Iowa Caucus results, January 4, 2012, Romney edges Santorum by 8 votes, Ron Paul third

Iowa Caucus results, January 4, 2012, Romney edges Santorum by 8 votes, Ron Paul third

From the AP

Results for Iowa Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Jan 03, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney 30,015 24.6%
Rick Santorum 30,007 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,219 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,251 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,604 10.3%

From CBS News January 4, 2012.

“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney eked out a narrow victory over former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday, winning the first contest for the Republican presidential nomination, the Hawkeye state’s Republican party chairman Matt Strawn said early Wednesday morning after a long night with the two candidates in a dead heat.

Santorum pulled off a stunning come from behind performance in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses, garnering just eight fewer votes than a much better funded and better organized Romney in the closest Iowa contest since the modern caucuses were formed in 1976.

It’s a tie so Santorum wins

“Game on,” Santorum told supporters gathered in Johnston, Iowa in what amounted to a victory speech before the results were announced.

The devout Catholic father of seven vowed to take his social conservative message to New Hampshire, which holds the first binding vote on January 10. The Iowa caucuses are non-binding.

“With your help and God’s grace, we will have another fun night a week from now,” Santorum said after offering congratulations to Romney, who now appears headed toward the nomination. Romney is widely expected to win in New Hampshire, where he owns a vacation home.

Analysis: Romney’s race to lose

If Romney wins in the Granite state, he would be the first non-incumbent president to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since their 1976 establishment as critical early states in the nominating process.

Santorum won the support of 30,007 caucus-goers, giving him 25 percent support, while Romney won 30,015 votes — also 25 percent, Strawn said.

Ron Paul finished in third place 21 percent support. Just weeks ago, Santorum was at the bottom of opinion polls.

Romney offered his congratulations to Santorum, while focusing mostly on President Obama and the general election in his remarks, also made before the final tally was announced.

“This has been a great victory for him and for his effort. He’s worked very hard in Iowa. We also feel it’s been a great victory for us here,” Romney said.

After finishing in a disappointing fifth place with 10 percent of the vote, Rick Perry told his supporters Tuesday night in Iowa he would return to his home state of Texas to “determine whether there is a path forward for me in this race.”
Santorum’s strong finish, pulled off on a shoe-string budget, validated the more than 100 days he spent engaged in retail campaigning across the state of Iowa. It also proved that conservative voters are still wary of Romney — whose resources on the campaign trail far surpassed Santorum’s — in spite of perceptions that he would be the most viable Republican presidential candidate.

Santorum thanked Iowans for “standing up and being bold and leading.”

He added, “What wins in American are bold ideas, sharp contrasts and a plan that includes everyone… A plan that says we will work together to get America to work.””

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57351741-503544/iowa-caucus-results-mitt-romney-beats-rick-santorum-by-8-votes/

102 responses to “Iowa Caucus results, January 4, 2012, Romney edges Santorum by 8 votes, Ron Paul third

  1. citizenwells

    McCain endorsed Romney.
    That could be a death kiss.
    That’s enough for me to support Santorum.

  2. Interested Bystander

    “citizenwells | January 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

    “John Garver is a 19-year-old student at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.”

    Being the nephew of Rick Santorum does not make him a political genius.
    Being a college student doesn’t help either.”

    You see folks, this is a comment I can appreciate.

    And CW,

    I agree with Cabby from the last thread.

    I believe your endorsement went a long way in the Santorum “momentum”.

    Enjoy your “win”.

    Now on the New Hamshire and South Carolina!!

    Good luck.

    I believe you still have an uphill battle, ESPECIALLY explaining the endorsement by Santorum of Arlen Spector.

    But that’s a battle for another day. Take a day and enjoy.

  3. Morning CW. Good for Santorum. At this point, I hope Gov. Perry does drop out and throw support to Santorum. If the race is a real race, then the pressure may require Romney to choose a real Conservative/Limited government VP. If he (Romney) wins, I would not be disappointed to see him choose Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Paul Ryan, Dr. Rice, Rep. West, or Santorum, (Rubio if he seeks declaratory judgment regarding eligibility). We must win this round and hopefully the TeaParty will organize a real party, which should force Republicans to choose more limited government candidates that the TP could embrace.

  4. Interested Bystander

    Hey All,

    I have got to comment that I heard Dick Morris (yes Tina THAT Dick Morris) say that Romney NEEDS Santorum AND Gingrich to stay in the race, because they are basically the same person on the issues, and that both staying in splits that vote.

    I would agree.

    Either Santorum, or Newt need to drop out IF they don’t want Romney to win the nomination.

    McCain endorsing Romney is the “nail in the coffin” for me. Although I have stated many times I could NEVER vote for Romney. All he’s been doing for the last 4 years is running for President (along with Obama).

    Romney, in my opinion, would be another Clinton (no Tina, not THAT way, but in the way he GOVERNS).

    Just a couple “jabs” Tina, I hope you have a sense of humor.

  5. Interested Bystander

    Hey All,

    Just so we are clear, I STILL support Paul 100% (it is IMPOSSIBLE to support him any more that 100%).

