On the Charge of Treason

String Me Up?

Since my last post, I have been deluged in email, on Facebook, and via Twitter, as well as in comments here.  Those comments have roughly fallen into three groups, and they are: 1.) Full support.  2.) Screaming insults.  3.) A mix of support and disapproval with an added note of disappointment.  I appreciate those described by the first, ignore those composed of the second, and will now address my remarks to those described by the third.  In particular, I have been told that I should have expected the GOP establishment to seize power(and I did,) and that by refusal to support Romney, I am effectively taking my ball and going home at precisely that time in which my support is needed most.  One poster actually suggested that if Obama should win in November, it will be my fault. Mine! One last time, I am going to address the sheer depravity of that sentiment, and I am going to be blunt about it.  You may wish to accuse me of being too inflexible, but if so, we’re going to examine that charge in light of the facts, under the microscope of logic.

It has been charged that refusing to support Mitt Romney is tantamount to a support of Barack Obama.  Apart from being a bold-faced, mathematical lie, this is done as a matter of bullying.  If I vote for Romney, he gains one vote, and if I vote for Obama, he gains one vote, but if I vote for neither, it is a zero-zero proposition.  None for, but also none against.  Put another way, in order to believe that Romney starts out at a “plus one” with my vote, one must first presume that my vote belongs to Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, but that is an arrogantly faulty presumption.  My vote belongs to me.  That’s the math and the fact of the matter, but having dealt with this aspect, let us talk about the other, much more monstrous argument.  There is a clear desire on the part of some to prod me into support by virtue of my love for my country.  It has been stated often, and in approximately the following form:

“If you love America as you claim, you would vote to save her from Barack Obama even if it means accepting a terrible candidate like Mitt Romney.”

 

Apart from the desperation implied by such a lame attempt at emotional appeals to my patriotism, there is the implicit logical fallacy demonstrated by the switching of contexts.  This is offered in the context of my love for the country, rather than the love of the country as expressed by the Republican Party’s choice of Mitt Romney.  In short, what I am being told is that since I love the country more than the GOP establishment does, I ought to abandon my principles in order to support their candidate.  I wish for my readers to consider the philosophically suicidal entrapment entailed in this proposition: I should abandon my principles, principles that give rise to my love of country, in order to support a candidate who demonstrates a less than thorough love of those same principles.

This argument is frequently attended by dire but vague warnings about the consequences of my decision.  These warnings sound suspiciously like the warnings conservatives have been issuing for some time, but now they’re being turned against conservatives as a bludgeon with which to hammer us into support of Mitt Romney.  The warnings consist of what Barack Obama will do to the country in an unfettered second term, but what none of them will acknowledge is what Mitt Romney is apt to do to the country in an unfettered first term.  In fact, the Rules Committee maneuvers on Tuesday at the convention should serve as some indicator of what form that will take, and it consists almost entirely of “What dissent?  Dissent? I hear none,” issuing forth from the despotic intent of John Boehner as he hammered away with his gavel, dismissing the minority report on rules with a vengeful finality.

With those gavel blows, what I recognized, finally and irrevocably, was that the Republican Party is no less corrupt in its methodologies or intentions than the Democrats.  The party’s establishment is no less committed to having things their way by every foul trick on the planet than any Marxist we’ve ever witnessed.  What this instance had proved to me is that at the end of the line, there is no effective difference between them, excepting only the nature of the flocks each is attempting to herd, respectively.  I would have preferred it had been otherwise, and one might have hoped that seeing the state of things erupting in the convention, Romney himself might have interceded to stop the nonsense, but no, he did not, and some suggest, perhaps could not.  Either way, the effect of this power grab was to nullify the meaning of the convention as well as the meaning of the party.

