Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We absolutely needed it. The party needs to be restored and there needs to be discussion as to what it stands for. In the end the GOP will coalesce around one candidate and Obama will be toast.
Yeah, I can see that. But DANG they're damaging Romney. This anti-Bain stuff has been a shocker. Newt is the political equivalent of a kamikaze pilot.
.
It's turning off many voters. Myself included. I am very disappointed in Perry, who ought to know better. He's run the lousiest campaign I've seen since bob Dole.
I'm no fan of Mitt. But he's a lot better than what we have now.
MEET THE WHITE OBAMA
By Kurt Nimmo
Mitt Romney, the establishment declared GOP front-runner, is the white Obama. He earns this title because on crucial issues he mirrors Barack Obama. Consider:
Climate agenda and carbon taxes:
He has stated that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is real. In 2005, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney imposed strict state limitations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In a memo issued by Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Hale, the Romney administration bragged that it was "the first and only state to set CO 2 emissions limits on power plants."
In short, Romney did what Obama's EPA wants to do now. It is revealing that Romney was advised on this drastic step by none other than Obama's chief science adviser, John Holdren.
In his book, No Apology, Romney advocates carbon taxes through a "tax-swap plan" and declares that resultant "higher energy prices would encourage energy efficiency." The plan is favored by economist and Romney adviser Greg Mankiw and many other "Republican-leaning economists." In 2007, Mankiw wrote an op-ed for the New York Times entitled "One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax." He wrote that "if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax."
Obama also wants to push a carbon tax on the American people and declared his intention to do so before he took office. "President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status," Paul Joseph Watson wrote on November 19, 2008.
Obama's agenda to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent fits right into the globalist plan to attain the ultimate civilization-killing goal of zero carbon emissions, as espoused by the Carnegie Institute.
Romneycare:
In December, Romney told Fox News that he stands by the health care at gunpoint plan implemented while he was governor of Massachusetts. "The plan is not perfect, there are things that I'd change in it, but I'll stand by the things we've done," he said, defending the plan.
Obama and the Democrats were so enthralled with Romney's statist health care boondoggle, they based their plan on it.
"Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney's landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney's own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act," NBC reported last October.
Abortion:
Like a good Demopublican, Romney supported a woman's "right" to kill her fetus – that is before, as a "conservative," he changed his mind – or as it is usually called, he flip-flopped on the issue.
He was so adamant about abortion, he attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 2004, but now supports the Pence amendment sponsored by Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence aimed at eliminating all Title X grants for Planned Parenthood. He even instituted tax-funded abortion on demand two years after his orchestrated "pro-life" conversion.
Obama, of course, is "pro-choice" and has appointed a number of outspoken pro-abortion advocates to his administration. If elected, no doubt Romney will do the same.
Illegal immigration:
Mitt claims to oppose illegal immigration, but does not advocate sending illegals back – or, apparently, even arresting them for breaking the law.
"Those people that are here illegally today should have the opportunity to register and to have their status identified," he said in November.
He said nothing about illegal immigrants paying back taxes, learning English, not having criminal records, or being deported and going through legal channels for immigration.
Romney sounds a lot like Obama, who said: "I think most Americans feel there should be an orderly process to do it. People shouldn't just be coming here and cutting in front of the line essentially and staying without having gone through the proper channels."
Mitt Romney is basically indistinguishable from Obama and supports the same globalist agenda, albeit with "conservative" flourishes. His flip-flopping on key issues is designed to make his pre-arranged agenda more palatable to so-called conservatives, who will naturally be hoodwinked as they are every election cycle.
If elected, Romney will become the white Obama. The only job requirement will be an ability to convincingly read a teleprompter and follow orders handed down form his globalist masters the same as his predecessor.
Yeah, I can see that. But DANG they're damaging Romney. This anti-Bain stuff has been a shocker. Newt is the political equivalent of a kamikaze pilot.
.
Romney is not going around the world apologizing.
Romney is not going to push cap n tax
Romney is not going to bend over for the unions
And he'll be in debt to the more conservative members of the party, so limited in what he can do.
He's going to have more than just a say. He's likely to have enough delegates to broker the convention.Note to self: Don't ask Jroc's opinion on anything political.
Iowa was the only place Ron Paul had a chance of winning, he didn't. NH was probably the last place Paul will finish fairly strong, it's all downhill from here for him. Having said that I have no problem with Paul having some say at the convention, because we need more fiscal responsibility, but all these Whack jobs who think Paul has a shot at winning anything are delusional, and he's not going to run as a third party with his son being a Republican senator, he also wants his say at the convention
Bush in his first time was pretty conservative. In his second term, not so much.
