Republican Scott Brown Already Voting Like a Democrat

From Reuters:

A modest job-creation bill advanced in the U.S. Senate on Monday as the chamber's newest Republican bucked his party and sided with Democrats on a $15 billion package of tax cuts and highway spending.

Republican Scott Brown joined four other Republicans, 55 Democrats and two independents to overcome a procedural hurdle that sets up a final vote later this week.

Brown, in a statement following the vote, said, "I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington."

It certainly didn't take long for the new "conservative" hero to show his true colors.

Going Along to Get Along

Ever wonder why people continue to vote for the same incompetent fools year after year? This may help explain...

I Hate to Be a Tea Party Pooper...

...but I just couldn't get all that excited about the nationwide "tea party" protests that took place on Tax Day. And I couldn't exactly articulate why -- until Jeff Deist summed it up perfectly:

It seems to me the Tea Parties failed to deliver any coherent or consistent message; therefore, it was easy for the Left and the pro-state media to marginalize and denounce the protestors. Unless and until people renounce and repudiate Bush and the Republican party utterly and entirely, it's easy to dismiss them as kooks, racists, religious zealots, etc.

After all, what is the protesters' message? We want to go back to Bush? We want less spending but agitate to expand insanely expensive wars? We want a "fair" tax? We're against bailouts of Wall Street, even though the public (correctly) perceives the political right as bought and paid for by Wall Street? We're for states rights and the Constitution? Laughable. We're pro-life? Laughable -- even ignoring the pro-war killing mentality, the GOP has done zero to stop abortion.

Read the rest of his comments here.

Anthony Gregory also weighs in:

The grassroots spirit at the tea parties was great, but it seems many were hijacked by organized conservatives, Republican partisans, and Fox News-style corporate interests. I hear that at many the speakers were exclusively of the red-state fascist persuasion, thanks to the sectarian organizers.

So, it appears the majority of tea party participants are frauds. If they really believed in reducing spending and shrinking government, they would have spoken up when their own party was in charge.

Israel's Hold on Congress

It isn't just Republicans who are catering to this powerful special interest group:

Too Little, Too Late

Timing is everything. Now that the presidential election is lost and taking a stand for conservative principles will be seen as a pathetic attempt to woo back a disgruntled constituency, the Republican National Committee has finally mustered up the courage to call George W. Bush to task for his socialist policies, particularly the recent economic bailouts:

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

Excuse me, but just how stupid do they think we are? Many of us were pointing out how socialist Bush was long before the 2000 elections, and they want to take action now? Where was the RNC nine years ago?

The Republican Party has been careering toward socialism ever since Abraham Lincoln imposed the first income tax, shredded the Constitution, and ushered in the era of monolithic government, killing over 600,000 Americans in the process. Ending up with a socialist like George "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system" Bush at the helm should have come as no surprise.

Huckabee Hates Libertarianism

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has written a book entitled Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America. In it he lashes out at libertarians within the GOP:

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." He is not so much concerned with the libertarian candidate Ron Paul's Republican supporters as he is with a strain of mainstream fiscal-conservative thought that demands ideological purity, seeing any tax increase as apostasy and leaving little room for government-driven solutions to people's problems. "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument."

But who cares what Mike Huckabee thinks? He has zero credibility.

Start Dumbing Your Kids Down Today...

...by reading them this:

She didn't vote for a gorilla,
or a chinchilla,
or Godzilla...

Mama voted for a baby-killa!

A Vote for John McCain a Wasted Vote?

As one who has voted for the Constitution Party candidate in the last two presidential elections, I have been told countless times that I was just wasting my vote: "A vote for anyone other than George W. bush is just a vote for the Democrats." Well, Bush won in 2000 and again in 2004. He didn't need my vote. The Republicans prevailed -- and we still ended up losing.

Under the leadership of the GOP, government has only grown bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive. If I had voted for Bush, I would have only become part of the problem. So, why should I listen to anyone saying that a vote for a third party candidate this time around is wasted?