What good is a political party that does not serve my long-held convictions, except occasionally and only by accident?   I have listened intently to those who have argued these last months that I should give Mitt Romney a chance, but when it came to it, when he should have been willing to give the party a chance, he did not, instead rigging things in his favor for the future.  One must then ask the question I had been pondering as Boehner swung the gavel, shedding no tears for the abominable despotism his actions exemplified:  If a man seeks an office but creates a set of rules under which it will be more difficult to challenge him in the future, what is his motive?

The only answer is that Mitt Romney wishes to rule without restraints.  He does not wish to be confined by a base that will make trouble for him if he fails to live up to the promises he has made.  He does not wish to be held  to account, or to even have his arm twisted when it comes to such things as appointments or executive orders, or even such bills as he may sign into law.  It is understandable that a politician would not wish to be accountable to people who had not supported him, but the truly baffling aspect of this case is that Romney does not wish to be accountable to people whose support he expects to garner in the coming election.  Once one considers the explicit meaning of this action, there really is no method by which to resolve it without concluding that Mitt Romney intends to govern not only in disregard of conservatives, but in contempt of them.

For opposing this, there are those who would label me a traitor should I withhold my vote from Mitt Romney in November.  It is at this point that I must say that while all must be free to do as their conscience dictates, I would ask those who wield this label to consider who it is that is committing a treason, and who is being faithful.  If one can become convicted of the notion that Mitt Romney’s actions express an ill intention toward conservatism, and if conservatism is the vital life-sustaining philosophy of our great nation, what must be the end result of Mitt Romney’s administration, if he wishes to govern without respect to those principles?

That is a question you ought to answer before you descend upon me with your charges of treason.  If the purpose of the conservative movement is to advance the philosophy of non-conservatives, then I will depart this movement for some other, or for my own.  I have no intention of surrendering my beliefs to a party of nothing.  If that offends you, you are free to depart.  I will not be cudgelled by scurrilous accusations about my commitment to this country and its future simply because I will not support Mitt Romney.  If you’re of a mind to cast these accusations, I’d suggest you consider instead your flexible, fungible standards in the cause of expediency before you begin to pummel me or others of similar mind. There is plenty of room under the big tent of the RNC convention, and what the Rules Committee made clear is that they’re going to keep it that way.

Note to readers:  As I mentioned earlier in the month, I will be out of town over the next week and I may not have time to post. Thank you for your patience as I attend to some family business.

Like 20 People Liked this
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  • section9

    Good for you, Mark. Take a stand on principle. Governor Marmalarde has told you “up yours”, then kicked our kind in the teeth and told us he doesn’t give a sh*t about us.

    It’s been this way since Sarah Palin was announced in 2008. In fact, it’s been this way since Barry Goldwater made his famous Acceptance Speech at the Cow Palace in 1964.

    It’s time to stop taking this laying down. Screw these lowlifes.

  • TheresaAK

    I salute you Mark …..and I admire your stand so much…

    You speak the truth…but to many, the truth is too painful, so they think, well, the lesser of the two evils will have to do…

    And you are not the only one who is called a traitor if you do not support Romney.

    I believe he will be a placeholder until the True Conservatives are revealed…and I believe that because of what you are going through right now…

    Many folks are too afraid to not support Romney…the 2016 Movie is sounding the alarm about an obama second term…and rightly so, I am fully in support of this movie…it should have come out in 2007 though.

    What a mess…and we were so excited to oust obama this go round…

    Who knew after fighting against obama and the Good Ole Boy’s Club in 2010, we would be right back at square one…?

  • famouswolf

    Treason.
    I feel the same way, Mark. I, who volunteered to join the military at a time many of my peers were not only fleeing the country to avoid it but actually spitting on veterans returning from ‘that’ war. Who has loved this country my whole life, a love passed on by a father who fought in the Pacific in WW2, a grandfather who fought in the Ardennes in WW1, a great grandfather who fought at Chickamauga and Chattanooga in the Civil War, is treasonous for not wanting to vote for ‘lesser of two evils’…if that.
    Treason, because we do not wish to vote for an individual who now spits on citizens, ignores them, cheats to secure the Presidency at a time we need a real leader…not someone who changes at a whim, who acts like the very creature he postures to ‘save’ us all from. Treason for criticizing him, just like it is racism to criticize obama or call attention to the major, major flaws of either one. This hands off meme for both makes me wonder if it really makes any difference whatsoever which one wins in November. It looks like the dems and repubs are the left and right arms of the same party now, the communist party. And they all desire the demise of this country if their actions are any indication of their intent.
    There is treason in the air, all right, but it is not you or I.
    I do not have the skills I once did, but I stand ready to water the Tree of Liberty. My tears already are.

    • http://www.facebook.com/laura.livefreeordie Laura Livefreeordie

      Famouswolf, I share deeply your pain. Ancestors on both sides of my family were with America and fought for her from the Revolutionary War onward, and the cost of maintaining our freedom was deeply ingrained in me from childhood. Thank you for your sacrifices and those of your forefathers.

    • Kathie

      As Patrick Henry allegedly said, “If this be treason, make the most of it!”

      • famouswolf

        Indeed, I never thought I would know EXACTLY how he felt…

  • Stoneyjack

    The Romney/Rove/Sununu cabal have made it clear that control of the Party is more important to them than winning the Presidency. They are worthless.

  • travelingon

    “…. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

    Thanks Mark

  • http://www.facebook.com/laura.livefreeordie Laura Livefreeordie

    Very, very well-said, Mark! Exchanging one criminal for another is not a step forward. At best, it is merely sideways movement.

  • cbartlett

    Mark:
    Appreciate all of your posts over the last few days. You have put a lot of thought and emotion into this effort. I guess I fall in category #3, under the disappointment section. My father-in-law has said many of the same sentiments you have expressed – he says that it is a “lie” for him to vote for Romney because he doesn’t “believe in him”. I understand the betrayal that you both feel – it seems like the GOP establishment has totally abandoned conservative principles and I don’t like it. Romney was pretty close to the bottom of my list of Republican primary candidates and I resent that they shoved him down our throats. BUT – I am planning to sacrifice my personal principles and vote for him for one very selfish reason – because I fear what four more years of Obama will do to my kids. They are all in their 20′s and just starting careers and families. I fear that Obama’s socialist policies will be irreversible and my kids and grandkids will have no future at all – ever.
    I finally realized through all of the very disappointing primary process this year that It took a lot of years to get into this “progressive” hole that we are in and it’s going to take a long time to get back out. It won’t – it can’t – happen overnight. Many of us didn’t realize that we were very slowly falling in the hole many, many years ago – especially when so-called Republicans (not necessarily conservatives!), that we thought we could trust, controlled Congress and the White House. After working so very hard to successfully get Ted Cruz through the nomination process, I realized that this is how we must fight this war (and – it IS a war) – one battle at a time. We must fight for real conservatives who want to serve this country and not simply acquire power and political careers for themselves.
    At this point, I have very low expectations of any constructive leadership coming out of the White House. My main goal is to just get someone in there that won’t veto anything decent, most especially the repeal of Obamacare, that manages to come out of Congress, (i..e. like ANY Democrat would, including Obama). Romney is not near as narcissistic as Obama, but I imagine he would still want to be re-elected. He is a smart guy and knows that vetoing legislation coming out of a Republican-controlled, hopefully a CONSERVATIVE-controlled Congress, would be suicide in a re-election campaign.
    Yes – these RNC rule changes were a slap in the face to tea party conservatives, but it is at least possible to overcome this – it’s another battle in the war. On the other hand, I think it is possible to completely lose the war with this election. It will NOT be possible for the Republican party to ever defeat liberal Democrats if they get more than 51% of the voters dependent on the government. These people will continue to vote with the liberal agenda to continue the gravy train. We are very, very close to that now – four more years of BO executive orders and, wham – America would be very close to having Nazis in office.
    I’m not sure I completely believe the mantra that a third party will never, ever work. BUT I also know that the chances of a third party succeeding in being any more than a spoiler are very, very small when started a few months or weeks before an election – especially when it primarily consists of people who are “mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” types. If people who are respected and really knowledgeable and capable of organizing and motivating this kind of movement (Sarah? Newt? others?) start on November 7 to influence the 2014 and 2016 elections, a Conservative Party might stand a chance. Until then, I will hold my nose and vote the least worst option one more time – for my kids.

  • JRD1

    God Bless you Mark! You are the voice of reason.

    There is no one moving the country left more than the gopE who refuses to fight the leftists. Yes, the country is going off the cliff but it is because of the Rockefeller Republicans who believe that they are better at managing “Big Government” than the Democrats.

    This is the time for freedom loving Americans to make their stand. It was always obvious to the dullest 4 year old child that Romney was a statist from his record as governor of Massachusetts and that he never once admitted that Romneycare was a mistake. Fortunately for us he tipped his hand at the convention as to how he would govern. He will never get rid of Obamacare just as we always suspected. All the states will now accept Romneycare so that the gopE can live off the trough of socialized medicine.

    The gopE made a pact after they got outfoxed by Reagan that they would cut the ground out from under any conservative before they could gain any traction to ensure that there will never be another conservative candidate for POTUS ever again. They thought they succeeded in their quest that the base would finally accept “Big Government” until the Tea Party reared it’s ugly head. Then they went to work to drive a stake through the heart of the movement. The skids were greased for the Florida primary by the buying off of Florida A/G Pam Bondi and the stealth RINO Marco Rubio who was always Jeb Bush’s boy and it was all down hill from there.

    Romney’s campaign was a carbon copy of the Axelrod 2008 playbook complete with a complicit so called conservative media who refused to vet their chosen candidate.

    The gopE are leftists and just as corrupt as Obama.

    It is the gopE and ONLY the gopE who is responsible for 4 more years of Obama because they chose to shove down our throat the only candidate who could not beat Obama. Any other candidate would be leaving Obama and his miserable failed presidency in their wake.

    And it is the gopE who also gave us Obama because they refused to vote for their own party in 2008 because a conservative was on the bottom of the ticket.

    Treason? I am paying the gopE back in kind.

    • susiepuma

      Excellent -I agree with everything you have said……………….. I’ve been royally ‘screwed” by both parties and I loathe them both……………. that said, I will NOT vote for romeny and I will roast in hell before I vote for the fraud – and hell is where I belong if I were to vote for either of them………………

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1030222949 John Manuola

    I won’t accuse you of betraying the country by choosing to not vote for Mittens, so long as you won’t accuse others in the conservative cause of anything similarly disparaging for choosing TO vote for him. It is a rock and a hard place and I find both options to be distasteful.

    • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

      John, I have said repeatedly that I understand fully the desperation that has led people to be willing to vote for Romney. I sincerely do. I know they do not intend a treason, and treason must be an intentional act. I think they’re mistaken, but mistaken does not equal treason.

    • famouswolf

      LOL I for one would not do that. In fact, I am comfortable with abstaining my vote for President only because I live in WA state, in King County (Seattle). No matter how much I howl at the moon here, my vote for Romney would mean squat anyway.
      I do not envy those of you in swing states…

  • http://www.facebook.com/thejosette Josette Sampson

    Very well said! Amen!

  • Kathie

    Thank you again, Mark, for being here when we needed you.
    Yesterday’s events demonstrated that arguments against a third party are fallacious, since we clearly don’t have a second party. We need to organize now. I’m bringing ideas to the next meeting of my local Tea Party, and suggest others active in the movement do the same. We need to form a party whose focus is constricting government to the limits of the constitution. There’s no longer a question of “if” or “when” about it–the questions are where and how to start.

  • Shawn

    Well said once again, Mark. I’m ready for a third party myself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Christopher.Eric.Herman Christopher Herman

    Part of the problem was Paul himself. He went to undermine both Santorum and Gingrich, but was Caspar Milquetoast towards the most liberal of them all. And the “Paulites” were trying to make their own end run around the election process. Did they actually think the RNC was going to let them use the rules to undermine the RNC’s chosen candidate? If there was no Paul, there would have been no rule change. But of course the fact that Romney felt to secure his nomination in such a way shows you how he will govern.

    • Kathie

      If the Paul delegates were doing anything out of order, why would the RNC feel the need to change rules, instead of simply enforce existing ones?

  • nickeldoor5

    Romney will not get my vote. When conservatives and tea party were pushed out of having any say in the convention.. So why would he need my vote. So all you that think you are going to get a good president out of Romney it will not happen. They will show the good old boys network, just like they did the power grab..After what I saw at the convention something is really wrong with republican government. All people will not be heard any more. After all Sarah Palin did to help them win back the congress what did she get a slap in the face for trying to get rid of the corrupt politicians. With Palin they all have fear because most are corrupt. Romney is a camellia. No one can change as many times as he has and be an honest person. When he lied on and about fellow candidate and did not bat an eye doing it that tells you about his character. They want americans to have no character that is how Obama managed to get elected. It is pretty bad that the woman married to Romney has to come out and show he has a human side. If she had to do that for him What kind of person is he. All the time he was running he could not put it out that he was human . He has no human qualities that are good. Did he not learn the golden rule. He did disrespected the one that did so much for the republican party and also the people that follow her. You didn’t need us doing the convention you will not need us during the election.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Meyer/100002158487298 Michael Meyer

    I’m through voting for the lesser of two evils.I will not vote for evil.If you vote for the lesser of two evils, if your man wins, you still lose.. God will hold me accountable for how I vote, not how everyone else votes. Vote virgil Goode.

  • Laurie

    Mark….i agree 200%…thanks for all your great work this election cycle. Your words were/are express my thoughts exactly! God bless you!

  • http://twitter.com/sjreidhead SJ Reidhead

    I agree with you 1000%! I’ve even had friends turn on me because I am destroying the country by not voting for Romney. I’ve told them I’m not that powerful or important.

    SJR
    The Pink Flamingo

  • JJinSarahSota

    For evidence that “the fix was on”, check out the video of the teleprompter loaded with the results of the vote…BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Enigmaticaluna Antoniette D Walker

    I have to agree with what you said, for I been call every name in the book, for standing on principle. For me the equation has been very simple, God and Country, if we refuse one, we loose the other one, they both blend at least in this Republic. The same way the WE THE PEOPLE is blend to the Constitution, if one felt we loose the other…and that is exactly what is happening in front of our eyes.
    I have ask many times those call conservatives/Christians ( the ones that attack me the most) where are their principles, integrity and values? I explain to them many times the reason why we’re were we’re, for history has teach us, ” that governments are select by the people, if people is corrupt (lazy, apathetic, compromise ) they will get corrupt RULERS, but if people has principles and their Christian values they will get as such TRUE LEADERS… first Supreme court has told that ” we shouldn’t choose for our leaders none but Christians” Conservatives should have learn the teachings of 08 and since them till today, where a muslim is ruling by despotism, but it’s the people who compromise and choose. Mitt is in my view no better than obama, because everything obama is doing in national level, Mitt did as governor in MA, one can feel that obama just follow Mitt’s footprints, seems to me that MA was the poster state to implement very liberal policies through mandate and executive orders, the very things obama is using to override everyone else, most especially the Constitution, witch Mitt did as well against the Constitution of MA.
    So here I’m people insulting me, because I stand on principle, on this very principles, in my faith I can’t support a man who has make policy to kill our children of the future, with his Romneycare abortion on demand, a guy who has banned pistol, go against the Catholic church…no, he’s not better, the slogan that the RNC has use ” anyone but obama” has sink on people and everyone has follow like sheep, no one has paid attention or have some thought process, excess very few.

    I stand with you, because you do it in principle, and even if I stand alone, I will keep doing just what I do… GOD AND COUNTRY has meaning for me, anyone who goes against either goes against me and all I love…most especially my principles. THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP.!

  • anita

    Could not agree with you more, Mark! A cheater is a cheater no matter what the circumstances. The RNC will NEVER get another dime from me either! Just sayin’!

  • Pingback: The GOP of Mr. Perfect and the Boy Wonder Is Not My GOP! | The Pink Flamingo

  • Kathie

    Thanks for the link. What were “Scenario 1″ and “Scenario 2″ (at 2:10), I wonder? Riot police?

  • Paul

    Hi Mark,
    I respecfully disagree with your voting math. I do fully agree it’s your vote to do with whatever you wish. It’s not a zero zero proposition though. If you don’t vote for Romney because you feel you are betraying your principles it will not cancel out an Obama vote that it normally would have. Take for example the Hillary voters who ranted that they were not going to vote for Obama because they were so loyal to Hillary. Of course, they in the end, did vote for Obama because Liberals always stick together for their common cause, no matter what. If they had stuck to their loyality and not voted for Obama, they would not have canceled out all the people who were voting for McCain. Its like a married couple where one is a democrat and one is a Republican. They cancel each other out. So just because you don’t vote for someone, you can’t say you are not having an effect. You are. I agree with all the principles you stand for and prayed Newt could have gotten the nod but sometimes you have to take baby steps to get where you what to go and not try to take it in one giant step. Romney will be a baby step. Four more years of Obama is a giant step backwards. We know where we want to go but lets not let our disappointment make things worse. Baby steps!

  • Wraith

    But…but…Mark, you don’t get it! If we don’t vote for the White Communist, then the (half-)Black Communist will be re-elected! Don’t you see that that makes all the difference?
    (/sarcasm)

  • Camaro_Cowboy51

    Mark, you know I have agreed with you all the way about Mitt and have been a loud voice warning people about the evils of the GOPE and their chosen one. I am part of the post-Newt crowd starting to align like minded conservatives, libertarian, evangelicals an constitutionalist to have a conversation were we come together on the ideas we agree on. Shoot, Gary Johnson is looking good right now with his “be libertarian with me just this one time!” I don’t know if I can go that far or not, all I know is that we must starve the Beast of statism. Even George Soros said there’s really no difference between Mitt and Barak.I am garnering my attention now to the disallusioned ones and starting a new Party, with people like Tex and Rex,Sammy Samford, and Robert L. Jetter and all the other patriots who fought hard against Romno. It might take a while to get this new Party together, but at least we as grassroot conservatives will never have to vote the lesser of 2 evils.

  • Pat

    I am with you 100% Mark and all who support you…I WILL not be told or shamed into voting for who others believe I should vote for….If Romney loses by one vote, one of us here can take the blame for it….:) LOL

  • ChevalierdeJohnstone

    Full support here.

  • Finner

    Blind, panicked fear is what drives way, way too much of Romney’s support. It’s like being swept up into a stampeded herd of horses. Your every single observation and appraisal of what’s happening with stone-cold liberal Romney is sadly and inevitably spot-on. About all we can do is step aside and let them stampede, and pray enough have found their sense before November. Romney is so much more a guaranteed disaster than a weak win for Obama (which is the best he could get) … Romney is whole capitulation. Romney takes the party headlong on England’s path, where the “conservative” party is left in every way.
    Regret is the guaranteed price of Romney. My vote is going to a third party vote if only to weaken the outcome of either winner. They’re both bad news, so the only way I can vote smart is to vote to weaken the winner. Meanwhile, the stampeded hysterics will call us “treasonous.” Until two years from now. Then they’ll be neighing a different tune — keening that voting for a liberal is a guaranteed mistake, as they watch Romney use the Republican platform to bulldoze his pro-left agenda on America. He’s a leftist liberal registered as a Republican. Period. Voting for it is voting for liberalism.

