Because I cant respond to all individually, My retort is this. What you are saying is you are more than willing to let a HISTORIC opportunity to have the political numbers to call a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION pass us by because of your aversion to the RINO-wing of OUR party. A party that by the nature of the REALITY of American politics must have a coalition of support to have any leverage whatsoever.
What you are saying is that you dont have an objection to seeing this nation be left in the hands of the the Progressive-left. That you would rather see Marxism obtain complete control than caucus with, Ill admit, self-serving right-of center politicians. What you are saying is that it does not bother you that a possibly once in a lifetime opportunity is going to pass us by. An opportunity by the way, that would be driven first from the statehouse level, where we have more conservative sway...then passed on to a Senate and House where the most talented voices and only ones capable of leading the debate in a forum such as a Constitutional convention will be the likes of Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy and others. They would DOMINATE that forum.
Why are we involved in politics? I am involved in politics for one basic reason....I wish to destroy Progressive-liberalism and all forms of quasi-Marxism. We have an unprecedented opportunity to drive a stake in the heart of this wickedness. Once this is accomplished, we can deal with the self-serving elements in our party, because then it will truly be our party. Right now it is not, and dont ever allow yourself to believe otherwise. But it can be, because conservatives are the true talent in the GOP...they need only be unleashed.
I implore go back and read Article V. Then consider the political map again. A constitutional convention will be the ultimate “OJ trial” in the sense that eyes will be glued to the television. Eyes that normally dont watch politics closely and are easily swayed by the lies of the left-wing media and their cultural companions. Imagine what can be accomplished in the span of a few months with a constitutional directive at our disposal, and the conservative voices who will be on that television, DOMINATED the discussion. Those eyes will see Ted Cruz, for the first time direct and without commentary, appealing to the righteousness of our cause and direction. They will see Mike Lee, Tim Scott, Trey Gowdy, John Barrasso, Trent Franks, Cory Gardner, Tim Huelskamp, Jim DeMint and others speak about amnesty & immigration policy, abortion, the minimum wage, monetary policy, marriage, 2nd Amendment issues and we can once for all re-establish the path a the republic this nation was meant to be.
But what you are saying is you dont want this. You would rather see that witch Pelosi get the speakers gavel back, see Reid hand-picked successor control the Senate and Hillary Clinton get the White House. That is exactly what you are endorsing. You are apparently perfectly comfortable in seeing our children inherit a nation where they are told what to eat, what to say, what to think how much will they pay for things, who they must take contracts from and what they must pay their employees and before we know it...who they may or not worship. Because at its heart, Progressive-liberalism is a movement led by a forced stronger than Pelosi or Obama. It is a force led the adversary of man since the dawn of time. And if I have to hold my nose to caucus with those I disagree with on some things, or men and women that I know deep down are simply serving their own interests, if it will help achieve the goal of destroying Marxism, so be it.
We can deal with them after the fact. But Ill be damned if I will sit back, shake my fist in the wind and watch a once in a lifetime opportunity pass us by and spend my remaining years waxing poetically at how I “stayed true to my principles” while I wait in line at the DMV to file my paperwork to purchase my state-mandated Prius.
Call me all the names you wish, that’s exactly what the Progressive-left wants. The Progressives that you apparently are more than comfortable being ruled by.
Yes. Next question.