Saturday, February 4, 2012

The True Conservatives Alternative to Mitt, and or Newt...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

A Flag Flying for Liberty and Against Tyranny

It it is increasingly looking as though "say anything to get elected" Mittens Romney is gaining steam. Even to the point gasbag Newtie (the authoritarian) Gingrich may be facing an insurmountable climb to the cherished republican nomination.

The Hill - What do the anti-Romney Republicans do now?

Mitt Romney is the odds-on favorite to become the GOP presidential nominee following his 14-point victory in the Florida primary Tuesday and is heading into the Nevada caucuses with a big lead. Those conservatives who have long opposed his candidacy are at a loss.

Some continue to hold out hope that, somehow, Romney can be stopped. Others seem to grudgingly accept that he will become the nominee, but are disinclined to do anything more than the bare minimum to help him win the general election. The appetite for a third-party candidacy is small, setting aside the comparatively small group of libertarians who would back a Ron Paul run.

In the absence of a clear way forward, conservatives are confused and dismayed.

“I was disappointed that the grassroots movement even in our own state was just not able to overcome the money that can be poured into a campaign,” said Patricia Sullivan, a prominent Tea Party activist in Florida who endorsed Gingrich. “We had the passion, but not the finances to beat that kind of establishment machine.”

Hm, lets think for just one moment. Isn't there a constitutional conservative candidate in the field? Isn't there a candidate who, unlike Newtie or Mittens really believes in individual liberties as defined by proper constitutional law? Isn't there a candidate who believe in fiscal responsibility and sanity? Isn't there a candidate who thinks the government's business is to place the levers of governance in the hands of the people's elected body of representatives?

By George I believe there is. His name is Ron Paul. Now, if only the rest of the fiscal conservatives and socially conservative evangelicals (fundies) would wake up and recognize the proper constitutional alternative to either Mittens and Newtie.

Oh, I almost forgot. I suppose one might consider Rick (the Rickster) Santorum. That is if you are wanting of a sanctimonious, theological hidebound medieval minded leader for you president.

just sayin...

Via: Memeorandum.


  1. Paul is as un-Constitutional as the rest of them. He doesn't like the 5th and 14th Amendment, and wants us to ignore them.

  2. Really. I have read his book, on this basis I would disagree. Nor have I heard him definitively speak out against said amendments. It is of course possible I missed these specifics. In light of this possibility I would be most appreciative if you would provide links to this information so that I may review it.

    Thanks in advance.

  3. In particular, I refer to his claims that the 14th Amendment does not say what it says explicitly about US citizenship, and his desire to strip citizenship from American citizens who have never lived in another country.... based on an assumption that the parents of these Americans committed certain crimes.

    This of course also violates the ideals of due process also.

    1. Again, I ask, do you have a specific link, or public speech I may refer to? It would be most appreciated if you would share the pertinent info.

  4. Check this link out:

    The Daily Paul.

    It's a pro-Paul site. It begins with the actual text of the 14th Amendment, and then continues with various attempts to weasel out of it by presenting statements by relevant persons which are not part of the Amendment, "original intent" divination, and support for activist judges altering the amendment on the fly (something I thought Paul would be opposed to).

    It contains a great leap of logic to get from the precise and definitive text of the amendment

    ""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

    to this:

    "The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."

    It's truly Ginsbergian logic of ignoring what the Constitutional says and then just making something up for the hell of it.

    This is typical pro-Paul logic. I've seen worse. I've seen Paul supporters claim that the 14th Amendment isn't really part of the Constitution.

    And here are some of Paul's own words

  5. You are wasting your time on this eccentric old crank while Romney runs away with it

    Enjoy your fantasy world, I guess

  6. dmarks - I shall surely read the link provided. Although, given it is WND (I ceased reading much of their stuff) the eye may be a bit skeptical.

  7. RR - Well we each have our views and the corresponding principles.

    I'm sure Mittens will get the nomination, which of course is too bad really.

    But then again, Newtie (or Sanatorium)certainly would be much worse in many respects. Particularly as it relates to civil liberties. His temperament is volatile and I don't want him anywhere new the button marked "N".

    I'll vote my principles as I'm sure you will. Isn't America great?


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.