Bucking his own party, Asheville City Council member and 11th District Republican Congressional candidate Carl Mumpower proclaimed “I am not for sale” in a Good Friday press release decrying his party’s and the Bush administration’s attempts to grant retroactive immunity to telecoms as part of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Mumpower said he opposes a controversial component of FISA that would grant additional retroactive immunity to large telecommunications companies (such as Verizon and AT&T). Many telecoms — without warrants or legal authority — have assisted the government in bugging phone calls, intercepting e-mails and monitoring the Internet traffic of untold numbers of American citizens as part of the war on terror, he noted. A recently passed House bill removed the immunity provisions, but President Bush is threatening to veto any legislation that does not contain such safeguards. A Senate bill passed in February contains the immunity provisions Mumpower opposes.
The two bills must either be reconciled in a conference committee, or else the Senate must pass the House version, which is an unlikely scenario.
“The Democrats — with the exception of Heath and a few others — are right on this one, plain and simple,” commented Mumpower, noting that Democratic incumbent Heath Shuler and Mumpower’s Republican primary opponents, John Armor and Spence Campbell, support the immunity provision.
Mumpower, who has sent out previous press releases on the subject, has stated that many of his own backers are upset with him over this stance.
“My own supporters are coming after me on this,” he said on March 19. “I must have received a half a dozen angry letters already today. But it would be wrong to back down on my principles just to say whatever it takes to get elected. When I say I’m independent, I mean it and I will not sidestep the right thing for the easy thing.”
Expanding on the legislation, Mumpower commented in his March 19 release: “Intelligence failures, the kind which resulted in the horrors of 9/11, are often used to stress the importance of nonsense like the warrantless wiretapping provisions found in FISA. They more accurately reflect a failure in analysis and interdepartmental cooperation than a lack of information. The various government agencies trying to protect us can’t process and act on the information they have — avoiding accountability and applying situational ethics to our system of checks and balances through FISA is reactive versus responsible leadership.
“Evidently my colleagues have not looked deep enough into existing FISA law (18 USC 2530-d and 50 USC 1806-f) to understand that telecoms already have immunity where they acted ‘pursuant to written government certification or where they prove they acted in good faith’ and that they are free to present any evidence of their defense in secret,” Mumpower added his March 19 salvo. “There is a difference in having reasonable immunity for doing the right thing and a blank check for taking short-cuts and ignoring the law.”
“Voters who want someone willing to abandon his principles to artificially support the Republican party need to look elsewhere,” he said. “I am an authentic conservative. I’m not a party hack willing to fall into the line when I’m told to, especially considering how often my party has betrayed its core values in recent years. The additional retroactive immunity provisions found in FISA are a con job. Yet, normally ‘right-thinking’ Republicans are sadly just falling ‘right-into-line’ and in the process, sacrificing their integrity, liberty, and the Constitution for fear-based arguments and the good graces of party leaders.”
— Hal L. Millard, staff writer
I am a progressive Democat on most issues but I applaud Carl Mumpower for taking the right stance on this issue. We can’t let fear mongering and Big Brother policies rule the day and must adhere to the Constitution! In the Nixon years, they said they were only spying for our security but later it was discovered that the Admin. was spying on political opponents and civil rights activists; a total abuse of power! If we sacrifice liberty for security, we shall have neither, as the saying goes. Kudos, Carl!
I rarely praise Mumpower, but in this case, he is to commended for sticking to what’s right and for supporting the rule of law and opposing ‘immunity’ for the telecoms. The whole idea is an affront against common sense and propriety. First Bush claims the telecoms did nothing wrong, then shows a willingness to increase harm to Americans by vetoing a bill that does not give immunity to telecoms for ‘doing nothing wrong.’
The Congress has already indemnified the telecoms, there is no lapse in security and no demonstrable reason to give these companies a free pass. Except for one reason. The only reason Bush and his lackeys are fighting this tooth-and-nail is to prevent the public from knowing just how deep the criminality and treason of Bush goes. There is NO OTHER REASON.
So to those that support Bush’s demand for retroactive immunity at the expense of national security: Why? Why are you people willing to assist with illegalities and the avoidance of accountability? No good American would, so what’s your lame excuse?
Mumpower is dead on! That’s what I love about him.
A true conservative that will not give in to power structure Republicans or Democrats. A person that is principled and does what he says he is going to do.
Great article.
Chad Nesbitt
Hats off to Mumpower, he has shown at least a vague understanding of the fourth amendment.
The article, well written, eposes John Armor and Heath Shuler as being complicent, in the further destruction of the Republic, by supporting Bush, in his continued assault against all liberties.