    I just had to “mute” the TV because Debby Wasserman Shultz is on F&F, and if I heard her voice any more I’d have to make a quick trip to the bathroom, my goodness she makes me nauseous, AND she has an adam’s apple, but back to my point:

    I STILL have some reservations about Santorum, but that’s for another day.

    Right now, in my opinion, the focus needs to be on defeating Romney.

  6. Interested Bystander

    Zach,

    I believe that IF Perry gets out, he wil endorse Newt (yes Tina the “covert operation” loving [entirely deniable of course] Newt).

    The more I hear from Newt, the LESS I like him.

    Just my opinion.

  7. citizenwells

    Good morning Zach, et al.
    Well said.

  8. citizenwells

    Spector had a lot of people fooled at one time. Plus PA is a Democrat state.
    No one is perfect, there is always a context & things change.

  9. Interested Bystander

    One more comment and then off to bed:

    I think although the MAIN race will be for the President, we can NOT forget who actually passes the bills to be placed on the President’s desk, and pay VERY close attention to the Representatives and Senate races.

    Not only those races, but local and state races as well.

    I can assure you that this Hoosier will NOT be voting for Richard Lugar, in the primary, and IF he should win that, in the November election.

    I emailed Lugar AND Bayh about the eligibility issue and got pretty much the same response, and we’ve all read them before

    “blah, blah and more blah”

    It’s time for Lugar to GO.

    “Good night all”

  10. 25 rules of disinformation that msm uses to prop up democrats:

    Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

    Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

    Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

    Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

    Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

    Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

    Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

    Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

    Play dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

    Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

    Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

    Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

    Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

    Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

    Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

    Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

    Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

    Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’

    Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

    False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

    Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

    Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

    Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

    Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

    Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

  11. “It’s a tie so Santorum wins”

    No it’s not, a wins a win even by 1 vote.

    But it doesn’t matter. Good showing for Santorum
    .
    If i were the Romney camapign I would not be happy with the Mc Cain endorsement. But it’s not the kiss of death and not going to hurt him in NH.

    Dumbest commentary, had to be from Sarah Palin….. Sheesh just go away.

    Ron Paul went full nutter in his closing speech.even more than I expected.

    The big loser, D-RATS
    1. They could not get enough croosovers to put RP at #1.
    2. Their message was totally drowned out.

    When is Santorum going to be vetted ?

  12. Good Morning All; It would appear that Perry is going to drop out, Bachman is running low on money and it will be difficult for her to raise seeing she didn’t place…Paul is tenaciaous but I really can’t see him being able to take the heat once they turn it on even though most the pressure is going to be on the two front runners…

  13. CW,,, I agree with you.

    Anything McCain is for, I’m against.

    He was the poorest leader the Republicans have put forth in over a century. Maybe one day, Arizona will wake up and smell the coffee.

  14. I think we need to press for a definition of the eligibility issue somehow meaning we could have the top two GOP contenders and Obama with questions on this issue. Rubio and Jindal have issues too. If we just see it an Obama issue the media will attack us as racists, but if we say it is a bipartisan issue, we can move forward by saying we need clarification for everyone. Obviously, Obama would not be eligible though.

  15. Meaning if we raise the heat on Santorum and Romney on the eligibility issue, by default the heat would get raised on Obama too. Either it gets ignored or it raises the profile of the issue when we say it is a GOP issue too. I like Santorum very much and will vote for Romney if he gets the nod, but it is an avenue to get this back in the press. Just saying.

  16. citizenwells

    Tina…..Bingo!

  17. citizenwells | January 4, 2012 at 7:44 am |
    Spector had a lot of people fooled at one time. Plus PA is a Democrat state.
    No one is perfect, there is always a context & things change.
    —————————————————————————————-

    Funny how the ” No one is perfect” logic does not apply Mitt Romney on this board.

  18. Tina | January 4, 2012 at 8:43 am |

    Meaning if we raise the heat on Santorum and Romney on the eligibility issue, by default the heat would get raised on Obama too. Either it gets ignored or it raises the profile of the issue when we say it is a GOP issue too. I like Santorum very much and will vote for Romney if he gets the nod, but it is an avenue to get this back in the press. Just saying.
    ———————————————————————————————-
    The best way for Santorum to raise the eligibilty issue with out raising it, release his fathers naturalization papers or offer a legal opinion that he was naturalized in WW2.

  19. Good idea Pat. I don’t intend to declare Santorum ineligible, at least I hope not, but want to really use it as a back door issue to raise the heat on Obama.

  20. citizenwells

    Pat 1789.
    Bingo!
    WND article on Santorum eligibility is a springboard for awareness.
    Remember in the video of Meet the Press interview, Santorum mentioned BO Chicago problem.
    I believe that he will confront BO on all issues.

  21. citizenwells

    When I put articles up there are often multiple reasons for doing so.
    That includes tying Santorum to this blog & increasing awareness in Santorum
    & others.

  22. Maybe someone should tell Obama the troops have already left Iraq!
    LMAO, stupid D-RATS

    Talk about extremist comments, give us a break…..

    “No matter who the Republicans nominate, we’ll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win — vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman’s right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.”

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-warns-extremist-republicans-111823245.html

  23. citizenwells | January 4, 2012 at 9:11 am |

    When I put articles up there are often multiple reasons for doing so.
    That includes tying Santorum to this blog & increasing awareness in Santorum
    & others.
    ————————————————————————————

    I don’t leave Mitt out either, he should do the same.

