Ron Paul Soldiers Plan Revolt Against John McCain

Cross posted from Wake up America by request from Beth.

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We'd all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We'd all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright [x3]

Inevitably this Beatles song comes to mind every time Ron Paul's name is mentioned.

Top of the Ticket reports that Ron Paul forces have been quietly, under the radar, been plotting a public revolt against John McCain for the national convention in St. Paul which will be in September.

According to a recent Boston Globe tally, Paul has a grand total of 19 Republican delegates to Romney's 260, Huckabee's 286 and McCain's 1,413.

19 Republican delegates. The bottom line fact, which has not and cannot be disputed is that it is mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to receive enough delegates to win the Republican nomination.

He knows it, his supporters know and every American in the country knows it as does every citizen in any other country that is paying attention to US politics.

That is just the reality of the situation. Two plus two will always equal four and Ron Paul has a devoted fan base that has got him nowhere near the number of delegates needed to win the nomination which is 1,191 delegates.

Those are undeniable facts.

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all want to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright [x4]

So let us move along to something else seen in that article, which is the recent Republican primary results:

Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.

On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.

Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP's presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

We turn to CQPolitics (thanks to Hot Air), which shows that those results were touted in Drudge headlines as "27% OF REPUBLICAN VOTERS AGAINST MCCAIN IN NORTH CAROLINA..." and "23% GO AGAINST MCCAIN IN INDIANA...".

Bloggers and the media jumped all over that but CQpolitics actually delved into history and found that those figures are no different than previous years and are actually a pattern.

In the year 2000, after Super Tuesday, George Bush had wrapped up the party nomination and still at all primaries afterward, loyal diehard fans of the other candidates still voted for their favored choice, even if they weren't in the race anymore.

An example:

Colorado: March 10, 2000
Bush: 64.71
McCain: 27.12
Keyes: 6.57
33.69 percent vote against Bush

CQ goes on to show that same consistent pattern for Illinois, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, North Carolina, Nebraska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota.

So much for the touted headlines.

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We'd all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright [x3]
Alright [x7]

The indisputable truth here is that many of us had candidates we would have liked to have seen win, for me it was Fred Thompson, but he didn't have the support, the votes, which is all that counts in end. The people that go to voting booths and vote for their candidate.

Money collected doesn't matter, polls do not matter, neither does the endless insisting that Ron Paul was ignored.

Perhaps he was....but the conclusion rational people come to is that his "message" while popular with his own supporters, did not resound with the majority.

The delegate count proves that without a doubt.

Let us put that "media" excuse to bed right now.

Looking at headlines from November 2007, the media was reporting that the "McCain Campaign To Take Out $3M Loan" and what was coverage for Ron Paul?

"The man, the technique behind Paul's haul", a glowing report about how Ron Paul took $4 million in for a one day haul.

Lets go back a little further.

July 2007, headlines for McCain read, "Why McCain Will Drop Out", "John McCain: Dead man walking", and "The McCain Implosion Fallout".

What were Ron Paul's headlines in July of 2007?

"Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand", " Ron Paul's Libertarian Message Attracts Supporters".

So much for the media being so much kinder to John McCain when it counted.

Some candidates do not catch fire with the majority of voters. It is that simple.

Eventually Ron Paul supporters are going to have to face that reality, those of us that were supporting other Republican candidates did because we realized that we had no choice.

Then they will be left with one specific question they will have to ask themselves.

Do you think John McCain, or whoever wins the Democratic nomination, be it Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, will better match what you ultimately want?

Then vote accordingly or don't vote at all.

Your choice.

(The lyrics for the Revolution song found here)

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact-Part 327

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih BukhariVolume 6, Book 60, Number 174 Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn 'Umar came to us and a man said (to him), "What do you think about 'Qit-alal-Fitnah' (fighting caused by afflictions)." Ibn 'Umar said (to him), "And do you understand what an affliction is? Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, and his fighting with them was an affliction, (and his fighting was) not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling."
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

The Party of Defeat

"They were for the war before they were against it."

"Democrats have never found a war they couldn't lose."

The book by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, "The Party of Defeat" can be purchased here.

Video with David Horowitz.



By Phil Orenstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 28, 2008

At no other time in our nation’s history, other than the period of the Civil War when Democrats supported secession and slavery and Republicans championed freedom, have we been so politically divided. Political unity in wartime has always been an article of faith as rival political parties during the Cold War era upheld the axiom “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Bipartisan unity prevailed even during the Vietnam War as both parties supported the war effort for over a decade and were in accord on military withdrawal when victory seemed no longer possible. Whether we are for the war or against it, we can all agree that it should not be used as a political football for the advantage of one political party over another.

Yet for the first time, opposition to the War in Iraq has become an obsessive partisan effort to lose the war and discredit our Commander in Chief. Wartime bipartisanship has been thrown under the bus. The Democratic Party leadership has crossed the line from constitutionally protected dissent and opposition to willful sabotage. The antiwar opposition is not just the radical fringe and loony leftists marching in the streets burning effigies of President Bush, but has now morphed into the Democratic Party in toto. This is the thesis of the new book The Party of Defeat, by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson.

