tuesday Top of the Heap or Bottom of the Barrel?

True Conservatives Join Dobson, Coulter Saying: “I Will Never Vote For McCain

Lancaster, PA: Prominent conservatives are joining an increasing number of Americans nationwide crying ‘foul’ on GOP ‘front-runner’ and heir apparent to the presidential Republican nomination, John McCain.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) told the Boston Globe. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

The country’s largest and fastest-growing third party based on voter registration, (Ballot Access News) the Constitution Party, responded to Tuesday’s primary results by echoing the sentiment of Values Voter-driven Family Research Council president Tony Perkins:

“Our allegiance is not to a political party but to a cause. We are not bound to vote for a candidate simply because he or she is the choice of a particular party… We are not… in this process to win at the expense of our beliefs… Vote your values! (www.frcaction.org)

The Constitution Party points to Sen. John McCain’s voting record as completely at odds with the “values” of the genuine conservative voter.

“McCain is dead wrong on virtually every issue of importance to constitutionalists”, noted Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer. “McCain’s alliance with the left makes him indistinguishable from the Democrats running for president. He never met a liberal Democrat piece of legislation that he didn’t like”, Clymer added saying, “Just look at what McCain’s hook-ups brought us: The McCain-Feingold assault on free speech and the McCain- Kennedy amnesty free-for-all for starters.

Voters who want immigration reform are being offered a pro-amnesty Democrat and a pro-amnesty Republican. That’s hardly a choice”, Clymer noted.

“How many voters know John McCain considered changing parties at one point and becoming a Democrat? (TheHill.com) Why bother?” Clymer asked, noting: “McCain’s sold out his principles and his party so often it’s hard to keep track. Can conservative voters forgive the deal he made with Democrats over judicial nominations? Hopefully Americans won’t let Senator McCain’s POW experience overshadow his political record”, Clymer noted, pointing to the words of conservative columnist Thomas Sowell who said “Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal. Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services”.

The Constitution Party applauds the message of true constitutionalist Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul while encouraging voters to consider the third party option in November.


Anonymous said...

You got a neat place here.

Anonymous said...

"John McCain for President: A Hero Leader"

(Keep your barf bag handy)


Anonymous said...

It looks like Obama in gaining some REAL momentum. Do you think any differently if it's Obama vs. McCain instead of Hillary?

pollyroth said...

Written by JB Williams ©2008 USA

Whether the RNC is trying to destroy the GOP or not, it’s clear that they couldn’t do a better job of destroying it, no matter how hard they try. Making John McCain the RNC nominee is the most certain way to lose the 2008 election. But even if McCain could actually win in November, almost a numerical impossibility by the way, many conservatives have already predicted that even a McCain victory would be the end of the GOP as we know it. What’s the RNC thinking?

Can McCain Win?

While MSM polling data aims to make McCain look like the best the RNC can do, the real numbers say something quite different.

As of this writing, the RNC has completed 30 state primaries. Our “leader” John McCain, has lost 19 of the 30. A little over 16.5 million votes have been cast in Republican primaries so far, only 4.9 million of those for McCain, 30.9%. - with 69.1% of all Republican voters having voted against McCain.

Obama carried his home state of Illinois with 65% of the vote. Clinton carried her adopted home state of New York with 57% of the vote. McCain won his home state too, but with only 47% of the vote, less than half of his constituents. The only states McCain broke above 50% in are liberal stronghold states, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York and in all three cases, both Clinton and Obama defeat him in these states by more than a 2 to 1 margin…

28 states have completed both RNC and DNC primaries thus far. By popular vote, Obama won 14, Clinton 10 and McCain only 4. McCain lost the RNC primary in 3 of those 4 states, averaging only 14% support from Republican primary voters in each. He is at best secure in only 2 of the 4 states, Alaska and Iowa. In the general election, he can indeed lose both Arizona and Nevada.

This is the “winner” RNC heads think they can defeat Democrats with in the fall? How???