  24. citizenwells

    I have endorsed Santorum.
    I am not trashing Romney, I simply prefer Santorum
    and believe that he is the right candidate to lead this country.

  25. Alan Colmes may have helped Santorum with his crude remark about the death of Santorum’s baby. I am supporting Rick Santorum all the way. IMO he is the candidate carrying the lesser amount of baggage. I am trying to talk to anyone who will listen, about Santorum and his stand on major issues. We all need to spread the word about voting conservative in the primaries. No Rino’s please! Of course I will vote for the Republican candidate in November. ABO As far as Ron Paul; He will do nothing but split the vote like he did in 2008, and Obama will get reelected. His son has even hinted at this.

  26. Interested Bystander | January 4, 2012 at 7:32 am
    I just had to “mute” the TV because Debby Wasserman Shultz is on F&F, and if I heard her voice any more I’d have to make a quick trip to the bathroom, my goodness she makes me nauseous
    ******************************************
    The only person worse than her is Obama, I too get sick watching the lying bastards. I don’t see what anybody sees in these people.

  27. January 4, 2012
    By His Fruits Ye Shall Know Him: Obama’s Subversive Appointments
    By Jesse Weed

    When President Obama made his initial cabinet appointments upon assuming the presidency, it looked as if the president had been, despite his history and associations with Wright, Ayers, Davis, et al., a moderate, left-leaning Democrat. His appointments were practically all ex-Clintonites.

    In a 2008 Human Events article, “Obama’s Cabinet So Far,” Ross Kaminsky wrote that Obama’s cabinet looked “like the third Clinton Administration.” That soon began to change with Executive Office appointments, Regulatory Agency appointments, and appointments of czars and czarinas.

    Thus began Obama’s rule by judicial intimidation through the DOJ and by behavioral modification through the myriad of government agencies, from the EPA to the DoE. Behavioral modification by red tape has especially become the imprimatur of the Obama administration — i.e., bypass congress and rule by regulatory edicts.

    It has become increasingly evident that the original Clintonista appointments were just a smokescreen regarding what was to be Obama’s stealth agenda. Subsequent appointments have revealed two persistent themes that that would be a hard sell outside the Beltway. To wit:

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/by_his_fruits_ye_shall_know_him_obamas_subversive_appointments.html#ixzz1iV7gSdP2

  28. citizenwells | January 4, 2012 at 7:44 am | Spector had a lot of people fooled at one time. Plus PA is a Democrat state.
    No one is perfect, there is always a context & things change.

    ==================================
    A realistic assessment of context of the time. If people have to reach to singular past time event without context then they are not current to the pressures of this day upon the candidates NOW.

    I was moved by Santorum’s thankful speech with its own personal context rather than what one of the FOX panel mentioned to be Romney’s repeat of same speech given earlier in the day….still can’t seem to leave the stiff remoteness behind (one of the ongoing criticisms of Obama).

    I stayed up ’til 2:00 when suddenly after the frantic phone “connections” of Karl Rove seeming to be freaked out about the possible extra votes going to Santorum, he announced there were MORE than that one missing precinct to be counted….that there were some “other” votes that were then somehow missing from another precinct. Oh dear!

  29. From Orly Taitz ,
    Thank you god!!! I am ready to cry! After 3 years of battle for the first time a judge ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. I can now depose Obama and everybody else envolved without any impediment.

    Posted on | January 3, 2012

    Farrar Motion to dismiss by Obama is denied

    I still can’t believe this. The order is in the link above. Judge Malihi, Deputy Chief judge of the Administrative court in GA, ruled, that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. He will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office.

    This is particularly sweet, as it is happening in GA, where judge Clay D. Land maligned me so badly and attacked me with $20,000 of sanctions in order to silence me, to stop me from challenging Obama. Judge Land was sending a message to other attorneys and intimidating them, de facto telling them, “you dare to go after Obama, raise the issue of his forged birth certificate and invalid Social Secrity number, establishment will attack you and sanction you, just like attorney Taitz”

    Now judge Malihi is sending a message: “nobody is above the law”

    I am filing a motion for judicial notice in the other 5 courts, where I have cases. Please, spread the word.

    I wanted to thank evrybody, who was helping me so far to repay those $20,000, who donated to help me fly to other states, including my prior flights to GA.

    PS I have a professional video cassette, shot by Kevin Powell, where I together with Carl Swenssen, Kevin and a number of GA civil rights leaders visited offices of prior governor Sonny Purdue, Attorney General, elections board, Sec of State, CNN and so on. The video cassette is in a format, that I can’t play or upload on you-tube channel. If someone knows, how to convert it, let me know, I will post it. I think, it is called Sony DVCAM 94 Advanced ME.

  30. Romney and McCain…..the beloved couple of anti-establishment conservative voters!!! Not!

  31. Link to site for comment @ 10:03am
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

  32. Saw Obama on FOX news this morning, had to mute the sound, but his hair has gotten grey overnight.

    I guess this is the “statesman approach”, grey hair will make us think he is wise, and seasoned, and fit to be president. Sickening!

