Colorado Wildfires, ‘Worst in State History’, Why Won’t The Forest Service Use the Biggest Firefighting Tool Available?

Being a resident of Colorado Springs, CO I was just a witness to the most destructive fire in the State of Colorado's history. 350+ homes were destroyed within the city limits of Colorado Springs and at one point over 32,000 people were evacuated from their homes. We watched as smoke piled up over our city and the flames came over the ridge and destroyed the lives of so many people.

The fire started last Saturday and many questions have arisen as to why the federal government took so long to act on this fire. We have a Air Force base in the city that is home to the 302nd Airlift wing that houses the specific planes that drop fire retardent on forest fires, but it took days for those planes to start flying.

But there is a bigger question that comes out of this whole situation and the U.S. Forest Service will not answer:

AP labels the 2012 Colorado wildfires worst in state history in this story. My friend and fellow climate skeptic, nationally syndicated radio host Lars Larson, asks some pointed and pertinent questions about what appears to be some of the most idiotic policy ever devised by government...This year the U.S. Forest Aervice will spend north of a billion dollars fighting forest fires across America. Billions of dollars worth of trees owned by the American people will go up in flames. And a $50 million dollar airplane that could put those fires out faster sits on the ground in Arizona because the U.S. Forest Service refuses to hire Evergreen Aviation. Now you may be saying, “There must be a good reason”. That’s what I thought, but then I remembered that government is capable of multibillion dollar stupidity on a daily basis. The Forest Service offers no explanation whatsoever.

The Federal Government refuses to allow private industry from operating because they will possibly lose their strong hold on the situation. They write federal laws that stand in the way of safety and day to day operations from taking place in a number of situations, including forest fires.

This is a statement from Evergreen International Aviation about the situation:

_________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 6/29/12


Evergreen International Aviation Statement Concerning the Supertanker 


We felt compelled to release this statement due to the overwhelming amount of calls we have 
received concerning the availability of the Evergreen Supertanker. We at Evergreen are saddened 
by the fire devastation now taking place in many Western US states. For over 60 years, we have 
supported the US Forest Service in its important mission to battle and control fires, and it is our 
desire to continue this rich history of service. While our helicopters continue to work fires for the 
State of Alaska under State contracts, unfortunately, our Boeing 747 Supertanker Very Large Air 
Tanker (VLAT) aircraft awaits activation with the US Forest Service.
  
We have never been told why we have not been activated by the US Forest Service, so we can 
only speculate as to why we face this outcome: 


1. We were offered a Call-When-Needed (CWN) contract a few years ago by the US Forest 
Service (proving our technical viability), but we were never called into action resulting in 
a multi-million dollar loss to our company as we were required to maintain and have 
flight crew available should we be called. The only contract that will sustain a VLAT 
program is an Exclusive-Use contract, which provides an income stream to sustain the 
program even if the asset is not utilized. We invested over $50M to develop this asset in 
the firm belief that we could better control fires as we proved in Israel and Mexico under 
CWN contracts that we could afford to offer at the time. 


2. There have been recent changes to the US Forest Service procurement policies. Today, 
only small businesses are eligible for contract awards concerning air tanker assets; 
Evergreen is not a small business and, therefore, is excluded from consideration for any 
award. 


3. The US Forest Service’s specification for Next Generation Air Tanker aircraft limits tank 
size to 5,000 gallons. The Supertanker’s tanks hold about 20,000 gallons, which is 
considered outside the USFS specification. The USFS just awarded contracts to four 
small businesses with aircraft equipped with these smaller tanks, and excluded the 
Evergreen Supertanker. Since World War II, tank capacities have been in the 3,000 to 
5,000 gallon range, yet we continue to face the growing threat from mega fires today. We 
believe the Supertanker represents an overwhelming response to this growing threat.


Please contact your state representatives in Washington DC to demand an examination of their 
current procurement policies concerning VLAT aircraft. The US Forest Service says it best:  
“Only YOU can prevent wildfires.”


Evergreen International Aviation, Inc.     Tel: 503.472.9361    www.EvergreenAviation.com
_________________________________________________________________________________
Here are videos of tankers that could be fighting fires in Colorado and elsewhere…that have killed Americans, burned houses, destroyed public property and timber

When will the federal government get out of the way and let companies like Evergreen assist in saving lives or property? Or will they be greedy and hog the situation to themselves?

Voting for Mitt Romney Worth Sacrificing Principle?

The 2012 election showdown is now before us and again the American people are stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils.

As somebody who was once a hardcore registered Republican it is hard to watch a big government liberal like Barack Obama win the Presidency, but then again it is also hard to watch a big government "conservative" like Mitt Romney have the chance at the White House as well.

When you convert to the Ron Paul and Liberty movement it is harder to distinguish who to vote for in a general election. In the 2008 election this writer took the first step in trying to change the way our electoral system functions by voting for a third party candidate. The 2012 election poses the same problem that existed in 2008...why should I vote for the lesser of two evils when their is a choice out there that is suitable enough for my vote and will feel like I am not violating my principles?