I was (and still am) a big supporter of Ron Paul, but since he has officially dropped out of the presidential race, I plan on casting my vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I tend to agree with libertarian Karl Hess, who said, "Your vote isn't a bet on who's going to win the election. It's a statement of who you are."

Besides, one could argue that a vote for a major party candidate who has no chance of winning is just as wasted as any other. Chuck Baldwin writes:

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

A vote for a third party candidate will at least send the message that we are fed up with the status quo. We simply cannot continue doing the same thing we've always done and expect a different result. That really is the definition of insanity.

The GOP Is Not the "Lesser of Two Evils"

This bailout could not have passed without the enthusiastic support of Republicans in Congress. Anyone who still thinks there is a difference between the two major parties is living in a fantasy world. I agree wholeheartedly with Vox Day's conclusion: "One benefit of this bailout is that it has ended 'the lesser evil' argument once and for all."

He expounds on that thought in today's WND column:

It would be a massive mistake for conservatives, libertarians and capitalists to continue supporting Republicans when there is clearly nothing conservative, libertarian or capitalist about the Republican Party. The Republican Party does not value freedom, it does not value capitalism, it does not abide by its republican principles and it does not honor the Constitution. Regardless of whether you vote Libertarian, Constitution Party or do not vote at all, you can be sure that your vote will not be wasted -- because, as events have proven time and time again over the last eight years, the only wasted vote is the vote that is cast for a Republican politician.

More Proof There Is No Difference Between the Two Major Parties

John McCain and Barack Obama joined forces in supporting the economic bailout bill in the Senate. If this doesn't convince people that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, I don't know what will.

The debates are a joke. The entire presidential election will be a sham. Voters will be expected to choose between two men who obviously have only the interests of the state in mind and then pat themselves on the back for having done their "civic duty." Give me a break.

Neocons Turning on Sarah Palin?

After reading Kathleen Parker's vitriolic rant against Palin over at National Review Online, Christopher Manion thinks he knows the reason:

Now NR wants to electrocute Sarah Palin. Why? The only fundamental (in the musical sense) I recognize in this treachery is this:

When Palin was at the Convention, she was scheduled to meet with Phyllis Schlafly's supporters. They had clearly worked hardest to support an explicitly pro-life platform, and they succeeded.

But Sarah's new neocon "minders" canceled the Schlafly meeting, sequestered Sarah, and stuck her in a secret meeting with AIPAC for an entire day, at the end of which, AIPAC gave Sarah their benediction. Then, for two weeks, she was in lockdown.

Now the neocons suddenly want her out. I can draw only one conclusion: they believe her devotion to their single-minded, private international agenda is only skin-deep -- and they also recognize that Sarah Palin might be president some day. And then she will be her own woman.

Not theirs. A horrifying thought.

They have been desperate lately. I think they fear they might wind up sitting by the side of the road. Thus, the long knives come out.

Hell hath no fury...

Principle Over Party

In a statement to the National Press Club earlier today, Ron Paul refused to endorse fellow Republican John McCain. In fact, he refused to take part in the two-party charade:

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties. ...

... For me, though, my advice -- for what it's worth -- is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we've had enough and want real change than wasting one's vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.

Read the entire transcript here.

All this talk about change? Neither Obama nor McCain even know the meaning of the word. It's time to send a real message.

Intimidation at the RNC?

It was politics as usual at the Republican National Circus. Michael Nystrom of The Daily Paul shares his perspective:

I was not on the floor, but the story that follows is what I heard from one of my fellow delegates who did not support the deal. A few hours before the vote on Wednesday, a couple of Ron Paul delegates who were known to be planning to abstain were approached by members of the Mass GOP, who began pressuring them to change their vote to "show unity" for McCain, so as to avoid making the MA delegation "look bad." In an instant, they were joined by members of the McCain Campaign, and by Republican congressmen from other states, and other unknown individuals. The whole group was surrounded by secret service men/goons with ear pieces and mics listening in. The delegates were told that they had to change their vote.