The National Popular Vote

All Republicans combined have garnered 16.5 million primary votes in 30 primaries. Democrats Clinton and Obama alone have garnered 17.6 million primary votes in only 28 primaries, 1.1 million more than all Republicans combined. If McCain could unite 100% of Republican voters behind his campaign, and Clinton – Obama only keep their 78% of the Democrat votes, McCain still loses by over 1 million votes… and he can’t unite 100% of Republican voters, no way – no how!

Of more than 22.5 million primary votes cast and counted to date, Clinton has 40% of those votes while Obama has 38% and McCain has but 22%. McCain is not even in striking distance of either Clinton or Obama. Who can McCain invite to share his ticket that will unite GOP voters and deliver the kind of excitement currently found across the political aisle? Only Jesus Christ has such powers… I can think of no other.

If this is the RNC’s idea of choosing a winning candidate, I’d like to see their idea of a losing candidate? Even Bob Dole was a better bet in 1996.

Where can McCain win?

At the moment, it appears that McCain can’t win anywhere but Alaska and Iowa, both of which he lost miserably in the RNC primary, but both of which are SO Republican that even a Republican loser can defeat a Democrat there. He’s not close to winning anywhere else at the moment and unless he finds a way to unite and ignite GOP voters, that’s not likely to change.

How do you elect any candidate with 22% of the popular vote and 30.9% support in his own party? The math simply won’t work.

Clinton – Obama to unite for Proletariat Party Unity

For almost two years now, I have been warning of this eventuality and until Super Tuesday, everyone said I was nuts. Now most political strategists are saying the same thing and here’s why.

Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat right now. Clinton and Obama share 78% of the DNC primary voters, leaving only 22% on the table, most of whom will happily unite behind either candidate by convention time. Clinton currently has 40% of those voters while Obama has 38%.

The two “I’m more socialist than you” candidates are also in a dead heat in the delegate race, Clinton with 1148 and Obama with 1121, both of them flying to North Carolina to negotiate with John Edwards for his 26 delegates. We’re talking a photo finish here for these two.

Obama has won 14 states to Hillary’s 10, but Hillary’s are bigger. If Obama is going to sneak ahead of Clinton to become the DNC nominee, he’s got to do it soon or it will become a numerical impossibility.

A few facts make an Obama nomination plausible, even if unlikely.

• He has no resume, so no BIG negatives like Hillary • He has charisma and momentum – she’s a negative nagging bitch • He has the youth vote for change – she’s crusty old bad news • He’s raising money and she’s out of money

Still, due to a massive well trained Clinton war machine, Hillary remains out front and the woman to beat in this race. Assuming she hangs on until the photo finish and the numbers simply won’t work for Obama to become the clear front-runner, both have a problem that can only be solved by uniting on a single ticket in the general election.

Remember that liberals are nothing if not symbolism over substance. Neither of these two candidates is in any way qualified to become Commander-in-Chief. But that has not had any impact on their voters thus far and it won’t.

That’s because liberals smell an opportunity to make history by putting the first female and first black in the White House in one shot. If you’re a liberal, no matter what this means for the demise of your country, this is a symbolic opportunity you just can’t pass up…

And, if you’re Hillary looking for a sure win in November, you don’t take any chances. You unite 78+% the party in one move by bringing Obama onto your side in the general. Liberals get exactly what they want, two socialists for the price of one and a whole chapter in history that can be written no other way. Republicans are facing the perfect political storm…

If you’re Obama and the numbers just aren’t there, you take a 2nd place finish and run as an incumbent Vice President in four or eight years. He’s young. The ink on his driver’s license isn’t even dry yet… The first black Vice President is HUGE! It makes for great symbolism, even if disastrous for our national future at the same time.

How can McCain compete with that?

Two words – he can’t! If you think he can, check these numbers…

McCain is the worst possible Republican candidate to compete in this election with such historical implications in play. He represents the past, not the future. He’s unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans. There aren’t enough Independents in the world to carry this “Maverick” to victory.

This was either the greatest strategic blunder in the worldwide history of politics, or it was an intentional deathblow to the GOP, delivered at the hands of RNC powerbrokers hell-bent on destroying the conservative party for good. You decide…

Conservatives Golden Parachute

Conservatives have only two bailout options left on the table. Mike Huckabee and the U.S. Senate.