The answer that typically comes up when a question like this is posed is "why would you want to waste your vote and let somebody like Obama be elected President?" My answer is usually what is the difference between Obama (Democrats) or any Republicans that is usually put up for the public?

The question that is coming up in this election cycle is this:

Is voting for Mitt Romney worth sacrificing principle?


There will be a lot of people that might respond to this question by saying yes; because if you let Obama be President again, then this country will be destroyed!

But is Mitt Romney any better?

He is a big government Republican that gave us the blueprint for Obamacare.

He is a big government Republican that gives us tax increases.

He is a Republican that has a track record of increasing the size of government.

How is Romney different than Obama??

There is something that has to change in this country if we have to resort to voting for people that do not agree with our principles. We are stuck in a rut where the American people are forced to chose for candidates that talk a sweet game on the campaign trail, but then screw us when they step foot in the Oval Office.

I am tired of the same and I want to see our country change for the good.

So my question to you is...Voting for Mitt Romney worth sacrificing my principles???

RON PAUL INDUCTED INTO CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL HALL OF FAME

With all the news we had this week about health care, we thought it would be nice to report some good hearted news:

The Supreme Court is Now John Roberts' Court

Chief Justice John Roberts has officially grabbed hold of a court that was teetering by the weight of a Congress and a President that believes they control everything in Washington D.C.  The health care ruling is probably the defining moment for John Roberts and the Supreme Court despite the anger that is coming from the conservative movement that thought Roberts would be their biggest ally.

What they are failing to miss is exactly what Roberts did by siding with the liberal's on the court.

1. He reigned in congressional power forever and wrote the opinion that in a way that will uphold it.
2. Exposed the tax elements (easier to fix)
3. Insulated the states from the heavy hand of the federal government
4. And finally, gave the true power back to the voter to finish what the court started.


Ever since the Bush v. Gore decision back in 2000 the Supreme Court has been thought of as a worthless branch of government behind the other two. The court itself probably has the most important duty to this country when it comes to judging the law and holding the politicians accountable for their actions that might violate the Constitution. 


John Roberts brought back the ability of the court to play both sides of the isle while bringing a sense of stability to the court itself. He is now in control of how the court proceeds and that can be a good thing no matter who is in the White House or who controls the Congress. 


What people are failing to miss about Roberts at the moment, because their minds are clouded by the recent decision, is his belief in restraining the power of the federal government. This was known when he was being confirmed by the Senate when Bush nominated him, and it is still known in a lot of the decisions he has written in his tenure as Chief Justice. The health care case is no different. 


Yes he didn't overturn the individual mandate, but rather said it is a tax that must now be defended by the Congress. He is not going to overreach with power and just wipe out a law because he might disagree with it, but he will use the Constitution to push people into corners and make them explain themselves. This is what is happening right now with the Democrats and the White House. They are stuck trying to say why the mandate is not a tax, but the court has decided and now it is going to cause a lot of problems for Obama and the Democrats come November. 

Obamacare Now Invalid Because Tax Bills Must Originate in House

In a technical sense the "Obamacare" law that was passed a couple of years ago maybe invalid because of the recent Supreme Court ruling that deemed certain portions of the law as a tax law.

For the people who don't understand the U.S. Constitution let me explain.

According to Article 1 of the Constitution all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. When the Democrats started this bill in 2009 it originated in the United States Senate because it was being sold as a purchase and not a tax.

The ruling by the Supreme Court essentially nullified the law because they ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional based on the Commerce Clause, but allowed the law to stand because of Congress' power to tax the American people. The Chief Justice essentially nullified "Obamacare" with this distinction.

This might be a way to open up new challenges to the "Obamacare" law and it will give ammo for the opposition in Congress to challenge the validity of the law based on the fact that it did violate the U.S. Constitution.

White House Now on Defensive: "Its a Penalty, Not a Tax"

The ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday was an upsetting decision for a lot of people in this country.  Many are angry with the fact that they would be required to pay for health insurance and feel that requirement to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, but it can be considered Constitutional under the Congress' ability to tax the American People.

As we discussed yesterday the court has now put the Obama Administration and the Congress in a peculiar situation because they fought for this bill a few years ago claiming that this was not a tax increase on the American people.

Now the White House is on the defensive with this court ruling...from Fox News:

First it was a penalty. Then it was a tax. Now it's a penalty again.  

The war of words over what to call the fine attached to the federal health care overhaul's most controversial provision continued Friday, as the White House took issue with the Supreme Court's argument -- even though that argument alone spared President Obama's law.  

The five-justice majority argued that, while the fine imposed by the law for not buying health insurance would otherwise be unconstitutional, the fine is actually legal under Congress' authority to tax.  

Ergo, the fine is officially a "tax" in the eyes of the court. The law stands.  

But in a case of biting the hand that feeds, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday the fine is still just a "penalty."  

Calling it a "tax" causes obvious political problems for the White House. Obama fought that label vigorously when selling the bill in 2009. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/#ixzz1zDDRxoqF

Conservatives were very fast to rush to judgement on the court ruling yesterday, which was partly anger. However; the case has now put the White House and the Democrats in Congress in a peculiar situation as they head into the 2012 election season. They will now have to defend the law as not a tax, but rather a penalty and it will now highlight the problems with the law that will allow for the repeal if the Republicans are able to win big in November.

