Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pallis

Yep...

And now we’re poised to nominate someone who has not only endorsed him for re-election, but has also stated they agree with his policies.

If that doesn’t give pause, nothing will.


38 posted on 08/19/2010 9:22:32 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (UniTea! It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne
And now we’re poised to nominate someone who has not only endorsed him for re-election, but has also stated they agree with his policies.

I'm not so concerned with a candidate who supported McCain in the general election (even Duncan Hunter did), since it was a choice between McCain and Obama. But there is a real and tragic possibility that the GOP will nominate a Romney, who I am afraid will keep flipping on vital issues, or some other untrustworthy character who will betray us when he gets the urge. It happens more often than not in the GOP.

63 posted on 08/19/2010 11:28:38 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: Obama is the dog who caught the fire truck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne; Neil E. Wright; Jim Robinson; Jeff Head
"If that doesn’t give pause, nothing will."

I remember you and have always had the upmost respect for your activism and your Constitutional acumen.

However, it's all over unless the Individual States just say enough! Once enough of them re-claim their rights as guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments, all the protests, demonstrations, elections won't be worth a plug nickel. States' Rights can be.

It is our only way back, even if the USSC says otherwise. So what? They have no enforcement authority. What is the executive branch going to do with some currently 20 States passing legislation to exempt themselves from the obscenity that is obamacare and other job-killing mandates? What exactly would/could the administration do? Send in the US military or the Individual States' National Guard?

What if those States' Governors REFUSED to allow their State National Guard not be mobilized by DC to enforce those unConstitutional decisions AND stop sending the fedgov State tax receipts? Really? What would they do?

This is not the mid 1800's. There would be NO civil war. The fedgov would have to negotiate because no one in DC has the stomach for an internal war in this day. They are punks and know they would be the first target (peacefully that is...har).

Think. American totalitarian utopians are wimps. They are used to the populace wanting stuff and have built upon that said fact for some 40 year designs on a couple of mis-construed and spun clauses in the Constitution: General Welfare and Commerce. I firmly believe DC would have to back off, if nothing more then for their own political survival and all the perks they have grown accustomed to.

STATES' RIGHTS! WE JUST NEED STRONG GOVERNORS WHO UNDERSTAND CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN STATE GUARDS and willing to use them! ARIZONA IS ON THE CUSP. MANY OTHERS ARE TIRING OF THEIR STATES' RIGHTS BEING TRAMPLED.

Oklahoma is also on the cutting edge for STATES' RIGHTS. This is where all true Americans and the TEA Party folks should be concentrating.

94 posted on 08/19/2010 4:51:10 PM PDT by A Navy Vet ( An Oath Is Forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson