True Conservatives do not have a new Leader!

The only true conservative in this presidential race dropped out. Duncan Hunter.

---

Are you sure  Tom Tancredo was not a true conserative?

---

California Refugee said:

Are you sure  Tom Tancredo was not a true conserative?

 

CR they are both still great guys and OUTSTANDING conservatives. Neither is in the race anymore so it's time for people who love this country to come together and support Mitt Romney!

Tom and Duncan were Conservative and so was FRED -- always has been -- always will be!

---

Fred - Maybe. We'll see who he endorses. Tom? I'm not so sure. He was the best on illegals but then when he dropped out he supported Romney.

---

And who do you think he should have supported?

---

Patsy said: And who do you think he should have supported?

Well for one thing, it would be ok to not throw his support to anyone. But if he had to choose it would have been better to support Hunter or Thompson.When Tom dropped out they were still in. Massachusetts never ever elects conservatives!

 

---

We do not have a leader. I am voting for Ron Paul now. Romney worships at the globalist altar of free trade. I also do not trust him because he had to have the trust of the Northeastern elite (CFR) to be elected in Massachusettes. I wish I could support Romney, but I cannot. And his Mormonism has zero to do with it.

 

Joseph Farah editor of World Net Daily had a good piece on why he can't support Romney, McCain or Giuliani.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59795

---

Modill,Amen on Tom supporting Romney.That by the way was the first time ever  Tom disappointed me.He would have been better off endorsing no one.

---

modill said: Fred - Maybe. We'll see who he endorses. Tom? I'm not so sure. He was the best on illegals but then when he dropped out he supported Romney.

 

Tom Tancredo has the most conservative voting record in the House of Representatives. 97.9 since he entered congress in January 1999.  He was not given much of an opportunity to talk about anything other than immigration in the debates and his few brief interviews on television.  I would rather he did not endorse anyone, but he chose Romney because Romney promised Tom he would secure the border, not give amnesty to illegals, and the one with enough money to "go the distance".   Tom trusts Mitt to keep his word.  I don't.

Everyone should be looking beyond what they see and hear on television on all of the candidates. If you are doing that, you are allowing the CFR controlled Main Stream Media to INFLUENCE you. Check out the voting records of those that have them.  Google their name and you will find numerous articles and print interviews with them.  Look at their legislative records for bills they have introduced or cosigned.

Tom Tancredo locked horns so many times with Dubya on a variety of issues that he was banned from the White House.  He is the last candidate I would question about his conservatisim.

 

---

msbobbie said:

modill said: Fred - Maybe. We'll see who he endorses. Tom? I'm not so sure. He was the best on illegals but then when he dropped out he supported Romney.

 

Tom Tancredo has the most conservative voting record in the House of Representatives. 97.9 since he entered congress in January 1999.  He was not given much of an opportunity to talk about anything other than immigration in the debates and his few brief interviews on television.  I would rather he did not endorse anyone, but he chose Romney because Romney promised Tom he would secure the border, not give amnesty to illegals, and the one with enough money to "go the distance".   Tom trusts Mitt to keep his word.  I don't.

Everyone should be looking beyond what they see and hear on television on all of the candidates. If you are doing that, you are allowing the CFR controlled Main Stream Media to INFLUENCE you. Check out the voting records of those that have them.  Google their name and you will find numerous articles and print interviews with them.  Look at their legislative records for bills they have introduced or cosigned.

Tom Tancredo locked horns so many times with Dubya on a variety of issues that he was banned from the White House.  He is the last candidate I would question about his conservatisim.

 

 

msbobbie,

Thanks for your reply. At least you were nice about it.

I didn't know much about Tom and this post wasn't really about Tom. It's in response to the "True Conservatives Have a New Leader" psot.

Mitt Romney is not my leader! He's not a true conservative and never has been. He is a big money republican. I'm not. I'm a fiscal and social conservative though if I have to chose between money and social stands I come down on what I believe is right and moral every time (social stands).This will probably tics some people off but I would have a real hard time trusting anyone running for Prez who comes from Massachusetts if they held an elected office in that state. Although that may sound a bit stereotypic you'd be surprised how many people immediately agree with me when I say that here in the Midwest.

Romney is a textbook case politician that changes his views for his own convenience (presidential campaign).  He's a man not to be trusted.

I held my nose and voted for George H Bush and then again for George W Bush and I'm done with holding my nose. I will not be a party to the "Big Tent" bunch that continue trying to move the Republican Party to the left. 30 years ago George W Bush couldn't have gotten the nomination muchless elected. What ever will be will be. This is the first time in 35 years I haven't given money and support to the GOP. The reason is ....I can't find the GOP anymore.

---

Amen, modill!!

There is a true conservative grassroots movement to check out, Alan Keyes.

"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God." - George Washington

---

  I am afraid the only way to get around the two Party system is to Split the Party, and have enough power to rise. That is the only way it has been successfully done since our founding.

  The Republican Party was established in 1854 by a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, former Liberty Party activists, and Free-Soilers who opposed the spread of slavery and held a vision for modernizing the United States. ABraham Lincoln was the First Republican Elected President in 1860. 

A few scattered dissenters will not be enough.

---

JROESSLER said:

  I am afraid the only way to get around the two Party system is to Split the Party, and have enough power to rise. That is the only way it has been successfully done since our founding.

  The Republican Party was established in 1854 by a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, former Liberty Party activists, and Free-Soilers who opposed the spread of slavery and held a vision for modernizing the United States. ABraham Lincoln was the First Republican Elected President in 1860. 

A few scattered dissenters will not be enough.

 

You may be right. The party is splitting.

---

The splitting would take a lot of manpower from those scattered dissenters, and their/our only hope of nationwide attention would be the Republican Convention itself.  The breakoff and demands would have to be made then to garner enough support.

Right on modill, you got it exactly right! This whole election is a big joke on the American people!

---

Well for one thing, it would be ok to not throw his support to anyone. But if he had to choose it would have been better to support Hunter or Thompson.When Tom dropped out they were still in. Massachusetts never ever elects conservatives!

That's right.  He didn't HAVE TO endorse anyone, but he was free to endorse anyone he saw fit to endorse if he wanted to.  Not being a stupid man, he could see Hunter was doing even worse than he was, so why bother with that route?  He probably also saw that Thompson just wasn't cutting the mustard at that point either. So how would it have been better to endorse either of them? Because YOU would have preferred those choices?  He obviously had his reasons for endorsing Romney, and I'm not buying the BS that Bay forced him into it.

---

Oh, and BTW, yes we DO sometimes elect conservatives.....just not often enough!  I happen to have one of the best conservative state reps and he always votes the right way, despite being outnumbered.  The vast majority of voters in this state were also against the courts decision to allow gay marriage and wanted it put on the ballot, as allowed by our constitution.  So, there's hope for the state....not much, but some.

---

Well from what I can tell we are all playing right into the Dem's hands.

While we are bickering who is the most conservative - they will take the white house, open the borders, complete NAFTA, put in the Super Hwy, and complete the NAU by 2010 and we will all be speaking Spanish soon.

I wanted Tom, or Duncan and suported both with $$. 

When they dropped out I was rooting for Thompson who also dropped out. 

Now the choice is Rudy, McCain Kennedy or Romney (as Huckabee doesn't look like he will go the distance either).   Ron Paul is doing better than the media "expected" but I am not sure if he will go the distance either.

Well if I have the choice of Rudy, McCain Kennedy or Romney - and Romney has the endorsement of Tom Tancredo - then I am going with Romney.

A new Rassmussen poll shows that Republicans have increased the membership of the party for the last 5 of 7 months (see below).

Then, the immigration debate raged in Congress and some Republican legislators helped defeat an unpopular Senate immigration bill. Republicans have gained ground in five of the seven months since then. But, the gains in December—1.7 percentage points—matched the total gains for the previous six months combined.

The reason why?  Republican legislators helped defeat an UNPOPULAR SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL!

That means that people who are against illegal immigration are now going to the Republican party and signing up. 

Who cares on any of the issues but illegal immigration?  If they give the country to Mexico - it does not matter. 

You say the Economy is #1 - but if the money converts to Amero does it matter

You say gay marriage or abortion is a concern - or you must speak English in the work place?

Well if a Democrat gets the office and NAU happens - you voice and your vote will be gone:

Doris Meissner was President Bill Clinton's Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Administrator. In that capacity, she implemented Al Gore's devious plan in early 1996 to create a million new voters for Clinton by putting a million aliens on the fast track to citizenship even if they didn't qualify and even if they had criminal records. Gore kept the pressure on to make sure the aliens were naturalized by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

Meissner removed alleged "bureaucratic roadblocks" to speedy naturalization by delegating broad authority to her field managers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Miami. The aliens who became newly naturalized citizens able to vote included more than 75,000 who had arrest records when they applied, an additional 115,000 citizens whose fingerprints were unclassifiable for various technical reasons and were never rechecked, and another 61,000 who were given citizenship without submitting any fingerprints at all.

INS officials were directed to relax the testing for English, to complete every interview within 20 minutes, and to ensure that all applicants passed the Civics test by continuing to ask questions until they got a sufficient number right, sometimes asking 25 questions to get four or five correct answers. The Democrats who worked on this Gore-Meissner project referred to it in memos as "a citizenship/Clinton voter mill," and it paid off big time: Bill Clinton was reelected President in 1996.

The smoking-gun documentation for this citizenship-election fraud was discovered by David P. Schippers in his role as chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment of Bill Clinton, and was reported in Schippers' book Sellout.

The best known Americans who are members of the CFR Task Force that wrote the plan for a North American Community are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton's immigration chief Doris Meissner.

William Weld was the liberal Republican Governor of Massachusetts who appointed the controversial Margaret Marshall to the Massachusetts high court in 1996. While Governor, he made a big splash trying to get the Republican National Convention to remove the pro-life plank from the Party's platform; he was not successful. After his term as Governor, he sought appointment as Ambassador to Mexico, but Senator Jesse Helms stopped that.

Weld's appointee, Justice Margaret Marshall, became the author of the infamous Goodridge decision that ordered same-sex marriage licenses. In her decision, she praised the Canadian court that redefined the traditional meaning of marriage and approved same-sex marriage. "We concur with this remedy," she wrote.

One of the byproducts of integrating the three North American countries could be fulfillment of the threat made by the president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association: "Equal marriage is going to become Canada's leading export in the next couple of years." That's because marriages legally performed in another country are traditionally accepted in the United States, and Canada has no residency requirement.

So - Romney might not be my first choice or my second choice or my third choice but from all of the Democrats and Republicans left he is (in my mind anyway) the best choice and he must have said something to Tom Tancredo in order to get the endorsement.

What that might be we are not sure - but if it is a job of Homeland Security wouldn't that be great.

Romney is CFR but he did pass the Numbers USA illegal immigration test to get an Excellant rating - based on PASS ACTIONS and CURRENT PLEDGES.

At least that is much better than any of the other candidates currently in the race that have the support to make it to the end.

If anyone other than Romney gets in - even if Independent Bloomberg decides to run - they will all be more "amnesty loving" than Romney.

With amnesty comes millions of new voters and I wonder how they will vote?  ummmmm

Here is a clue - when an amendment was added to a bill to make it illegal to prosecute American companies for requiring their employee's to speak English - the Senator from CA said: 

Mr. Baca was having none of it. “You see this on the [voting] board?,” he yelled back. “This is against me. This is against me personally.” Luckily for Democrats, C-Span’s microphones did not pick up the exchange.

and the Senator from Illinois said:

But it was audible to reporters in the press gallery. They also heard Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois say that English-only efforts were symbolic of “bigotry and prejudice” against those who speak other languages.

These are two American citizen Senators who don't believe that American business have the right to require their employees to speak English and that the ACLU has the right to Sue in court the Salvation Army to force them to allow Spanish ONLY speakers on the job.

Luis Gutierrez and Joe Baca are Hispanics who have forgotten they are Americans and they are to "assimilate".

but can you imagine how many Luis Gutierrez and Joe Baca's will be voted into office if up to 38 million (the more realistic number) of illegals get amnesty and are quickly signed up to vote by the Dem's?

If they are like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragosia:

Mayor Antonio Villaragosia:  "It is not enough to elect Latino Leadership, if their supporting legislation that denies the  undocumented they don't belong in office friend, they don't belong here"

Then all I can say is "what happened to America?"