Conservatives need to look at the heart of the Chief Justice's opinion and look at the tactic that he employed by making this decision. It would have been a huge deal if the court had overturned the law, and it would have been a big deal if they said it was perfect, but what Roberts did was strategic. He secured the credibility of the court and pushed the legislative and executive branches into a big corner that they now have to fight their way out of.

Michael Savage Makes a Pathetic Analysis of the Chief Justice's Reasoning

In light of the Supreme Court's decision yesterday concerning the "Obamacare" law, it would appear their are some very upset conservatives that chose to take blows below the belt because they disagree with the way in which the Chief Justice decided the case.

Michael Savage, with all his disgusting rhetoric he throws down on a daily basis, decided to take a cheap shot at Chief Justice Roberts because he didn't like the decision the court made.

"Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying," Michael Savage said on his radio program this evening.
Savage makes a desperate attempt to try and explain why the court made the decision that they did make. His hateful remarks are directed at a justice of the court who has proven to be a brilliant legal mind for this country and just because you disagree with the decision made yesterday it doesn't give you the right to go after a man and his medical condition that is not affecting his work as Chief Justice. 
I agree that "Obamacare" is a disaster to this country, but one needs to be smart enough to read into Roberts opinion of the court and understand exactly what he did yesterday. The American people are to blame for the fact that we elected the Democrats and Obama into power back in 2008 and we are dealing with the consequences. You can not depend on the court to overturn every law you disagree with, but rather deal with it through a legislative process. 
Savage is a joke and he says things like this to bring attention to his pathetic radio program. 

Judge Napolitano: Obamacare Ruling Will Drive Libertarians To Romney

Judge Andrew Napolitano expressed reason that a lot of small government Libertarians and apprehensive conservatives will be driven to Mitt Romney following the ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday which upheld government mandated healthcare.





In my opinion it might be a little early to make this assumption, but it is very plausible. 
Could this been a strategy of John Roberts as well???

First Thoughts on the ObamaCare Ruling - Cato Institute

Do We Still Have A Constitution? by Judge Napolitano

Chief Justice John Roberts is a Genius!

Before everybody burns the Chief Justice in effigy, it is important to see the genius behind the move the Chief Justice made with the decision by the Supreme Court.

Yes, it would have been nice and easy if the court had just struck down the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress and signed by the President.  But the Chief Justice won the battle of the over powering Congress that has developed in the past years.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care through in the first place. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals preciselybecause they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Roberts have been on a vengeance ever since he became the Chief Justice of the court to take down Congress's ability to compel the American people to do certain actions they deem necessary. This is why he has been a member of the Federalist Society for a long time.

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

People in this country are too quick to pass judgement based on what they hear on the news. It is important to read what happened and see the logic behind a decision like this one. The Chief Justice did not commit treason, but rather he opened the door for a slew of challenges to the Congress' authority to control the American people.

He is protecting Liberty!

Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War

The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.

By Tom Scocca|Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012, at 11:59 AM ET

There were two battles being fought in the Supreme Court over the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts—and Justice Anthony Kennedy—delivered victory to the right in the one that mattered.

Yes, Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate, joining the court's liberal wing to give President Obama a 5-4 victory on his signature piece of legislation. Right-wing partisans are crying treason; left-wing partisans saw their predictions of a bitter, party-line defeat undone.

But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.

By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well).Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals preciselybecause they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Read the rest of this article at the Slate.com

Supreme Court Obamacare Decision Highlights Why a President Romney Would be More Dangerous than President Obama

Libertarian Party press release: Source

A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He’d make it permanent.

The National Libertarian Party issued the following statement today:

The Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare does not matter. It will make little difference to America in the short run, and no difference in the long run.

Why? Because almost all elected Republicans and Democrats are Big Government politicians – in all things – including health care. After this Supreme Court decision, they will get back to work expanding government involvement in all things – especially health care.

One thing could make things worse. Electing Republican Mitt Romney President.

Why?

Republicans fiercely oppose, and often defeat Democratic Party attempts to massively expand government involvement in Health Care – such as HillaryCare.

But Democrats usually vote for Republican Party legislation to massively expand government’s role in Health Care.

Republican President George Bush’s $1.1 Trillion Government Prescription Drug Program was voted into law by Republicans and Democrats.

Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts state government expansion into Massachusetts health care – RomneyCare – was voted into law by both Republicans and Democrats. With virtually no resistance.

A Republican-controlled House of Representatives and US Senate would oppose Democratic President Barack Obama’s health care proposals.

But a Republican majority House of Representatives and US Senate would support and vote for a Republican President Mitt Romney’s Big Government health care proposals. And most Democrats in the House and Senate would, too.

What Republican Governor Romney did to Massachusetts’ health care, a Republican President Romney would do to America’s health care.

A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He’ll make it permanent.

A first-term President Mitt Romney would be far more dangerous to small business, the private sector, and taxpayers than a lame-duck President Obama – no matter what the Supreme Court decided.