What Mumpower doesn’t understand yet and soon will, as noble and well intentioned as he is, the whole nation, has operated under “The Emergency War Powers Act” which essentially installs the President as a dictator who rules by decree, through executive orders, which of course, then empowers alphabet agencies; like the FBI CIA, IRS to simply carry out edicts and commands from his majesty, all in the name of a false flag “State of national emergency”, which has existed since the nation went belly up in April of 1933. http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html
Mumpower does not know this and is trying to hold a tiger by the tail and to the supposed letter of the law. What he doesn’t know is this is the land of OZ, law has not existed here in this socialist congressional Penal Colony since at least 1948. What Mumpower also doesn’t know is that U.S.C. Title 18 was never passed in positive law by the “do nothing congress” in 1947, it essentially means nothing.
I have to laugh at those that still believe the constitution is in effect, as the thing has been systematically dimantled.when all Federal Article 3 courts were done away with in 1948, with the creation of District Courts of the United States. FISA COURTS, Illegally created in 1978, are comprised of 7 men in a secret star chambers who rubber stamp what the executive branch decrees as in the interest of national security.
Mumpower well intentioned and noble like Don Quixote, is swinging at windmills, just like anybody who thinks the constitution is still in effect and that their U.S. citizen token vote can rectify and return the nation back to the rule of law, at this very late juncture.
Even Dionysis’s take here was correct . Mr. Millard is to be appalled for exposing both Shuler and the blowhard so called constitutional expert John Armor, as neocons in league with Lord Bush.
Mumpower’s efforts in this matter, however well intentioned, are tantamount, to reliving ones self against a 100 mph gale wind.
Never the less Mumpower is a patriot, once he gets to Washington they will whittle away at him in the name of national security. Carl might prove to be rather volitaile when he finds out the real truth, than his soft spoken manner suggests of him.
The country is gone!!! Unless the Executive branch is reeled in, Agencies are dismantled and strict constitutional law returned to, then this ship is sunk!! This wishful thinking will never be allowed to happen, because they will just crate a new 911 and so on an so on, like the false state of national emergency that has existed for the 75 years, which of course is the best way to circumvent the constitution and the law.
And all the little sheeple say Oh great King bring us peace and safety and the Lord says sudden destruction cometh upon them. Can I get an A-men.
Since I know that at least 87% of the U.S sheep population are asleep and cannot understand the concepts I expressed in my last post,
I have included a forward from the 1973 Senate report 93-549 proving the points I made, for the 13% who are not damaged by fluoride poisoning and Fox news matrix propaganda.
To those that have enough of a concentration span left, here is the link for the whole senate report, followed by the forward from the report.
Believing that a constitutional government exists today is like believing in the tooth fairy.
If a government has no lawful money, it cannot by default have lawful government either.
Maybe Mr.Mumpower can read this report and get mad as hell along with the 13% of us out here that realize there is a little man behind the curtain.
I have also included a link to a 13 part You Tube film called esoteric agenda which I strongly urge everyone to view.
I hope this helps lift the veil of ignorance. Senate report http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep1.html
Esoteric agenda http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1131942400352901009
FOWARD
Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.
With the melting of the cold war–the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.
The Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency was created1 to examine the consequences of terminating the declared states of national emergency that now prevail; to recommend what steps the Congress should take to ensure that the termination can be accomplished without adverse effect upon the necessary tasks of governing; and, also, to recommend ways in which the United States can meet future emergency situations with speed and effectiveness but without relinquishment of congressional oversight and control.
In accordance with this mandate, the Special Committee-in conjunction with the Executive branch, expert constitutional authorities, as well as former high officials of this Government-is now engaged
The down side to this is that the Mumpower/liberal approach of not granting immunity will allow the ACLU to sue these companies into the ground for doing what they almost surely believed they ought have done for the sake of their country’s national security. Had they followed the law perfectly, there’s good reason to expect that innocent people would have died as a result.
There is no ‘perfect’ solution to this, but their is, as is usual in life, a lesser evil. This time, Mumpower has not chosen it.
He is correct, however, that he will pay a personal price for this. If it doesn’t come in May, it will come in November, when the popular incumbent runs to his right on national security.
“The down side to this is that the Mumpower/liberal approach of not granting immunity will allow the ACLU to sue these companies into the ground for doing what they almost surely believed they ought have done for the sake of their country’s national security. ”
Ridiculous. The telecoms are protected (financially, thanks to taxpayers) from litigation if they can demonstrate they believed they were responding legally to the government’s request. This protection falls under the ‘Safety’ amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2003; in addition, the Schumer Amendment expands such protections.