In 2002 the vast majority of Democrats voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq and Senators Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and many other Congressional Democrats made impassioned speeches warning of the “real and grave threat to our security” that we face from Saddam Hussein if the “deadly arsenal of WMD in his hands” is not disarmed. Al Gore vouched for the “secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Soon after the Gulf War II began, and the first operation ended with the triumphant march into Baghdad, Democrats joined in bipartisan unity celebrating the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. However, the pro-war strategy of the Democratic Party soon made a U-turn, as a little known governor, Howard Dean unexpectedly captured the spotlight in the 2004 presidential campaign becoming the Democratic frontrunner as he galvanized the antiwar crowd into a frenzy of Bush hatred and blame America rhetoric.

The Democratic sea change was not prompted by any fact on the ground in Iraq. It was the Dean campaign channeling the mounting rage of antiwar radicals into a political movement of vehement opposition to the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act, which triggered the sudden change in Democratic strategy to oppose the war and brand the President a liar and a traitor. Presidential candidates Kerry and Edwards abruptly changed their positions on the war, and the balance of the Democratic leadership vied with one another to show off their new found antiwar credentials.

The Democratic Party crossed the line from mere opposition to undermining a war in progress. They divided the nation in a time of war and emboldened an enemy by proclaiming from the highest offices of our Capitol that President Bush deceived the American people by sending their sons and daughters to die fighting an unjust, unnecessary war for political gain. The antiwar chorus of the 2004 presidential contenders and Democratic leadership thundered to a climax as they vied for the $ millions offered by MoveOn.org, and George Soros and his vast cabal of radical 527 organizations, which deem that America is the enemy.

Senator Kennedy called the war “a catastrophic failure,” and a deliberate fraud telling the press: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically.” Kerry attacked the President declaring that “he misled every one of us.” Gore who lost the presidency in 2000 blasted Bush at a Democratic rally for “betraying the nation” by taking us into a war “that was preordained and planned before 9-11.” Rep. John Murtha accused the Marines of killing innocent Iraqis in cold blood.

The deafening chorus of defeat and surrender has continued unabated up until the present day turning a deaf ear to the news of progress on the ground due to the recent successes of the troop surge and defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Still they continue to declare the war unwinnable, illegal and a failure. Senator Edwards called the War on Terror a “bumper sticker slogan” and candidates Clinton and Obama relentlessly call for a premature withdrawal, oblivious to the glowing reports of victories.

General David Petraeus returned from Iraq April 8th to face a hostile reception on Capitol Hill. He delivered a sterling presentation on the growing cooperation of Sunni tribes, the Iraqi people’s desire for freedom, growth of the Iraqi security forces by 100,000 in the past year, sectarian violence down 70% throughout the country since June, decimation of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Iraq’s Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally confronting the Shia militias in Basra trained, funded, and armed by Iran, which had been waiting to explode into mayhem since the recent precipitous withdrawal of British coalition troops.

The bloodshed in Basra is a preview of greater atrocities to come should U.S. forces stage a premature withdrawal as advocated by the Democrats. Petraeus cautioned against such a move saying that the victories are “fragile and reversible” and AQI would rush in to fill the void of a hasty withdrawal should the Democrats prevail.

General Petraeus reported the heartening news of the Anbar Awakening movement which started in the terror capitals of Fallujah and Ramadi and is now spreading throughout the country. A year ago these cities were the most violent places in Iraq. But today the overwhelming majority of residents and Sunni sheikhs renounced their allegiance to AQI and have “now aligned themselves with the Marines and the American-backed city government” realizing that “America is the lesser of evils,” writes Middle East reporter, Michael Totten in City Journal.

The insurgency arose in Fallujah in 2004 after a violent mob mutilated four Blackwater security contractors. U.S. troops launched an assault but quickly retreated, fearing Iraqis would perceive America as oppressive occupiers and violence would spread. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his band of foreign terrorists, al Qaeda in Iraq triumphantly marched in and were welcomed as liberators from the American “occupiers”. But instead of liberating, they seized power in order to establish the Islamic State of Iraq, and imposed Taliban-style rule more oppressive than anything Fallujans had ever encountered. Three years later, Fallujans had had enough and allied themselves with the hated Americans and eventually every tribal sheikh in Anbar came over to the American side. The Anbar Awakening coincided with the troop surge and General Petraeus’s strategy shift to aggressive counterinsurgency operations. Marines are now embedded in Fallujah’s communities, living, eating, studying and patrolling together with the Fallujan security forces. AQI is on the run, normalcy has been restored to Fallujah, violence is virtually nonexistent, and this successful model is being duplicated throughout much of Iraq.

It is apparent that the war is being won in Iraq by our brave men and women soldiers in the United States Military. But the war on the home front that has divided our nation, sabotaged the war effort and undermined our Commander in Chief and America’s moral, rages on and on. These are the great battles to be fought here on the home front by American patriots who dare to challenge the conventional wisdom that the war in Iraq has been lost. This is our challenge to the Democratic Party – the Party of Defeat.