  33. Off topic, what’s with Obama’s hair? He must have let it go in order to appear more mature, but he looks like he is 80 years old. It’s awful! Just goes to show you that Obama will say and do anything to get re-elected, even with his hair!

  34. Hi Bob, we must have both been looking at the same thing! Ha.

  35. Open Letter to Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia
    THE RULE OF LAW MUST BE UPHELD
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/03/open-letter-to-judge-michael-malihi-of-georgia/

  36. Sheriff Joe targeted for ouster
    Faces ‘resign now’ campaign as Cold Case Posse prepares Obama eligibility report

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/sheriff-joe-targeted-for-ouster/

    Just as famed Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is preparing to release results of his investigation of Barack Obama’s eligibility for Arizona’s 2012 ballot, a top-gun activist who led a successful campaign to recall a key Arpaio ally is now targeting the sheriff himself.

    In the coming weeks, it will be decided whether transplanted radical attorney-activist and “community organizer” Randy Parraz can force Arpaio to resign before the sheriff’s Cold Case Posse has a chance to deliver a report in February.

    Parraz, who has made his career applying Saul Alinsky-style community organizer tactics for radical leftist movements in the U.S. and Canada, has told WND that Arpaio “has to go.”

    Arpaio’s response: “No way will I resign,” he told WND.

    Parraz’s skills as a leftist political activist are not to be underestimated. Last year, he helped lead the recall campaign that removed long-time Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce after Pearce championed the passage of Arizona’s tough immigration bill, SB 1070.

    With Pearce gone, Parraz has set his sites on Arpaio.

    “Our focus right now is to hold Sheriff Arpaio accountable for what he has done – his abuse of power, the corruption, all the things he has done under his leadership,” Parraz told WND in a telephone interview. “We need to have a fresh start; we need to get him out

    Parraz said “the only way we can do this is to engage the citizens in a way in which they have never been engaged before.”

    He has focused his strategy on the five-person Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the governing body that directly oversees the operation of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

    “We are going to the Jan. 11 meeting of the Board of Supervisors to get placed on the agenda the recent Department of Justice and the report of the 400 uninvestigated sex crimes,” he explained.

  37. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)

    LD | January 4, 2012 at 9:32 am |

    As far as Ron Paul; He will do nothing but split the vote like he did in 2008, and Obama will get reelected. His son has even hinted at this.
    ____________________________________________

    How’s this for a theory?

    Ron Paul runs on a third party. The OWS(Occupy Wall Street) crowd love him for his stance on Pot etc. He would suck up most of the youthful Democrats THUS CAUSING A 3 WAY LOG JAM resulting in no contender getting the 271 Electoral College votes necessary to win the election. THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WOULD CHOOSE THE NEXT PRESIDENT!!

    “occupy wall street + ron paul”

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=27&gs_id=33&xhr=t&q=occupy+wall+street+ron+paul&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=occupy+Wall+Street+%2B+Roon+P&aq=0l&aqi=g-l2&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2f0b188327e19041&biw=1333&bih=663

  38. “NEW NATIONWIDE FEMA CAMPS SHOULD RAISE EYEBROWS”

    By Alan P. Halbert
    http://www.AmericanThinker.com
    January 2, 2012

    Excerpt:

    “Of all the rumors flying around on the internet, one just refuses to die, and it concerns America’s FEMA camps.
    In a nutshell, there seems to be a solicitation of bids occurring for the staffing of FEMA camps within 72 hours of implementation by an order from either Homeland Security or the president. This situation begs to be investigated, with special consideration paid to the motives of the present administration.

    I went to the source, the FedBizOpps.gov, and searched for the solicitation number HSFEHQ-10-R-0027, titled National Responder Support Camp.”

    […]

    “[…] However, what I found most striking was the “off limits” areas within each camp and staffing with “displaced persons” and the “Mission Support Work Area(s),” all undefined. As citizens, we need to know the exact purpose of these camps, given President Obama’s propensity to bend our constitutional republic to his own purposes!

    (All documents can be found at this website for the GSA Federal Business Opportunities.)”

    Read More Here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_should_raise_eyebrows.html#ixzz1iVOGXWsU

  39. Bachmann is speaking. Sounds like she’s dropping out. Too bad. I hope one day we’ll have a woman President or VP. I’m tired of chauvinists. Just a ding at IB. Hope you have a sense of humor.

  40. Hey Tina, are the good people of Iowa (my wife’s family ) as stupid as you said they were?

  41. cw —– some of us are not only looking for a conservative but a real constitutional conservative . plus i tend to agree with tina on the eligibility issue .

  42. To the extent that they let Independents and Democrats vote for Ron Paul and put the whole race in a flux with him potentially destroying the GOP, the Iowa process is flawed, but I am glad many there took the process very seriously. Ron Paul is still a huge risk. Paxson, you don’t want to alienate libertarians, but Ron Paul alienates others who may cross over and vote for the GOP too like myself whom you love to dismiss. By the way, my grandmother is from Iowa so you’re not the only one with family from there. She hates the Iowa process. I would like all the states to limit their primaries to their respective parties. I think that is a cleaner process, and I hope the states and the RNC one day consider that.