Huckabee is highly unlikely to defeat the MSM golden boy McCain and even if he did, there is little reason to think he would be any better than McCain in the general election or the Oval Office.

So, the Senate is where conservatives must now turn their attention in a BIG way!

Taking back control of the Senate, which must confirm all Supreme Court nominees and pass all legislation, must now become job #1 for all conservatives. The House is not realistically in play, but the closely divided Senate is…

Use the energy and money you were prepared to put into Thompson, Huckabee, Paul, Hunter, Tancredo, Romney, Giuliani or any other Republican, to make certain that a conservative is sitting in your Senate seat after November.

If you can’t put a conservative in your Senate seat this year, take a look at other Senate races where you can help other states pick up a conservative seat in the Senate and put your resources to work there. We’re talking saving a nation here…

Whether Clinton, Obama or McCain sit in the Oval Office for the next four years, who controls the U.S. Senate will be vital to protecting and preserving conservative values and principles for the next ten or twenty years. If conservatives can’t unite around this one, they deserve what they get!

* Real McCain support numbers - http://jb-williams.com/mccain-2008.htm

kathymlynczak said...

Joanie's essay combined with pollyroth's article above make me want to go out and shoot myself.

B4Ranch said...

Once again, my Dear, you have put into words all of my thoughts about McCain, the Republican Party and the future of America.

As I watch history being written and rewritten, I have often wished that you had become a national columnist but then reality hits and I realize that we don’t have any truly conservative media remaining that could proudly publish your words.

I won’t be voting for McCain (POW issues) but I don’t think I can bring myself to vote for Hillary either so I will probably write your name in and pray a bit longer each night for our republic.

Anonymous said...

I wish I had discovered this blog sooner. I'll be a frequent visitor now. Thank you for the time and energy you put into this. The articles are filled with truth that doesn't get published many other places.

First_Salute said...

NEWS ...

Bush wants to give Mexico 1.4 bil dollars.

I'd prefer that it be divided equally between all American citizens who were lawful residents of Wayne County, Michigan as of Dec. 31, 2007.

* * *

Feb. 11, 2008

Anonymous said...

John McCain Gets Soros Cash--

Click Manchurian Candidate


cw-patriot said...

Thank you all for the terrific information and commentary on this thread. (I could have made the original essay infinitely more interesting, had I known some things that many of you have contributed here.)

Will be off-line for a few days now. If this thread hasn't already died a natural death by the time I return, I suspect that we'll have some things to discuss relating to the outcome of today's democrat primaries in DC, MD and VA. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between the two candidates, but I think we'd all love to see Hillary receive another comeuppance.

Again, many thanks for the excellent contributions here. I feel very blessed to have such intelligent, informed patriots visiting, and regularly recording their valuable opinions, on this site.

~ joanie

John Cooper said...

pollyroth That was great! Thanks for posting it.

robmaroni said...

Take a look at this photo of Obama’s Houston campaign headquarters, televised by Fox’s Houston affiliate:


Yes, that’s a Cuban flag with Che Guevara’s face added on the right.

I’m feeling all warm and fuzzy now.

daveburkett said...

None of the major networks, including Fox News, whose affiliate in Houston picked this up in the background of one of its telecasts, are telling us about this flag. So much for "fair and balanced."

John Cooper said...

Gee, I'm surprised that Fox even covered it in between the Natalie Holloway, O.J. Simpson, and Britney Spears coverage.

Fox has turned out to be a real disappointment.

Any bets on how long before John Gibson quits now the management has insisted on co-reporters with cleavage to "help" him with the news?

Jeff Meads said...


All those young people rallying around Obama could just as easily be rallying around a conservative Republican, if only the Republican Party was available to them. The big Republican mistake of this campaign is similar to that of the Hillary campaign: thinking that old people and old ideas will play indefinitely.

Tonight I watched another McCain "victory" speech, with him flanked by his half-dozen of equally aged supporters. Likewise, Hillary brays her defiant non-concession, flanked by her equally aged comrades.