At this point in your reading, it might be easy to say to yourself, "So what? They should have stood their ground. What could those guys have done?" ...

... After seeing the tremendous pressure put on people in real politics, live and in person, it puts me in flat out awe that Dr. Paul ever made it this far. He talks a tough game but he walks it courageously and unwaveringly. This past week I saw first hand exactly why Dr. Paul is so special. Standing for what he believes in takes the kind of courage that most people simply have not yet developed.

That kind of courage takes practice. This was a first test, and it will only be a failure if we learn nothing from it.

Be sure to read the entire account.

Want Real Change?

Why do so many Christians seem to exhibit blind allegiance to party and country? Why do so many believers seem to think that our hope hinges on voting the right candidates into power?

As Dr. David Alan Black notes in his latest essay:

God's will hic et nunc is not to improve the American Way of Life. Politics is a false god if ever there was one. God or Mammon. Jesus or Julius. We must simply decide.

Jesus tells us, "Make disciples of all nations." I don't know about you, but I'll stick with the transforming power of the cross, which alone can lay the foundation for "real change," a "new beginning," or whatever other slogans the candidates and their parties will hype this election year.

"The transforming power of the cross." Talk about change we can believe in!

The Threat from Within

Chuck Baldwin nails it:

America's greatest threat comes from a complacent populace who would sit back and do nothing while our own civil magistrates surrender our nation's sovereignty and independence to international interests.

Think about it: 232 years after Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, and after our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defend that document, our nation's leaders from both major parties are in the process of ceding America back to the kind of global empire from which we fought to break free.

What Change?

I've been saying all along that Barack Obama's platform of "change" was a sham. He's just another tool of the establishment.

Well, I hate to say I told you so, but...:

The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill -- approved last week by the House -- to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn't present for any of the votes, but shared Obama's support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.

OK, all you Obama fans. Is this your definition of change? It seems you've all been duped.

Ron's Rally

Neil Cavuto seems worried that Ron Paul might steal the limelight from John McCain during the GOP Convention:

Like his Faux News cohorts, Cavuto isn't really sure how to respond to a man who actually puts people and principles ahead of party and politics.

Meet John McCain's Spiritual Guide

Even if John McCain didn't make a mockery of the Constitution and virtually every other principle of liberty upon which this nation was founded, the fact that he has cozied up to this state-worshiping, warmongering pastor would be enough to convince me not to vote for the guy:

Rod Parsley's state-based theology is every bit as dangerous as Jeremiah Wright's race-based theology.

The Conspiracy Against Ron Paul

Writes Doug Wead:

So, if the Ron Paul Movement has struck a chord, then why did he not do better in the race for the GOP nomination?

1.) Well, because it is a movement that has just started and it takes some a little bit longer to catch on than others.

2.) Because some already had a favorite going into the debates and were not listening to any of the others anyway.

3.) Because most didn't watch the debates at all.

4.) And finally, ah hem, because there is an establishment conspiracy to keep Ron Paul's campaign from embarrassing the Republican Party.

Oh yeah, I know, conspiracy theories are not allowed and conspiracies do not actually exist. Although, if that were true the word itself would not exist and you would not know what I am talking about. In fact we all conspire and have conspired since the first grade and some of the conspiracies become known, like the tobacco industry fudging its figures on cancer or the recent expose of the KGB planting false scientific information in the west about a so called "nuclear winter."

No, I am not suggesting that a bunch of 80 year old Knights of Malta met at a secret location in Manhattan and voted to bring down Ron Paul to fulfill some 1500 year old promise to a French King. Or even that the Masons did it. Or even that the GOP drafted a secret memo. What I am saying is that he has been the subject of numerous meetings of GOP establishment figures and they have exchanged ideas and techniques for keeping him and his minions at bay. I know because I was accidentally and spontaneously in the middle of just such a conversation.

Read his full post here.

Oh, So THAT'S What He Means by "Change"

Barack Obama wants to control your life:

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

Just another snippet from Obama's playbook...

.