Rudy is the best candidate simply because it’s COMMON SENSE. Low taxes, strong military defense, and an ideology of conservatism that made this country the symbol of freedom, power and success. The amazing transformation that New York City witnessed under his leadership is exactly the transformation the United States of America needs at this critical cross road in American history. America needs a leader who has proven leadership skills, common sense ideas founded in conservative roots and someone who can actually do it and not just say it. I support Rudy Giuliani and will stand with him until the end.

John Edwards is the Ralph Nader (Spoiler) in 2008. Selfish, self-centered; does nothing for uniting Democrats. People like John “Spoiler” Edwards beginning to look more and more like Bill Clinton: Saying and doing anything to get elected, no matter what the people or results indicate.

I voted early yesterday, and I voted for Rudy Giuliani!

I REFUSE to vote for the “Author of Amnesty”, John McCain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rudy is going to win!

Jason Bradley
http://www.ExcellenceInAmerica.com

I would like to comment, following a discussion yesterday on the brainwashing of America on the illegal immigration problem. McCain & others seem to have lead people to believe that if Mitt Romney is elected & becomes the first person to actually enforce the laws & not reward illegals with visa’s, greencards & citizenship, then there will be many service jobs that they are doing, that Americans simply will not do. This type of logic simply is not true for many reasons. Just one of these is that Americans do not understand the LEGAL immigration process. Americans are NOT against people coming here, but they want it done legally so we know who is here. I can tell you that there is a very very long line of people waiting patiently to come here LEGALLY and when there is a person like Romney in the White House, who makes it clear to the world that if you want to come here, after background checks, interviews, going through the legal process, you’re likely to be welcomed. For every person who came here illegally who is deported, there is a replacement in line who will want to come here legally to do exactly the same job. It is both the illegal problem & the legal process which Romney will fix, but he will not reward criminals who have come here illegaly. McCains plan is totally flawed & will make the problem even bigger than it is now.
Last point, it is not just Mexicans. There is no malice towards Mexicans who work hard and are good people. Romney’s no reward policy is directed towards ANYONE who is here illegally, no matter what country they arrived from. There is a big group of non latino’s who have also broken the law & jumped the legal line.
I hope people want to solve the problem Washington refuses to and vote for Mitt Romney who is the only candidate who will fix it.

One can not differentiate from the modern day democrat, socialist, or communist. In present day U.S.A and world politics there is no difference between any of them. Perhaps that is why the American Communist Party supports the Democratic nominee in presidential, congressional and senatorial races. Hmmm. Just a coincidence maybe. I don’t think so. Democrat ideology is right out of the book of the communist manifesto. Every time this system is tried throughout the world it fails or the government becomes so powerful it suppresses its citizens like cattle. The Soviet Union is the greatest example of the fall of it and being the birthplace of such ideology it shows its destructive and oppressive nature. On of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was because it fundamentally was wrong, it relied on control and the restriction of personal freedom and advancement. That is why the Soviet Union fell and that is why the United States thrived. However the United States that was once the home of freedom and the ideology of the founding fathers is slowly but surly evaporating.

Why is their no difference between a Democrat a socialist and a communist?

Well you decide :

Democrat Ideology

Large bureaucratic government

High and over taxation

Wealth distribution - take from the rich and middle class and give to the poor

Higher dependence on the government through social programs

Restriction of personal freedoms - abolishment of 2nd amendment, etc;

Elimination over time of the U.S. constitution

Control

Appeasement

Restriction of free enterprise

Elimination of faith, god or a higher power in any pubic and private setting

Political correctness - founded within the Soviet Union

Destruction of white men

Pessimism - no hope for the future

Suppression

Elimination of opportunity for the betterment of one self and family

Open boarders - illegal immigrants given access to the same rights as U.S. citizens

Universal Identity - Everyone needs to think the same way, do the same things, drive the same car

Create a weak America in the eyes of the world

Collectivist / Socialist / Communist Ideology

Large bureaucratic government

Universal welfare and healthcare

Wealth distribution - take from the rich and middle class and give to the poor

Control

Restriction of free enterprise

Elimination of faith, god or a higher power in any public and private setting

Political correctness

Pessimism - no hope for the future

Suppression - of all ideas, freedom, difference

Elimination of opportunity for the betterment of one self and family

Elimination of freedom

See any difference between the two.

I didn’t think so.

It is impossible to distinguish the two ideology’s because they are one in the same and it’s especially hard to argue against when the truth is down in black and white, liberals can’t stand the truth. Current Democrat policy is founded in Collectivist, Socialist ideology. The party of Harry Truman is therefore dead and the Democrat party is no more. The United States is under attack within our own borders from the very thing we tried to destroy; Collectivist, Socialist, Communist ideology. This ideology thrives in the Democrat party, the media, and private and public schools, universities and colleges.

I always like to make the analogy of Democrats and their partners, Socialist and Communists and all those associated, such as left wing university professors who bow at the feat of Bill Clinton and his cronies as the Borg on Star Trek. Yeah, yeah I was a trekky back in the day. However, I think the similarity is uncanny. If you’ re not familiar with Star Trek and the Borg I’ll give you a short and simple synopsis. The Borg go around throughout the galaxy assimilating beings they come into contact with into their collective and they then become part of a whole, unable to make individual choices and are therefore bond by the collective. The Borg inject their victims and merge any human or being with machine. After they are assimilated they are no longer individuals but part of a collective. It is this ideology that is utilized by Socialist, Communist ideology; a system of collectivism and the destruction of individualism, freedom, and control of course without all the injections and merging with machines… for now. So the theory here is watch out for the Borg (Democrat Party).

“John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most “electable” Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole did not lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.” –Ann Coulter

“If nominated, John McCain will destroy the Republican Party.”- Rush Limbaugh

“Florida will be the beginning of the end of Juan McLame’s career of fighting for amnesty, teaming up with liberals against tax cuts, giving your social security away to illegals and being the single biggest backstabber to the conservative movement.”- Me

Let us count McCain’s conservative credentials:

-he wrote the bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants (co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy)
-he voted to give your social security money to illegal immigrants
-he voted against the Bush tax cuts multiple times (he has since flip-flopped and has campaigned as a lifelong tax-cutter)
-he routinely engages in Democratic class warfare against big companies in America
-as recently as December 2007 he admitted “he does not know the economy very well” and needed to get better at it
-he wrote the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that was declared to be an unconstitutional infringement of the 1st Amendment (co-sponsored by ultra-liberal Democrat Russ Feingold)
-he was called the “worst 2nd amendment candidate” by the president of the NRA
-wrote a bill (co-sponsored by his buddy Lieberman) imposing a massive tax on energy which, according to the Heritage Foundation, would drastically raise the price of gasoline and put many US companies out of business
-supports radical global warming legislation which involved him voting with every Democrat
-he joined forces with Democrats (Gang of 14) to block the Senate Republican’s attempt to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges
-he joined liberals to fight against a federal marriage amendment supporting the institution of traditional marriage
-campaigning in 2000, he famously described Christian leaders as “agents of intolerance”
-he filed an amicus brief against pro-life advocates in Wisconsin
-he met with leading Democrats in 2004 to discuss the possibility of being John Kerry’s Vice-President
-with most of these positions, unfortunately, McCain hasn’t flip-flopped and vows to fight for these liberal causes as president
-if I wanted to elect a Democrat, I would vote for Hillary or Obama

Let us now look at some of his endorsements:

-New York Times
-Geraldo Rivera
-Joe Lieberman
-Bill and Hillary Clinton
-Juan Hernandez (Mexican, pro-amnesty zealot who now ADVISES McCain)
-nearly every member of the liberal media (most Newspapers have endorsed him for this very reason, phrasing his strength as an ability to “attract the support of liberals”)

If you are a Republican, do not let the most liberal elements of the media tell you who to vote for and who is “electable”. Electability polls fluctuate wildly every week (+16 this very week in favor of Romney). A recent example: Bob Dole was considered far and away the “most electable” Republican because he was respected by Democrats and because of his military service.

Voters in Florida and around the country, if you are a conservative, consider whether McCain’s career record of liberal positions and ineptitude is actually the best you can hope for. Consider if he is the most electable candidate even if many prominent conservatives have vowed to “sit out” this election if he’s the nominee.

Spread the word to other conservatives before the liberals on TV and in the newspapers steal this election away from the conservative movement (lower taxes, stronger families, stronger military, no amnesty).

So Proud to Early Vote for Rudy!

He is the best, no question about it.

On Friday nights Hannity and Colmes:

Rudy says, “I am the candidate that has been tested and proven in both of those areas and it seems to me that the people in Florida understand that message”
It is true! Think about it… McCain has national security and Romney has economic, but Rudy has been tested in BOTH!!!

Taxes and Fees

A survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found Massachusetts led the nation during Romney’s first year, raising fees and fines by $501 million. New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million.

“We renamed him ‘Fee-Fee.’ He was so unwilling to raise taxes that he was wanting to put all these fees in place instead,” Hachey said.

“It’s a shell game,” said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. “He (Mitt Romney) can still say he didn’t raise taxes, but fees are taxes by another name. It’s a trick.”

Romney’s fees could also grate on some of those he is courting as he seeking the GOP nomination, including gun owners.

Under Romney’s plan for Massachusetts, the cost of registering firearms would have jumped from $25 to $75. He also called for increases in the cost of firearm identification cards, application fees for a license to carry firearms, and gun dealer fees.

Gun owners said they felt unfairly targeted by Romney’s proposed increases. Democratic lawmakers applauded Romney’s proposal — ultimately raising the cost of gun licenses to $100.

“We certainly shouldn’t be paying anything for our Second Amendment right, because it’s a civil right,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owner’s Action League.

Boston.com - August 2007

2nd Amendment

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”

And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state’s strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O’Brien. “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Today, as he explores a presidential bid, Romney is sending a very different message on gun issues, which are far more prominent in Republican national politics than in Massachusetts.

He now touts his work as governor to ease restrictions on gun owners. He proudly describes himself as a member of the NRA — though his campaign won’t say when he joined. And Friday, at his campaign’s request, top officials of the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation led him around one of the country’s biggest gun shows.

Boston.com - January 2007

Abortion

The National Review article, by John J. Miller, also noted that Romney said during his gubernatorial campaign that he would “fully protect a woman’s right to choose” abortion but now says his “political philosophy is pro-life.” And it quoted Romney adviser Michael Murphy as saying: “He’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”

WashingtonPost.com - June 2005

When he ran for US Senate in liberal-leaning Massachusetts in 1994, Romney said abortion should be ‘’safe and legal.” As a candidate for governor in 2002, he said he would keep the state’s abortion rights laws intact and has since said that he kept that promise. But this year, as he began preparing a potential run for president, Romney said he is ”in a different place” than he was when he first ran for office in 1994 and has stressed that he is ”personally prolife.”

Boston.com - July 2005

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43TVmSoaQ7c

Like Frist, John McCain, the Republican senator with the highest national profile, has reversed his position on the issue and now supports an expansion of the research.

“It’s a very complex scientific issue,” McCain (Ariz.) told NBC’s Tim Russert earlier this year. “But for us to throw away opportunities to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and many others I think would be a mistake.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), another possible presidential contender, is a longtime critic of the House approach.

“The vote in the House to allow taxpayer-funded destruction of young human lives is deeply troubling,” Brownback said. “We all have a duty to protect the innocent, and this vote represents a failure to recognize the scientific fact that stem-cell research that destroys embryos kills young human children.”

TheHill.com - October 2005

That doesn’t sound like a 100% Pro-Life voting record to me.

In 2004, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage:

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary — and un-Republican. “The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans,” McCain said.

But yesterday, ABC reported that McCain confided to Jerry Falwell that he would support such an amendment:

McCain “reconfirmed” to Falwell that he would support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman if a federal court were to strike down state constitutional bans on gay marriage.

ThinkProgress.org - March 2006

So which is it Senator McCain, for or against an amendment???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2eZ4-8a3zA

SEND AN EMAIL TO JOHN MCCAIN AND TELL HIM HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR HIS DISHONESTY!! TELL HIM WHAT YOU THINK OF HIS LIE ABOUT ROMNEY AND LET HIM KNOW HE HAS LOST YOUR VOTE! TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME, LETS LET HIM KNOW WE WON’T TOLERATE THESE KINDS OF DIRTY TRICKS ANY LONGER!

HERE’S A LINK TO HIS “CONTACT US” ON HIS WEBSITE (You don’t have to use your real name etc. just send him a little word to let him know how disgusted we are)!

http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/