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact-Part 326

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih BukhariVolume 6, Book 60, Number 173 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: That a man came to him (while two groups of Muslims were fighting) and said, "O Abu 'Abdur Rahman! Don't you hear what Allah has mentioned in His Book: 'And if two groups of believers fight against each other...' (49.9) So what prevents you from fighting as Allah has mentioned in His Book?"' Ibn 'Umar said, "O son of my brother! I would rather be blamed for not fighting because of this Verse than to be blamed because of another Verse where Allah says: 'And whoever kills a believer intentionally..." (4.93) Then that man said, "Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (worshipping other besides Allah) and the religion (i.e. worship) will be all for Allah (Alone)" (8.39) Ibn 'Umar said, "We did this during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle when the number of Muslims was small, and a man was put to trial because of his religion, the pagans would either kill or chain him; but when the Muslims increased (and Islam spread), there was no persecution." When that man saw that Ibn 'Umar did not agree to his proposal, he said, "What is your opinion regarding 'Ali and 'Uthman?" Ibn 'Umar said, "What is my opinion regarding Ali and 'Uthman? As for 'Uthman, Allah forgave him and you disliked to forgive him, and Ali is the cousin and son-in-law of Allah's Apostle ." Then he pointed out with his hand and said, "And that is his daughter's (house) which you can see."
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

New Life for an Old Symbol: “Come And Take It!”

Whether it’s Obama’s elitist disdain for the great unwashed who, “cling to guns or religion,” or McCain’s disregard for the majority of American citizens who don’t want to grant amnesty to ILLEGAL ALIENS, one symbol stands out as the symbol of the day! It’s the Come And Take It" symbol, flag, and slogan used in the Texas Revolution in 1835. This symbol is no longer hiding in a dusty history book. It is now being resurrected as the symbol of America’s fight against Illegal immigration.

&

Since the 1980’s gun-rights advocates have modified the original cannon symbol; using instead an aggressive looking assault rifle. But the original cannon has behind it the strength and subtle symbolic power of our long history with Mexico. The symbol of that little original 6 pound Come And Take It cannon now belongs to all American citizens who stand up in defiance of the Mexican invasion!

&

&

We will not be overwhelmed!

&

Imagine May Day 2009. Instead of retching at the sight of Mexican flags flying over our American streets, imagine a sea of white and black Come and Take It flags flying as a sign of American Unity against illegal immigration!

&

Imagine walking into your local grocery store or Wal-Mart any day and seeing many other Americans proudly wearing their Come And Take It T-shirts or ball caps.

&

Imagine thousands of bumper stickers in this election year with the simple words “Come And Take It!” Talk about sending a message to both candidates!!!

&

If we can’t see ourselves flying the Come And Take it Flag, or wearing the T-shirt or ball cap, then we better be able to envision ourselves living under the domination of Mexican Flag!

&

&

Note to Mexico: Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat history!

&

Here’s the brief history of Come And Take It from the Gonzales, Texas Chamber of Commerce.

&

“In 1831 the Mexican government loaned the citizens of Gonzales a six-pound cannon as protection against the Indians. In September of 1835, as political unrest grew, Mexican officials at San Antonio de Bexar demanded the cannon be returned.”

&

Well that just didn’t happen! Read the entire story here.

&

Here’s how it ended:

&

“There, in the early-morning hours of Oct. 2, 1835, the colonists crossed the river with their cannon, surprising the troops and waving their hastily fashioned flag, which proclaimed "Come and Take It." Almost immediately the cannon fired, killing one of Castenada's men and scattering the rest, forcing them to retreat to San Antonio de Bexar. Thus was fired the shot that set off the struggle for Texas independence from Mexico.”

&

It’s such a simple symbol that anyone with a black permanent marker and white cloth can quickly duplicate it! But wouldn’t it be nice to find a place where we can buy Come and Take It! items?

&

When I suggested a line of Come And Take It gifts, clothing, and caps to Texas Fred, he immediately got with the folks at CafePress and added an entire page of Come And Take It goodies. Fred wisely included both the original and modified symbols on his products.

&

Disclaimer: I am not involved in Texas Fred’s financial ventures but I applaud his initiative in getting the ball rolling! Check out the Come And Take It gifts here.

&

Bloggers can also join the new Come And Take It blogroll here.

&

Here are some Come and Take It Flag resources:

&

Battle Flags Etc.

&

Come and Take It! Flags

&

News from ALIPAC Vast majority of states passing immigration enforcement bills!

&

“ . . .The truth is that the overwhelming evidence proves that a super majority of Americans oppose Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Guest Worker Program, Temporary Worker Program, Path to Citizenship, etc... That is why the supporters of amnesty have to keep changing the name!

&

A majority of Americans support the enforcement of our existing immigration laws only, which results in illegal aliens returning home on their own or with government assistance.

&

Any lawmaker, candidate, reporter, activist, or organization that supports the current lack of enforcement of the existing laws, or supports the overthrow of these laws by passage of new legislation, which a majority of Americans oppose, is a traitor to the American republic and an enemy of the citizens of the United States. . . .”

Digg It!

Cross-posted from Faultline USA

Sphere: Related Content