  43. Mr. Bill(ms. helga) | January 4, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    Ron Paul runs on a third party. The OWS(Occupy Wall Street) crowd love him for his stance on Pot etc. He would suck up most of the youthful Democrats THUS CAUSING A 3 WAY LOG JAM resulting in no contender getting the 271 Electoral College votes necessary to win the election. THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WOULD CHOOSE THE NEXT PRESIDENT!!
    ***************************
    Mr. Bill, I’ve thought of your above scenario a number of times. Considering the electorate environment of today, it just might work. The only problem is that with Congress, including the Republican House becoming so wimpy, they might just feel sorry for the incumbent. What a fine kettle of fish that would be!

  44. Tina and Bob,
    Obama just forgot to use his Grecian Formula this morning. LOL

  45. eddie h. | January 4, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    cw —– some of us are not only looking for a conservative but a real constitutional conservative . plus i tend to agree with tina on the eligibility issue .
    ________________________________

    Thanks, eddie. While I like Santorum very much, and believe I was one of the first to ask on this blog what was wrong with supporting Santorum when others still were supporting other candidates, I think we have to be consistent with looking at the eligibility issue, including with Romney, Rubio, Jindel and others. And I think it’s hard for others to call us racists, if we make it a bi-partisan issue. Either way, to me, Obama is not eligible, in my opinion, so I don’t see how we lose on this issue.

  46. Cabby – AZ | January 4, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    Tina and Bob,
    Obama just forgot to use his Grecian Formula this morning. LOL

    _______________________________

    For sure. He must be getting too old!! Ha! Agree.

  47. Tina | January 4, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    To the extent that they let Independents and Democrats vote for Ron Paul and put the whole race in a flux with him potentially destroying the GOP, the Iowa process is flawed, but I am glad many there took the process very seriously.
    ******************************************
    My sentiments exactly. To allow someone to walk into the caucus meetings and decide to become a Repub right then (with proper ID) seems patently unfair to the tried and true faithful and to the process in general. That practice allows a candidate to gain momentum that is not true blue. Just an opinion.

    Iowans have a right to be proud this morning, because they did some serious thinking and were not easily swayed by so much of the hype that was out there.

  48. Tina. You alienate me, forget about libertarians. In addition, a conservative who doesn’t have a streak of libertarianism in them is no conservative at all. I would call that person fascist, not conservative.

  49. Don’t mean to Paxson. The GOP will need us all to vote against Obama. Just presenting other views than you have sometimes. We don’t all have to agree to still be patriots. I am glad the people of Iowa took the process seriously, and after last night, I no longer feel the first in the nation vote should be taken from them. I was wrong on that. They did a good job for the most part. I think the process for all the states needs to be tweaked. How we let people on the ballot, who checks what documents, eligibility, etc., should all be looked at. These states did not look at the eligibility question when they put Romney and Santorum on the ballot. The RNC has had three years to correct things. I don’t know why they don’t unless they feel it is up to the states which it may well be.

  50. Cabby. Iowans aren’t stupid. They always do serious thinking so there is nothing to be proud of. That’s what I was saying when people like Tina was calling them backwards morons a few weeks ago.

  51. Mr. Bill(ms. helga), I like your theory!!!

  52. Paxson, I did not call them backwards morons. Lighten up. I wasn’t as polite as I should have been, but you have a way of taking things very personally. It’s not about you. It’s not about me. It’s about the country.

  53. Tina | January 4, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    To the extent that they let Independents and Democrats vote for Ron Paul and put the whole race in a flux with him potentially destroying the GOP, the Iowa process is flawed, but I am glad many there took the process very seriously.
    =========================================
    The problem there lies with the hypocritical presentation by Paul of himself as a Republican when he is anything but, and the Republicans allowing him to do just that. He’s using the party as a vehicle for his own ideological purposes while contributing nothing to it. What a country!! You can see by his history in congress that he has been anything but a leader in Republican circles….and yet they want to give him a venue to attempt to control them with anti-party principles if he should gain such a position of power???

  54. Paxson | January 4, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    ……a conservative who doesn’t have a streak of libertarianism in them is no conservative at all. I would call that person fascist, not conservative.
    ***************************
    Paxson, I agree with that statement but like to think there is a difference between “libertarian” and “Libertarian”, with the latter being the stated policies of a more organized group of folks who carry the principles to extreme. Reagan was for a “streak of libertarianism” but miles apart from those of the Libertarian Party when it comes to national defense, legalization of drugs, etc., if you know what I mean.

    Awhile back there was an on-line test that one could take to see where one positioned politically. Based on my answers, I came out as part libertarian and part conservative but would run from the overall
    views of the Libertarian Party.

  55. I agree Observer. People said that Perry and Romney flip flopped by joining the Republican party when it was in their interest to do so, but they are willing to overlook that Ron Paul flip flopped too. He ran on the libertarian ticket previously to the GOP because it was expedient for him to do so as well.

  56. There is a large social conservative movement in the GOP which Iowa showed last night. They are the ones who lifted Santorum up and they are proud conservatives. So who is a conservative is in the eye of the beholder. And some conservatives are in the Democratic party too. They were the Reagan Democrats. The more we cast a large net, the more we defeat Obama. You can stand on your principles and cast a small net and then lose.

  57. Personally I don’t see how Paul can proceed and gain much traction in the future. I don’t have the link but remember his saying not long ago something to the effect that he wondered if he could stay the course during the rugged campaign ahead. It must be a very grueling experience and he is no youngster, albeit he tries to keep physically fit.

  58. bob strauss . Thanks for posting the Orly Taitz news. I was going to post it myself. I am afraid to get my hopes up though. How many times have we thought we had won this battle? I think back at Ed Hale, Berg, Corsi, all telling us they had the truth right in their hands. Something will happen , I am afraid. The judge will be bought off, or something.

  59. On second thought, maybe he would come to the conclusion that a third party run would, in the end, be easier on him physically? Wow, I hope not!

  60. Yes. It was linked someone on Hot Air, Cabby. I hope you’re right, but Ron Paul has determination or he wouldn’t be running after all this time. Either way, I was very excited that Santorum did so well last night and I’m looking forward to an exciting primary season. Right now, Romney is running ahead of Obama so we have one candidate who has a shot at being the next President. I hope Santorum starts showing in the polls that he can beat Obama too. We’ll see. Gotta run.

  61. Cabby there is a difference between libertarianism and Libertarian Party. Some people don’t comprehend ans liken everything back to the love of destructive social behavior. These non thinkers,other than their vote, do us more harm than good. They set us up on a pendulum of dictators whom we agree with to four or eight years later one that we don’t.

  62. LD | January 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    bob strauss . Thanks for posting the Orly Taitz news. I was going to post it myself. I am afraid to get my hopes up though.
    ******************************
    Others here feel somewhat the same way. It is VERY good news, but a lot can happen “on the way to the forum”, sad to say. This seems to be the first real breakthrough, however, that could lead somewhere.

  63. 12:04 pm —

    “Awhile back there was an on-line test that one could take to see where one positioned politically.”
    ============
    “The Original Internet Political Quiz. Take the Quiz now and find out where you fit on the political map!”

    http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

  64. Paxson | January 4, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    Cabby there is a difference between libertarianism and Libertarian Party. Some people don’t comprehend ans liken everything back to the love of destructive social behavior.
    *********************
    Paxson, I hear you on that analysis.

  65. GORDO | January 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Thanks for the link for the Quiz!

  66. Re the quiz: it says I am Libertarian (9,8); it says Obama is Statist (0,4). No wonder I can’t stand the fraud. But it is not so much a conflict of left and right, but bottom and top.

  67. citizenwells

    Great letter from Sharon Rondeau of The Post & Email.

  68. Observer……………………
    Arpiao has some tools at his disposal as a law enforcement officer that it seems Mr.Parrazz is not aware of. It would appear that Mr.Parrazz is simply another SNOT NOSED CHILD who thinks UP is DOWN, and is obviously trying to ram it down Arpiao’s throat. Mr. PAZZAZZ you need to be very careful with what you perpetrate against a officer of the law. You might end up eating some of Arpiao’s balogna sandwiches.

  69. tina —– i still agree . there is nothing more important than the constitutional eligibility of the president . all appointments begin there and all bills passed by congress end up there to be signed into law . all orders issued to the military are issued from the president . if the president is not eligible to be in that office , the entire government is illegal .

  70. Oldsalt….I am the most optimistic with what Sheriff Joe’s people might dig up. He has been somewhat of a “national hero” in the eyes of many. He will not have to deal with things like “standing” or prejudices within the judiciary. He certainly has a voice, and looks like he cannot be bullied. God speed, Sheriff Joe! Tell it like it is.

  71. If I may play devil’s advocate…..IF, after allowing the arguments to finally be heard re: O’s eligibility under the precedent cases re: that definition as to just what the Constitution required, and IF it could be decided that a definite explicit definition must still be SCOTUS decided formally for future understanding without any question, and therefore the status quo is permitted UNTIL that is done, wouldn’t it be important to emphasize NOW the current and ongoing use of a fraudulent SSN which calls into doubt the man’s CURRENT status of perhaps being no kind of a U.S. citizen AT ALL?!!! Why else would it necessary to phony up a fraudulent SSN if one is ANY KIND of a U.S. citizen, even if not a NBC?

    IOW, use this opening to prosecute current crimes with the discovery already in hand and get him out NOW based on that. The other question could be drawn out for quite some time without the ability for immediate removal until those legal maneuverings by the other side are handled….and there WILL be all kinds of maneuverings to do just that!!

  72. Sheriff Joe will have to present his evidence before a judge who himself will also be courageous enough to not be terrorized by the Alinsky tactics, scare tactics, or fear for position and/or reputation among the nut cases. Let’s pray for that….another man who will follow the law and listen to the citizens.

  73. On Drudge, for now anyway !

    Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

    http://www.infowars.com/birthers-hail-judges-decision-that-could-depose-obama/

  74. Observer, the one phrase in the link that Pat 1789 just posted is disturbing:
    “Taitz, along with several other Georgia residents, will now be able to present their evidence that Obama was not born in the United States in a court of law – unless the ruling is overturned on appeal before January 26.” (bold emphasis is mine) This scares me. Obama will stop at nothing to prevent this from going forward. I hope I’m wrong. Any thoughts?