  • podad

    Lord Acton is famous for his remark, often misquoted: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” America truly has a problem that has grown out of both political parties that will probably never be fixed (it may be slowed). But without revolution of some sorts it looks to me that America is headed backwards for most Americans (which may not be totally bad). Political parties be damned, but unless the trend of the political parties can be broken we are on our way to a socialistic America.
    I do not have an answer to the problems we are encountering. A bigger problem exists with the dumbing down of our academics (and especially our American History) and the American population (which is part of the present political aspirations). I feel that what we really have going on America right now is an Academic Mental Civil War. In time though we will all have to pick a side to be on. I for one, do not want a government that controls my or my neighbor’s every action…it does not look good for the home team.

  • Joe Conservative

    The fallacy is that a vote for MR is a baby step forward and
    BO is a leap backward. Both are
    movements backwards, just one less so than the other. Mathematically it’s better pictured this way
    as trending graph. When one looks at
    graphs, say a simple XY one looks for the trend of decreasing or increasing
    over all. Whether it is linear or
    exponential or cyclic is more or less its form.
    But is its trend increasing or decreasing. The elected folks since pretty much Reagan
    have been basically nothing but leftist.
    Sure Clinton was more left
    of Bush and nearly everything is right “appearing” to Obama, hell even Clinton
    looks “right” of Obama. The trend is
    key, not the cyclic highs and lows. What
    is the trend up or down or in this case “left” or “right”. The overall presidential trend has been
    nothing but left. Sure there are cyclic
    highs like Clinton, then a slight cyclic down peak, relatively speaking, with
    Bush 2, then cyclic higher peak left with Romney (and even the last cycles
    offering from the RNC was left, McCain).
    Thus, the trend is left – like a line in which when one adds a trend
    line to the main line, the trending is over all down (or left in this
    case). Thus MR would not be a tiny baby
    step forward, just a lesser dip left for a while relative BO.

    So a vote for MR is really like voting for Clinton light and
    not Reagan light. It is these slower
    trending left leaders who are more dangerous than the hard nosed ones, because
    they are insidious and put back to sleep the people as if things are going “more
    right” if you will.

    Furthermore note the tactics of the RNC, they are precisely
    the tactics of the DNC, fear mongering, never waste an emergency and they are
    very short sited.

    Also note how the shift of the “conservative” conversation
    has changed in less than 2 years from the pre-2010 election push, especially
    among popular radio shows. Prior to 2010
    it was all about and explicitly conservative PRINCIPLES, and if such and such
    didn’t hold to them we’d “toss them out”. Talk radio was pregnant with this.
    Then as the primaries began to pass and increasingly as MR became “the man”,
    the conversation changed from PRINCIPLES to PRAGMATIC. But to switch to pragmatism as one’s basis is
    to give up the principles all together.

  • the unit

    Treason is not objecting to and not supporting a candidate or party. It’s willfully allowing the demise of the U.S.A , staying STFU (I’m just learning these acronysms), that’s Congress, President, banking, and big business. H. W. proclaimed the NWO had arrived. They are not going to let go what they think they’ve achieved. Present leaders have been bribed, threatened and/or whiplashed into submission, or they just agree it’s a good idea. U.S. must give in to world order for the big bucks derived. Justice Ginsberg said U.S. Constitution not good for the developing world. Too much individual rights vs. rights of the world.
    Although Christians believe the “Great Commission” it wasn’t to conquer the world, don’t throw your pearls to the swine. But see Wikepedia world government as to what Joseph Smith thought about world rule. Choice is no have no choice now.

  • susiepuma

    You lie – (wow, glad I got to say that) – I was a Hillary supporter and I DID NOT vote for the fraud – I was thrown under the bus by the Dems and I voted for PALIN/McCain and that was only because of the Governor………………… I am an Independent now and I loathe both parties (actually the two wings of the same party)…………………. I cannot vote for either one of these phonies and I will not………………………..