Reality Check: Mass. Corruption as GOP Strip Delegates of Their Credentials

From Mitt Romney's old stomping ground, where his people control the process.

Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare: Kennedy Provides the Powerful Dissent

The Supreme Court today upheld the individual mandate requirement of President Obama's healthcare overhaul in this country. With a shock to many the Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal majority in approving the requirement that all Americans have some type of health care coverage.

The shock that came out of today's ruling is the man that provided a very powerful dissent in the case and that is Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy is typically a swing voter on the court who is hard to judge when a case is being decided. However; this was probably his most powerful opinion in his long career as a justice of the court.

From the Politico:

Kennedy, often the key swing vote on court opinions, spent 10 minutes questioning the majority’s opinion upholding the individual mandate under Congress’ taxing power. 

His main argument was that the court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, went well beyond what lawmakers intended with the health care law. 

“What Congress calls a penalty, we call a tax,” Kennedy said. “In short, the court imposes a tax when Congress deliberately rejected a tax.”

Kennedy has hit dead on with his dissenting opinion. He has put a direct challenge to John Roberts thinking on this case. If Congress openly rejected the idea of a tax then there is no way a court can justify that the law was created under the Congress' ability to tax the American people.

Kennedy also went as far as to say that the entire Health Care law is invalid. He spent 10 minutes from the bench this morning ripping the majority opinion and laying ground for the fact that this law could be challenged again, and it gives Congress the ability to change the law if Obama is defeated in his re-election bid.

More on Massachusetts Election Fraud

Mitt's old stomping ground where he has a strong "in" with the people who run the process and count the votes.

Romney on the Rocks: So much for "at least he's not a communist"

Advice From Former Victims Of Communism - GBTV

Massachusetts Republicans oust Ron Paul delegates

If you were a delegate chosen at a local level to represent the Republican Party at the national convention and then you were forced to sign a affidavit in support of Mitt Romney would you sign?

Delegates in the state of Massachusetts have been "disqualified" from attending the national convention in Tampa because they failed to sign a pledge to support Mitt Romney. Most of the delegates have been identified as supporters of Ron Paul.

From the Boston Globe:

Evan Kenney had just turned 18 and registered to vote for the first time when he campaigned to be an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention. Lauding Ronald Reagan’s principles and blasting Keynesian economics at the Lynnfield caucus in April, the Wakefield High School senior beat out several well-known Massachusetts Republicans, including the party’s most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker Jr. 

But earlier this month, Kenney was one of 17 delegates and alternates disqualified by a Republican committee deciding who gets to represent Massachusetts Republicans at the national convention in Tampa. Kenney and others had failed to deliver in time an affidavit swearing, under the penalty of perjury, that they would support Mitt Romney’s nomination for president. 

An affidavit is never mentioned in the Republican Party’s rules for selecting delegates and has never been required of delegates in the past, GOP critics say. Suspicions are steep this year because Kenney and the others are supporters of Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate whose quixotic campaign for president culminated in an effort to take over state caucuses nationwide. The delegates must vote for Romney, based on his strong primary win in Massachusetts, but Paul’s supporters hope to use the convention to draw attention to his agenda, including auditing the Federal Reserve and requiring wars to be declared by Congress.

It is interesting to see that the Romney campaign has to result to thug tactics to ensure that he receives the nomination for President. When did we start living in a country that would stifle people's right to vote, whether that is in a nominating process or a electoral process?

The tactics that have been used by the Romney people are a big reason why a lot of people like myself have a very hard time trying to lend our support to this candidate. We stand on principle and when you are trying to pull information into your head as to why I should support Mitt Romney here comes a story like this that just changes the whole situation.

Romney=Pathetic!

Video: Legal Open Carry Man Cites Law, Cops Back Down

When you know the Constitution and the law you can protect yourself from any unreasonable detainment by the police. This is a lesson for anyone!

“I was detained by Portland PD officer J McDonald on 26MAY2012. He detains me without suspicion of any criminal activity in violation of Delaware v Prouse. He admits his sole reason for stopping me is my legally carried firearm in violation of US v DeBerry. He seizes my weapon with no reasonable suspicion that I’ve committed a crime in violation of Terry v Ohio. He demands my ID without reasonable suspicion in violation of Hiibel v Nevada.”

Ron Paul's Route To Convention Chaos: The Vice Presidential Nomination

Ron Paul may be out of contention for the Republican nomination for President, but there is one way he might be able to influence the outcome of the election and the direction this country heads in the next 4 years....Vice President Paul??

From the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON -- This may be the Ron Paul gambit we've been waiting for. 

An obscure rule change made four years ago by the Republican Party has opened the door for Paul forces to cause a major headache for Mitt Romney when he tries to nominate his choice for vice president at the party convention in August. 

The Republican National Committee could change Rule 40 in the week leading up to the convention, but that would risk the appearance of jamming Romney's nominee through, and likely cause a subsequent backlash. 