  75. Philo-Publius

    Cabby – AZ, I have the same concern about an appeal. That seems to be his only recourse…find a friendly judge to overturn the ruling he doesn’t like.

  76. Philo-Publius

    Drudge: OBAMA TAKES OVER

    Obama bypasses Senate to fill labor board posts
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LABOR_BOARD_APPOINTMENTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-04-15-24-18

    Obama sets up clash with Congress over recess banking pick
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/obama-unprecedented-recess-appointment/

    Unprecedented “Recess” Appointment Contradicts Obama Justice Department
    http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766

  77. Cabby – AZ | January 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    “Taitz, along with several other Georgia residents, will now be able to present their evidence that Obama was not born in the United States in a court of law – unless the ruling is overturned on appeal before January 26.” (bold emphasis is mine) This scares me. Obama will stop at nothing to prevent this from going forward. I hope I’m wrong. Any thoughts

    Yes Cabby AZ, this is exactly what I was thinking will happen.. Scares me also, The Obama network is so huge, we cannot even comprehend their power.

  78. Cabby – AZ | January 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    =============================
    You have every reason to fear the famous delay tactics of the left. I mean, just look at the fact that we do not have our hands on the actual original Hawaii records and every roadblock is being put forth….even illegally….to prevent that. So what is there to present as pure evidence instead of speculation and assumptions to the court that will permit to hear it? And if discovery is ordered, there will be the same tactics used….again….which will delay things.

    That’s why I hope those who will present what evidence can be gotten via those already legitimate venues…i.e. the gov’t’s own site that has resulted in a no match of SSN used to Obama’s name….will begin at least using that rather shocking info already in hand rather than ask the court only to permit them to get info that is assumed to be in HI but which could already have been altered by the legitimate authorities who will be the ones to have control over that info for any hearing.

  79. This is my opinion of Ron Paul. In some ways he is much like Obama. He loves RUNNING for president and receiving all the adoration and attention, but I sense that once in office he would be very disappointing to his followers. I don’t think he would follow through on the majority of his campaign promises, but then claim that it is all congress’s fault. In fact, I don’t even think he truly wants to be president. He merely craves attention.
    There are certain qualities in the man that I admire and respect… yet many that scare me. One thing that appalls me is that the majority of his followers seem to think he has messiah like qualities (where have we heard that before?) and they get very animated (in fact down right nasty) in their defense of him. He’s merely a man.

  80. Interested Bystander

    Pat commented:

    “Ron Paul went full nutter in his closing speech.even more than I expected.”

    Yeah buddy, standing up for personal liberty, freedom and the Constitution sounds like someone who “went full nutter”.

    Pat, you might want to look down, because your “hammer and sickle” are showing.

  81. Interested Bystander

    Real quickly:

    Paul recieved 21% of the vote WITH everyone from the media, “talking heads”, and the other candidates targeting him.

    I believe that IF the media wasn’t portraying him in such a negative light, Paul would have won in a landslide.

    1 in every 5 voters in such a NEGATIVE and “scarey” atmosphere says a lot to me.

    Keep up the fight for LIBERTY Dr Paul.

  82. Drudge’s link about the court order re: the Obama GA eligiblity wasn’t bad. For example:

    “Despite the White House being forced to release a purported copy of Obama’s birth certificate last year, the controversy has yet to completely die down.”

    gives emphasis to the legitimate questioning by the experts about that document that suddenly appeared….without any original documents to back it up.

  83. citizenwells

    Thanks Zach.

  84. “Pat, you might want to look down, because your “hammer and sickle” are showing.”

    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/

  85. Local radio says Paul walked away with Zero delegates from Iowa.
    True?

  86. citizenwells

    You may know this by now.
    Alex Jones’ InfoWars is linking to the CW article on the GA ballot case.

    http://www.infowars.com/birthers-hail-judges-decision-that-could-depose-obama/

    “The case, Farrar v Obama”

    https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/tag/david-farrar-et-al-vs-barack-obama/

  87. citizenwells | January 4, 2012 at 5:43 pm |

    Hey Hey!

  88. observer | January 4, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    Drudge’s link about the court order re: the Obama GA eligiblity wasn’t bad.
    *********************
    My impression was the same, observer.
    As to the idea of presenting the fraudulent SS no. issue in the lawsuit, I’ve been thinking about it and have to agree that this approach could catch them off guard. The case would have to be very well presented – above reproach – and I am not certain that Orly is the one to do it. God bless her, as she is trying desperately to save the Republic, but there seem to have been possible problems in the past with presentation, etc. I do not mean this in a critical way. Thankfully someone is willing to risk life and treasure to do something.

    Also, a possible retort by Obama could be that he had to use various numbers, as he was operating in the CIA for a period of years. I’m not saying that is true, but we already knows he lies and has cohorts who back him up.

    Those who are controlling him have tried to lock up everything in any way possible. When a dictator comes to power, it becomes very difficult to unseat him, because he controls the means which could be used to bring exposure.

  89. citizenwells

    Pat1789.
    This is especially good since I put at the top:

    “Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

    “Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

    “Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

    I am certain that many are unaware of this….perhaps Santorum.