Obama comes out surrounded by throngs of young voters, energized like never before. Why? Almost anyone can point out his lack of substance (except CHANGE). These young people are not all blind idiots. Some might be, but definitely not all.

Nixon and Vietnam didn't bring out the young voters like we are seeing in this election. They have the numbers and they have legitimate concerns about their future and the future of the country.

You know, and I know, and many others know, even the young people probably know, that Obama is not the answer to any of their concerns, and likely his policies will cause more lasting damage than McCain. The problem is that McCain, and the Republican Party in general, won't listen, and they won't represent. They only ignore, and they betray.

This is not so much an election as it is a housecleaning. It looks like Obama is unstoppable. However much we might dislike his policies, he is more likely than either of the others to shake loose the roaches inside the beltway. His roaches won't be any better, but they will not be as firmly entrenched.

If the Republican Party hopes to regain any level of influence, it will have to do something drastically different. A coherent pro-American, pro-constitutional platform would definitely help, and candidates who swear to uphold the tenants of such a platform would help.

We currently have separate platforms for:

- the Wall Street/Global Trade Republicans
- the National Defense Republicans
- several Religious platforms(not that politicians can't be religious; they just need to unite, not divide, people of different religions)
- the Borders/Language/Culture Republicans
- the Small Government/libertarian Republicans
- the Corporate/Government Contractor Republicans
- etc., etc.

As we've seen on the conservative discussion forums, some of these interests are in direct conflict with others. If the party, or A party, hopes to unite these disparate blocs of voters, it will need to define the common ground we share, and eliminate the articles that have so divided us.

And it will absolutely have to stop trying to run candidates that look like warmed-over corpses.

John Cooper said...

"The problem is that McCain, and the Republican Party in general, won't listen, and they won't represent. They only ignore, and they betray."

A lotta' truth there.

I was listening to Rush for a while today, and he said something like, "The RNC has no idea of the depth of hatred [?] for McCain out there among conservatives. Mr. Snerdly tells me that we could have an entire three hour show just with calls from people who have vowed not to vote for the man."

One caller said today, "Our primary is next month, and I'm going to do to the democrats what they did to us - cross over and vote for Obama."

Is it not time to seriously consider forming a third party - "The Wolverines"?

lori_gmeiner said...

It looks like we may have an Obama-McCain November after all. Three months ago they were dark horses.

smithy said...

Congress seems to be much more interested in investigating drug use among pro athletes than they do is passing laws that will protect us from terrorists.

Anonymous said...

The Dems are tackling frivolous "issues." They don't want to do anything to hurt Hillary's or Obama's chancs in November. You can count on nothing of substance passing this session.

John Cooper said...

Romney to endorse McCain and release his delegates??? I guess that makes real chumps out of the people who voted for Romney, doesn't it.

I'm starting to understand why my in-laws haven't voted in 50 years.

danthemangottschall said...

I certainly understand your point, Cooper. But your in-laws should have voted for Reagan.

John Cooper said...

Day -by-Day Cartoon

robmaroni said...

Cooper- Funny and painfully true.

john galt said...

The more I learn about Obama the more I like Hillary, and I never thought I'd use "like" and "Hillary" in the same sentence.

John Cooper said...

Has anyone heard about Obama's "Global Poverty Bill" [S.2433] ? It commits the United States to send 0.7% of our GDP to the United Nations, on top of all the other foreign aid we already send. Estimates are that over the next 13 years, this will cost the U.S. taxpayer in the neighborhood of $845 billion.

Obama's resolution appears to make the U.N. Milleneum Declaration the law of the land in the United States. If you read that document, you will see that it incorporates by reference a whole list of other documents, among them the:

[*]Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[*]Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

[*]Convention on the Rights of the Child

[*]Convention on Biological Diversity

[*]Kyoto Protocol

[*]"Agenda 21", agreed upon at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

[*]Convention on Biological Diversity

[*]Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification

[*]ECOSOC 2000 Ministerial Declaration

[*]United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons

[*]Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction

[*]Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

...and probably some others that I missed.