Republican officials are still waking up to the fact that Paul loyalists -- who control the majority of delegates in Maine, Minnesota and Iowa, and have sizable contingents in a number of other states -- could very likely enter Paul's name into nomination for vice president. This would force a roll call vote where each delegate of each state is polled on the floor of the convention.

Ron Paul has caused a lot of division in the Republican Party mainly because he will not back down on principle and give in to the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party. There are a lot of people out there that will not vote for Mitt Romney for President because they will have a hard time selling their soul to the devil to cast such a vote. Romney and the majority of Republican candidates have lost the way the Republican Party once did business and that is why they shun people like Ron Paul.


However; the Paul people have a very strong backing this go around and could now influence the way the Republican Party goes in the future. 


Paul would be the ideal Vice Presidential candidate for Mitt Romney. Paul would pull in a lot of disgruntled Republicans that have been lost since 2001 and he would bring in a lot of independent support that is crucial to win over Barack Obama. 


Paul's ideas were once the ideas of the Republicans and it is about time that those ideas came back home and a Vice Presidential slot would be the perfect way, at this point, to see Paul have influence for the party and the country. 

Ron Paul: There’s “No Way” I’m Endorsing Romney

Ron Paul has conceded to the fact that he does not have enough delegates to be the Republican nominee for President. Mitt Romney looks like he will be the nominee for the Republican Party, but does that mean Ron Paul will endorse Romney for President? Remember 2008 when Paul refused to endorse McCain for President solely based on principle.

Right now it looks like Congressman Paul is refusing to endorse Romney as well. Check out his Morning Joe interview:

Ron Paul for President, The Righteous Mutiny

MSNBC CAUGHT SELECTIVELY EDITING ROMNEY VIDEO TO MAKE HIM SEEM ‘OUT OF TOUCH'

Whether or not we are the biggest Mitt Romney fans here at The Libertarian Examiner (we aren't) we do believe in fair judging of a candidate and not manipulation of their words.

MSNBC has a reputation of having a liberal bias just like Fox has a conservative bias. However; they have been caught manipulating the words of Mitt Romney in a campaign stop he had recently.

In the MSNBC clip, Romney is shown discussing Wawa’s convenience stores like he has never been to one before (presumably because he is “too good” for such an establishment).


Watch the MSNBC version:






And now, watch the real version of the speech:



It is pretty pathetic when a news agency has to go that low in order to push their agenda. It is unfair to the electoral process and damaging to this country when a credited news agency has to manipulate the minds of its viewers because they don't like a guy who is running for President.

Breaking: Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected

If you weren't scared of President Obama right now you might want to wait until he is re-elected President in November. If he and his cronies in the White House have their way they will attempt to amend the First Amendment of the Constitution and limit the speech of their political opponents.




This President is attempting to stretch the boundaries of Presidential power and this is one attempt that people in this country will not allow to happen. 
The First Amendment is the most precious tool we have to keep our Liberty in tact, and we now have a government that wishes to tarnish our sacred rights and bring this country down the road of a dictatorship. Obama, and a lot of people in Washington, scare the crap out of me and a lot of people in this country. I am scared for my rights and this story doesn't help the situation.
We need to stand up this man and anyone in Washington that mutters a word about taking away our liberties. 
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

The Case for Rand Paul's Romney Endorsement

Benedict Rand....that is now the title that Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky holds after his endorsement of Mitt Romney for President.

Rand Paul, who's father is the leader of a libertarian movement across this country, took the time to endorse Mitt Romney for President with the objections of many in the liberty movement. To these many he is now a sell out, a traitor, etc. But what if the endorsement was strategic?

The movement that Ron Paul started in 2008 has grown by leaps and bounds. It has taken a lot of man power to convince a lot of people that the ideas of liberty and freedom are what this country needs to return.

With the campaign of Ron Paul dying down, and the nomination of Mitt Romney inevitable, something needs to be done to keep the movement that Paul started alive. It would seem that Rand Paul might be positioning himself with a Romney Administration to keep the train rolling for Liberty.

For some time there was rumors of Ron Paul being a Vice Presidential candidate for Romney.  There have also been rumors of a possible Treasury Secretary position.  But with time it would seem that Ron Paul might be too old to continue in that type of service. His son however can and will be a leading voice for the movement and by getting in nice with the Romney people he can have some influence over what will happen in a Romney government.

Possible cabinet position for the young Paul??

My point is that people within the Liberty movement need to tone down their rhetoric about Rand's endorsement and look to the brighter side of the endorsement...we will now have an in with the big guns in Washington.

I do agree that Ron Paul needs to stay shy of endorsing Romney and this is a great warning from Chuck Baldwin:

2008 Video: Ron Paul Not Endorsing John McCain

Dear Ron Paul, We Will Not Quit!

By tmotofga

Joe Scarborough Explains Why He Voted for Ron Paul

Joe Scarborough is a leading voice for the conservative movement who has proven his consistency with his beliefs and during his time as a Congressman from Florida proved he is worthy of voicing an opinion on what is taking place in this country.

Scarborough is not afraid to be different from the rest of his Republican brethren and his most recent article on the Politico.com has given voice to that analysis.