Bush in his first time was pretty conservative. In his second term, not so much.
Bush was never conservative. Bush was a war monger and foreign adventurist.
Bush in his first time was pretty conservative. In his second term, not so much.
Bush was never conservative. Bush was a war monger and foreign adventurist.
Bush in his first time was pretty conservative. In his second term, not so much.
Bush was never conservative. Bush was a war monger and foreign adventurist.
OK. So I've got one Paul-bot saying Bush was just like Ron Paul, and another saying he's a war monger.
Get your stories straight and then come back and post.
Bush was never conservative. Bush was a war monger and foreign adventurist.
OK. So I've got one Paul-bot saying Bush was just like Ron Paul, and another saying he's a war monger.
Get your stories straight and then come back and post.
He said Bush RAN on the same stance as Paul.
He said he was against nation-building LOL, didn't take long to figure out how big of a lie that was.
OK. So I've got one Paul-bot saying Bush was just like Ron Paul, and another saying he's a war monger.
Get your stories straight and then come back and post.
He said Bush RAN on the same stance as Paul.
He said he was against nation-building LOL, didn't take long to figure out how big of a lie that was.
It wasnt a lie. You're forgetting about 9/11?
It wasnt a lie. You're forgetting about 9/11?
He said Bush RAN on the same stance as Paul.
He said he was against nation-building LOL, didn't take long to figure out how big of a lie that was.
It wasnt a lie. You're forgetting about 9/11?
Is nation-building necessary in a war?
It wasnt a lie. You're forgetting about 9/11?
Is nation-building necessary in a war?
You break it, you own it.
Would you rather we just pulled out and let Iran and al Qaeda set up shop?
So because 9/11 happened we needed to head out and build nations?OK. So I've got one Paul-bot saying Bush was just like Ron Paul, and another saying he's a war monger.
Get your stories straight and then come back and post.
He said Bush RAN on the same stance as Paul.
He said he was against nation-building LOL, didn't take long to figure out how big of a lie that was.
It wasnt a lie. You're forgetting about 9/11?
Is nation-building necessary in a war?
You break it, you own it.
Would you rather we just pulled out and let Iran and al Qaeda set up shop?
You break it you own it? Couldn't disagree with that more. If a shitty gov't attacks us, and we attack them back, we aren't responsible for cleaning up what they deserved to get.
We had 2 options.
1.) Spend a on of money and time, and sacrifice more great american lives in order to install a piece of shit government.
2.) Not spend that money, not pile on to a deficit and debt, not sacrifice any lives and they end up with a piece of shit government.
I'll take option 2 every time, call me crazy.
You break it, you own it.
Would you rather we just pulled out and let Iran and al Qaeda set up shop?
You break it you own it? Couldn't disagree with that more. If a shitty gov't attacks us, and we attack them back, we aren't responsible for cleaning up what they deserved to get.
We had 2 options.
1.) Spend a on of money and time, and sacrifice more great american lives in order to install a piece of shit government.
2.) Not spend that money, not pile on to a deficit and debt, not sacrifice any lives and they end up with a piece of shit government.
I'll take option 2 every time, call me crazy.
Except those weren't the two possible outcomes.
Outcome one was a stable government, which we had until Obama decided to pull out.
Outcome two was a wholly-owned subsidiary of al Qeada and Iran.
We did exactly what you suggest in Afghanistan in the 80s. We see the results. No thanks.
You break it you own it? Couldn't disagree with that more. If a shitty gov't attacks us, and we attack them back, we aren't responsible for cleaning up what they deserved to get.
We had 2 options.
1.) Spend a on of money and time, and sacrifice more great american lives in order to install a piece of shit government.
2.) Not spend that money, not pile on to a deficit and debt, not sacrifice any lives and they end up with a piece of shit government.
I'll take option 2 every time, call me crazy.
Except those weren't the two possible outcomes.
Outcome one was a stable government, which we had until Obama decided to pull out.
Outcome two was a wholly-owned subsidiary of al Qeada and Iran.
We did exactly what you suggest in Afghanistan in the 80s. We see the results. No thanks.
No we did the opposite, i would've been against meddling, your hero Reagan supported and armed Osama and friends. Look where that got us.
And no Afghanistan never had anything close to a stable gov't, and Iraq has always been run by a dear friend to Iran and Hezbollah and the gov't itself is based on Islam.