(The gun ban is in the "Illicit Trade in Small Arms" document. It would make possession of a firearm a criminal offense. Read it yourself.)

The House has already passed a similar bill, and in the Senate, it has been sent to to floor with a positive recommendation from committee. It was supposed to have been brought up for a vote on the 17th.

marcus aurelius said...

In a free society that had a press determined to get the real "news" out, the information that Cooper listed above would be headline news until every voter knew it.

In this country today, all we are being told is that Obama wants "real change," and he is a pleasant, affable family man.

We've been betrayed.

Anonymous said...

Newt Gingrich recently described Obama as the "most leftwing candidate to run since George McGovern." I think he overestimates McGovern's left-ness.

Max Shapiro said...

Barrack Hussein Obama’s real ratings:

Planned Parenthood - 100% Support
National Right To Life - 0% Support
NARAL - 100% Support
Americans for Tax Reform - 0% Support
ACLU - 83% Support
NEA - 100% Support
NOW Hags - 100% Support
Citizens Against Government Waste - 13% Support
Gun Owners of America - 0% Support
NRA - “F” Rating
Federation for American Immigration Reform - 0% Support
US Border Patrol - 8% Support
Unions - 82% - 100% Support
Population Connection - 100% Support (These are the ‘Zero Growth’ freaks)


John Cooper said...

I read on one blog that Obama's bill passed the senate by voice vote on Friday. I'm unable to verify since the Thomas website won't be updated until next week due to the holiday.

If that's true, I have no doubt that President Bush will sign it. As I type, he's in Tanzania passing out more U.S. tax dollars Unpopular at home, Bush basks in African praise From the article:
Bush has spent more money on aid to Africa than his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and is popular for his personal programs to fight AIDS and malaria and to help hospitals and schools.

Bush has stressed new-style partnerships with Africa based on trade and investment and not purely on aid handouts.

His Millennium Challenge Corp. rewards countries that continue to satisfy criteria for democratic governance, anti-corruption and free-market economic policies.

Bush signed the largest such deal, for $698 million, with [Tanzanian President Jakaya] Kikwete on Sunday.
Millennium Challenge Corp.??? Gee, that sound a lot like Obama's bill, doesn't it?

Come to find out, it is a lot like Obama's bill. Millennium Challenge Corporation is a bilateral development fund announced by the Bush administration in 2002 and created in January, 2004.

Not a dimes worth of difference...

John Cooper said...

"I personally will not cast a vote for the presidency -- that is, if McCain is the Republican nominee. Under no circumstances will I vote for either of the Democrats. This will be the first time in fifty years that I have made this choice. I hope it will be the last."

--McCain? No Way! by Sen. HL "Bill" Richardson (ret.), Chairman of the Board, GOA

Anonymous said...

You're all wasting your breath here. The media isn't telling us, and the people don't give a damn anyway.

smithy said...

Not a dimes worth of difference...

I used to think that people who said such things were too cynical.

Not anymore.

All politicians these days are cut from the same mold. They'll do anything for power and wealth and the hell with the Constitution.

Good information, John Cooper. And you know how many Americans are aware of the facts in your posts? 1 in 100. And you know how many care? Not many more than that.

Anonymous said...

I have no doubt that Hillary is forging ahead. She has more guts and fight than her opponent could ever "DREAM" of.

John Cooper said...

Robert Novak writes:

"House Republicans showed how much they really care about losing their fiscal responsibility brand when they rejected Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), the leading crusader against earmarks, for a vacancy on the House Appropriations Committee. They picked Rep. Jo Bonner (Ala.), a former House staffer and a consistent supporter of earmarks. Flake's goose was cooked earlier when the House Republican Conference did not unilaterally impose a moratorium on earmarks."

To which John Hinderaker of Powerline responds:

"I don't see how Republicans think they can get back to majority status without reclaiming their role as advocates of smaller and more responsible government."


Anonymous said...

I understand everything you said in this article and you said it very well, but the more I hear about Obama (I think he's an out and out communist) there's no way I can let him get into office. I hope you'll rethink before November.