From the Politico:

I operate on instinct. So I should not have been surprised by my own gut reaction to the absentee ballot that lay before me on the kitchen table.

I scanned the list for Republican primary candidates and let instinct take over.

Mitt Romney? Not on your life. A big government Republican who will say anything to get elected.

Rick Santorum? No way. A pro-life statist who helped George W. Bush double the national debt.

Newt Gingrich? Ideologically unmoored. A champion of liberty one day, a central planner the next.

Ron Paul? Yep. I quickly checked his name and moved on to a far more complex task: fixing my daughter a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

After spending six months analyzing each candidate’s every move for three hours a day, five days a week, it never occurred to me that my decision to vote for the quirky congressman from Texas would happen as fast as a tornado whipping through an Amarillo parking lot. After all, who would vote for a candidate that criticized the killing of Osama bin Laden, blamed U.S. foreign policy for Sept. 11 and wants to abolish Social Security?

Certainly not me.

But I also would never vote for a GOP candidate who was the godfather of Obamacare, or another who added $7 trillion to Medicare’s debt or yet another who bashed Paul Ryan one week and venture capital the next. Faced with this truckload of big government Republicans, I cast my vote for the only candidate who spent his entire public career standing athwart history yelling “stop” to an ever-expanding centralized state.

While Romney was distancing himself from Ronald Reagan, Paul was fighting with Republicans to balance the budget for the first time in a generation. While Santorum was supporting an unprecedented expansion of entitlement spending, Paul was warning of a great recession that would be caused by government interference in the housing market. And while Gingrich was talking about how he would build up the federal government to push his conservative agenda, Congressman Paul spent all his waking hours focused on dismembering that big government beast.

It was the first “protest” vote I’ve ever cast, and it felt … well, it felt good. Suddenly I understood a bit better why the Ross Perot or the Pat Buchanan or the Ralph Nader voters did what they did.

They thought the system was so broken that they couldn’t sit out but also couldn’t stomach voting for a conventional candidate at a time of unconventional problems.

Do I think a Ron Paul presidency is ever possible? No, I don’t. But I do want some of the Pauline virtues of candor and non-poll-tested conviction to play a larger role in our politics.

So now I’ve cast my protest vote. It felt good.

What I really want, though, is a party and a politics that’s commensurate with the problems and possibilities of the country. We’ll get there one day — and then we can focus on progress, not protest.

A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77335.html#ixzz1xdDp8mml

Why Rand Paul Was Right to Endorse Romney

Rand Paul is taking a lot of heat for his endorsement of Mitt Romney the other day to be President of the United States, however; if you analyze the situation one will understand the strategic move that Senator Paul just made for the future.

Jack Hunter explains the situation best:

Rand Paul Turns to the Dark Side

By Roger F. Gay (Twitter @rogerfgay)

The son of a great Jedi master of the Liberty Movement, The Force was strong in the young apprentice. Alas, he was thrust into the limelight of the battle between good and evil far too early, long before his training could be completed. Inexperienced, impatient, and eager to make his own way, the call to become ordinary, a simple mindless drone in the Washington gang was too strong.

We don't yet know whether Rand Paul broke any of his father's bones using him as he did, as a spring board into the service of The Empire. More likely than not, he did crush his father's heart.

The Liberty Movement, as it is known today, created the Tea Party, a once proud idea that inspired the masses, before “the establishment” threw it into chaos. The movement itself lives on and has begun its exponential phase; forcefully pushing out the old establishment to create a new order; one with the promise to restore a nation and the last great hope for mankind. As people around the globe begin to awaken, it made its first concrete inroads into exposing and defeating political corruption and demonstrating the voters were on the great Jedi master's side. Followers of the movement had been searching for a new generation of politicians worthy of the new age.

Rand Paul knows who Mitt Romney is and what he represents. When we talk about the “lesser of two evils,” reasonable people understand that it's two evils that are being talked about. Mitt Romney has done nothing in his lifetime to demonstrate that his evil is the lesser of the two that are being subjected to this whimsical comparison at the moment. What we do know is that he is evil.

By reaching for more personal power by embracing this evil, Rand Paul has excluded himself from the list of worthy politicians. He has joined the service of an Emperor that hides in the shadows. This Emperor wants to crush The r3VOLution. He wants the Dark Side to rule for (at least) a thousand years. This is Rand Paul's master now.

Rand Paul knows that Mitt Romney is a liar. The qualifications listed in his campaign resume are distorted half truths at best. He knows that Mitt Romney is a money man who wants to be president because Washington is “where the money is.” He doesn't intend to save it. He intends to spend it and he intends to spend a lot of it and by doing so he intends to enrich himself and a lot of purchased political friends. Rand Paul knows all this. He knows that Mitt Romney is dirty. He knows this is exactly what it means today to be an “establishment politician.”

Scarred beyond recognition, covered in a black suit of shame, a cape draped around his shoulders, Young Lord Paul lifts his hand to prove that his power over The Force is real and stronger than ever by giving his personal endorsement to one of the most worthless and destructive characters to ever set foot on the American political stage. “This isn't the evil you're looking for,” he suggests. “This evil is lesser than the other one. Move along now.”