  90. Do not usually comment, especially when I know most do not agree but this may shed some light on Ron Paul’s delegates.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winner-iowa-caucuses-strategy-201201#ixzz1iWo72jbY
    Another thing that I have wonder about, the media implies constantly that his supporters are all young, well thanks for that as I have long since past that point, but the question is how old are those sending support to his campaign. I always thought the young were broke .

  91. Pat 1789 | January 4, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/
    **************************
    The worst part is that I have never heard when Paul disavowed himself from those mentioned above. He willingly accepts money and other support from these types regularly and seems to be proud of it.

  92. It would be great if this eligibility GA hearing would get a whole bunch of coverage and that it could be used to stage as many personalities with their various types of knowledge that refute what Obama has presented to the public about his history. I hope they will call on such people as Tom Fife to introduce the public to the fix that was in on this guy as far back as 1992….by the commies.

    P.S. During the upcoming Repub debates, if given a chance, hopefully somebody will call in with the pointed question for Romney, asking him if he was born of two citizen parents and how and when their U.S. citizenship came about.

  93. Pat 1789 | January 4, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    Local radio says Paul walked away with Zero delegates from Iowa.
    True?
    **********************
    Pat, read this:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/04/national/w000327S17.DTL#ixzz1iVtozKHD

  94. This is really an excellent explanation of how Orly plans to go forward in cases and why she is not concentrating on precedent cases that could be interpreted by the court via the defense as non holding “dicta” and other interpretations used in the earlier cases could be accepted as “holding” by the court. She’s savvy about this.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/02/atty-orly-taitz-upcoming-actions-on-six-obama-eligibility-cases/

    This is what I was talking about….good news….focus, focus:

    Taitz stated that she has raised the issues of the social security number Obama has been using as well as the alleged forgery of his long-form birth certificate, which, if proven to be crimes, would be compelling reasons to keep his name off of the ballot.

    That is wise and would keep things from the weeds and permitting delaying tactics and more confusion for the ignorant public by the defense.

  95. Cabby and Pat,

    Cabby – AZ | January 4, 2012 at 5:58 pm |

    Pat 1789 | January 4, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/
    **************************
    The worst part is that I have never heard when Paul disavowed himself from those mentioned above. He willingly accepts money and other support from these types regularly and seems to be proud of it.
    _______________________________________________________
    I am not sure how to express myself. I am apprehensive because I’m pretty sure it will be taken the wrong way. Chuck Baldwin stated:

    “I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am not a racist. (And I invite anyone to ask any of the numerous members of minority races that attend my church to verify that!) Neither do I believe that the leaders of the old Confederacy were racists. In fact, I hold men such as General Robert E. Lee and General T.J. “Stonewall” Jackson in highest regard.”
    ______________________________________________________

    I live in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. There were virtually NO slave owners in this part of the country where I live. There were hardly any plantations located here. Mostly plain country people. Yet many, many pour men fought and died here in order to preserve state’s rights. They were brave men. Though I am in no way a Ron Paul fan, I believe the web site that was linked here is from an obot , (or at the very least a politically correct liberal).

    Our country used to be referred to as “These United States”, not “The United States”, inferring we still had rights apart from Washington DC. Something changed.

  96. More good reasoning from Orly:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/02/atty-orly-taitz-upcoming-actions-on-six-obama-eligibility-cases/

    but I believe it will take more than just something that the court mentioned in Minor; it would also take a holding, that there was criminality, that the birth certificate and social security number were not valid, and the Congress and judges did not have that information until fairly recently. In that situation, like Watergate, the new evidence of criminality would lead a judge to rule that Obama is not eligible to be on the ballot. It would be easier to justify to the public. People would feel uneasy if an elected President were thrown off the ballot on a technicality, on something mentioned in a case, that is 130 years ago, but it would be easier to justify to 310,000,000 people if there is evidence of crimes having been committed, this is something that anyone can understand and the public would feel is enough of a reason to remove him from the ballot. I think most people would agree with that.

  97. SueQ | January 4, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    I am not sure how to express myself. I am apprehensive because I’m pretty sure it will be taken the wrong way……
    **************************************
    SueQ, you need not fear that with me, because I do understand the point you are making. There are many questions that will always remain concerning the Civil War. My statement was directed more towards what I’ve seen personally rather than from the article posted by Pat.

    Types like Code Pink, neonazis, etc., seem to gravitate toward Paul, and he, to my knowledge, accepts their money without ever repudiating some of their anarchist views. I guess he doesn’t do it, because he rather feels more at one with some of them than he does the ordinary conservative American.

    Although Paul is a registered Republican, he is much more aligned with the Libertarian Party, whose views I cannot fully espouse. You certainly hit it head on with one of your earlier posts in which you surmise that if Paul were to become president, he could well turn out to be a great disappointment even to his supporters. There does seem to be quite a lot of ego there. Maybe he needs that sense of accomplishment at this stage of his life.

  98. observer | January 4, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    More good reasoning from Orly….
    **********************
    Thanks for sharing the latest on Orly. I seldom go to her site, but it is not intentional. It sounds as though she is on top of her game. She is one plucky, courageous lady to go against this regime. I do believe that a much better chance exists in state courts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s