Rand … buddy … pal … Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! This is the real world and now, because of the choice you've made, you just don't matter. If there's any of the young Jedi left in you, apologize to your father and to the country and ask to be allowed to finish your training. It's your only hope.

Mitt Romney is Your Problem, Not Ours

By Roger F. Gay (Twitter: @rogerfgay)

I've written several articles already that started by mentioning the age old scam of presuming a party nominee for us and then telling us we have no choice but to support the “presumptive” (meaning what I'm about to write is not proven, not established as fact) “lesser of two evils.” This year we face a particularly egregious effort to herd us all back to the RINO ranch.

The most obvious, striking, and consistent thing about Republican voters has been their dislike of Mitt Romney. “Not-Romney” voters outnumber Romney supporters. Real Romney supporters appear to number in the tens of paid campaign staff, and they're only onboard until the paychecks stop. Particularly painful is that his status as “presumptive nominee” has just as consistently been marred by clear evidence of election fraud. If you are a sleeper that should give you a hint – Romney's just as crooked as Obama.

The “tipping point” that caused me to write this article was a comment by an apparent “sleeper”. (We keep telling people they need to wake up.) “Doesn't matter if you think he is good enough or not,” he wrote. “He is the candidate we have.”

Aside from the fact that Mitt Romney is not the only candidate that we have, I submit that IF he does become the Republican nominee, he's not “our” nominee and it's not “our” problem. For those of you who caved early, or are caving now, you made the bed – go ahead and sleep in it. Not my problem.

Ron Paul supporters, and others, have been presenting you with the facts for months. Conservatives don't like Romney. Independents don't like Romney. Although Romney is every bit as far left as Barack Obama, he's not going to succeed in stealing the D-party faithful from him. (Obama's election fraud machine is ever so much greater than Romney's – being run on public money and all.)

Your great fear of Barack Obama isn't shared by everyone. Sure, I don't want him to be president. I never did. There are people who don't want him to have another four years in the office. But just ask yourself this. If you believe you can convince a lot of people that Mitt Romney is ok, then don't you think it's obvious that a lot of other people can be convinced that Barack Obama is ok too?

As we've said, repeatedly, it's not enough that Obama is bad, mmkay. To defeat him in an election, the real trick is to present a better candidate. Mitt Romney is not better. Putting an R behind his name doesn't fix it. Giving him the Republican Party nomination doesn't fix it. Chosing a more popular but dubious running mate doesn't fix it. (He or she would have to be dubious if willing to team up with Mitt Romney.)

Letting Mitt Romney have the Republican nomination is the thing that will give Barack Obama another four years in office. It's not my fault. It's not the fault of all those other people who won't be voting for Mitt Romney. It's your fault for letting him have the nomination.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

The Bipartisan Way

(Twitter @rogerfgay)

Romney Nomination May Be Contested

By Roger F. Gay (Twitter @rogerfgay)

Mitt Romney has not secured the Republican nomination yet, and there's no guarantee that he ever will, but if it is handed to “the presumptive nominee” at the National Convention a lot of people will call “BS on that!” The nomination process is still underway and growing increasingly violent. Ron Paul supporters are enduring false arrests, detainment, broken bones and slander as they simply exercise their constitutional rights of voting and participating in party politics, and winning delegates.

For months now, the establishment GOP has tried every corrupt trick in their handbook to remain in power. It isn't just a matter of vote and rule rigging to give Mitt Romney the nomination. Local party officials are losing their plush positions, and they're going to greater and greater lengths not to let that happen. The “shenanigans” as they've been so politely called, really started with misreporting election and caucus results, and throwing out the official rules to implement a railroading process for delegate selection. Eventually, when it came to the process of electing delegates, Ron Paul supporters began documenting the dirty tricks.

In both Maine and Nevada, for example, Romney supporters were caught distributing counterfeit delegate slates. In Arizona, there were complaints of ballot stuffing and the convention was eventually shut down when it appeared likely that a Ron Paul supporter would be elected as the national committeewoman. In Massachusetts, after Ron Paul supporters won 16 of 27 district delegate slots, state party leaders quickly moved to try to invalidate the results.

In March, the “establishment” in Missouri tried to railroad adoption of a Romney delegate slate, telling participants they were not allowed to use camera equipment. By the official rules, cameras are allowed in fact, and Paul supporters posted videos of people being arrested for attempting, peacefully, to follow well-understood procedural rules in a counter move against the obvious corruption. This was the first recorded incident of the use of force to rig the election results.

It didn't stop there. In state after state, problems were reported in county gatherings, while “establishment” officials in some cases refused to record results from large pro-Ron Paul counties. In May, Oklahoma officials cheated throughout the entire process and then tried to shut down the convention when they realized they were still in a losing position. Convention delegates, evicted from the building, held the convention in the parking lot.

Facing an obvious loss in Nevada, “establishment” officials walked out of the convention to eventually set up a “shadow party” at Romney headquarters. Across the country, under the watchful eyes of video cameras, they're simply refusing to participate in any sort of honest process. The pattern of corruption is quite consistent and the evidence is rapidedly becoming overwhelming.

Over the weekend, the violence escalated.

Faced with a stunning loss at the state convention in Louisiana, where Romney had received a minority of popular votes, “establishment” thugs attacked Henry Herford Jr. after he had been elected State Central Committeeman in an effort physically stop the transition of power. In yet another instance, Ron Paul supporter Alex Helwig, the properly elected Chairman of the Rules Committee, was arrested by Shreveport police as he made a motion to remove the previous chair. During his brief detainment, some of his fingers were broken and when he returned to the event he was walking with aid of a cane.

This is apparently what Charles Krauthammer meant, several months ago, when he predicted that Ron Paul couldn't win, because the establishment won't allow it. Although a clean sweep to rid us of all these criminal bums along with the defeat of their candidate Mitt Romney is not likely, Dr. Krauthammer may have underestimated the tenacity with which some Americans are willing to fight for free and fair elections. It ain't over yet.

Ron Paul supporters understand full well that they're not part of some fringe group fighting for an undeserved win over a more popular candidate. The main obstacle is not his desire to rein in the military-industrial complex or his consistent record of voting against increased federal spending and intrusion. It's corruption. When the Paul camp recently refocused its campaign efforts, it was in a way that will more effectively counter the problem. The new effort will also attempt to gather evidence, not just in delegate selection, but in misreporting results of popular votes.

All in all, it's looking increasingly likely that some in the Romney camp will face jail time, and as news of election fraud spreads, the thought of general public acceptance of Romney's nomination grows increasingly absurd.

Recent Related Articles and Posts

Mitt Romney: Where The Money Is
10 Reasons to Support Mitt Romney and Other Thoughts
Has Romney Peaked Already?
Reality Check: Liberty Movement Taking Over GOP (Complete)

Mitt Romney: Where The Money Is

By Roger F. Gay (Twitter @rogerfgay)

Nothing, in my opinion, encapsulates Mitt Romney's drive for the presidency better than the secret video taken by one of his political opponents. “I'm a big believer in getting money where the money is,” he proudly proclaims, “and the money is in Washington.”

As he tells his story about successfully extracting a record amount of public funds when chairing the 2002 Winter Olympics, in direct contradiction to claims of limited public funding for the event on the campaign trail, a seemingly much more accurate view of his “private sector experience” in “business” also emerges.

Romney was hired directly out of Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee. From his own bragging about his activities, it's extremely clear that the skill and experience he brought to the organization was that of a Washington lobbyist. It really takes the steam out of his claim that he's the only Republican candidate who's “never been to Washington.” Maybe he meant the state?

Mitt Romney was introduced into the Political Class as the son of former Michigan Governor George W. Romney (1963-1969). George was also chairman and president of American Motors Corporation (1954 to 1962). In an era (just after WWII) still powered by government contracts and civilian spin-offs, the company helped lead the way to a new world order of things by shipping manufacturing jobs to foreign countries. He was also the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1969 to 1973) under Richard M. Nixon.

He must have grown up with the sense that “capitalism” and business in America is driven by public money, or at least that's the formula for a get rich quick scheme. The big successes he knew about were driven by lots of public money. If you want a big business success, you go “where the money is,” Washington DC, to get it.

He's an integral part of exactly what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about in 1961, the “military-industrial-[political] complex.” But it's not just about the military anymore. The system has grown to deserve a more general (and perhaps older) name – cronyism.

No wonder it's so difficult to find a significant difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

10 Reasons to Support Mitt Romney and Other Thoughts

One of the great things about being a Paulbot is that you suddenly find yourself surrounded by a lot of other people who are also paying attention.

By Roger F. Gay

It's no secret that I spend a lot of time in online discussions. I learn a lot. Some of it might surprise you. Here's 10 reasons to support Mitt Romney.

You should support Mitt Romney because;

1. he's not Barack Obama.
2. he's not Ronald Reagan.
3. he's not a jar of overly sweetened peanut butter.
4. there's no evidence yet that he's ever eaten anyone's face, while they were still alive.
5. as far as we know, he was never arrested while working as a lobbyist for Bain Capital.
6. he released tax returns that were prepared to be released.
7. he has a long form birth certificate that might be real.
8. he's for or against whatever you'd like him to be for or against, regardless of what he does.
9. no one can prove that he's Satan setting the stage for a 1000 year Rule of Darkness on Earth.
10. he's rich.

Although some of the reasons given should be considered basic required qualifications, the entire list just as obviously does not add up to a particularly good resume for a presidential candidate.

Notably missing from the list;

1. supports Constitutional rule; i.e. “the rule of law.”
2. supports downsizing the federal governement.
3. supports reduced government spending.
4. opposes socialized medicine.
5. opposes the destruction of marriage and family.
6. supports civil rights for any (or all) Americans.
7. would bring honor to the country.
8. would unite the country.
9. would save the country.
10. offers a refreshing political alternative to Barack Obama and other “establishment” politicians.

The phrase most often included with thoughts on voting for Mitt Romney: “hold my nose.”

It ain't over yet! Don't throw your vote or your money away. Support Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican nomination.