“Had they followed the law perfectly, there’s good reason to expect that innocent people would have died as a result.”
Really? What is your basis for making this claim? This administration has a documented history of using either specious, antiquated or (in some cases) patently fabricated scare threats; if there was any substantiation for the notion that telecom illegalities saved “innocent people,” this administration would proclaim it from every venue. Show how you can make this claim factually.
“There is no ‘perfect’ solution to this, but their is, as is usual in life, a lesser evil. This time, Mumpower has not chosen it.”
More nonsense. Mumpower did that only thing that anyone who cares about the law, about responsibility, about accountability and about the Constitution could do, if they had even a shred of integrity.
You’ve not even tried to offer a ‘lame excuse’, but rather simply reiterated the illogical twaddle emanating from the White House and Bush’s anti-Constitutional minions in Congress.
No cigar.
Cmitchz
What planet do you live on? Mumpower’s approach is deemed liberal by you because he is standing up for Due process and the fourth amendment and the constitution? Mumpower by trying restrict an out of control executive branch, who has used private companies for surveillance of the hapless U.S slave population, in classical fascist form and which has literally usurped all constitutional power, is labeled as liberal by you?
I’m incredulous
There can only be one explanation for this insanity, which Ive seen before, you must be listening to too much of the oxycontin pill head Lush Dimbo, or Fox news and ORiely or maybe a combination of both.
You actually think terrorist’s use land lines, cell telphone’s and the net to formulate attacks?
Your statement that innocent lives can be saved by national surveillance is the statement of a deluded individual.
With over 30.000 illegals coming across the border, each month, you actually think that terrorist attacks have been thwarted by national surveillance programs, which sole purpose, is to spy track and control a civilian population? Heck, as Matt Mittian reported several years ago, illegal’s have been found working at commercial airline aircraft servicing centers and installations. You think wiretaps and eaves dropping will stop this?
You have the audacity to brand Mumpower as a liberal because he wishes to restrict domestic tyranny by the executive branch against the American people under the guise of national security, are you out of your mind?
People like you are not conservatives. a term which in a political sense at least, inheritably means to restrict government power, instead of giving it a free rein to engage in activates that resemble the KGB in Communist Russia.
What else are you for, taking people like Mumpower to Fema concentration camps, for political dissent, against the fascist Orwellian neocon agenda, which you espouse?
Bill O Reilly is already saying anyone who speaks out aganist the War or the 911 fabale should be incarcerated and tried for treason.
People like you are whom Franklin spoke of when he said, “those who trade liberty for peace and security deserve neither.
You’re a neocon, its ten minutes to Limbaugh rain man, go get your fix. Simply incredible!
Incidentaly the lesser of 2 evils is still evil neocon
Cmitchz
Maybe your in favor of the newest police state move in Washington Dc
Called Knock and talk http://www.infowars.com/?p=1032
““Had they followed the law perfectly, there’s good reason to expect that innocent people would have died as a result.”
Really? What is your basis for making this claim? This administration has a documented history of using either specious, antiquated or (in some cases) patently fabricated scare threats;”
What’s that got to do with the decision made by the telecoms? Are you seriously saying that the telecoms are in on some grand Bush conspiracy to usher in a fascistic state?
“if there was any substantiation for the notion that telecom illegalities saved “innocent people,” this administration would proclaim it from every venue. Show how you can make this claim factually.”
That is a ridiculous assumption to make. This administration has blown so many opportunities to toot its own horn, or just plain defend itself and its policies, that it isn’t even funny.
That is the only way the legions of hysterical liberals have gotten away with painting them, just as you have, as some Nazi-esque regime whose defense policies aren’t even designed to, much less successful in, saving lives. Such a view is preposterous on its face.
cmitchz the neocon Said
What’s that got to do with the decision made by the telecoms? Are you seriously saying that the telecoms are in on some grand Bush conspiracy to usher in a fascistic state?
Read it and weep Nazi
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/27/mcconell-radio-address/
This should answer your question cmitchz
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1044
““Had they followed the law perfectly, there’s good reason to expect that innocent people would have died as a result.”
Really? What is your basis for making this claim? This administration has a documented history of using either specious, antiquated or (in some cases) patently fabricated scare threats;”
“What’s that got to do with the decision made by the telecoms? Are you seriously saying that the telecoms are in on some grand Bush conspiracy to usher in a fascistic state?”
I’m not saying that at all, you are. What I said, and am still saying, is that the only viable reason for Bush to be willing to “put Americans at risk” (his words) by vetoing anything that does not immunize the telecoms from doing what Bush repeatedly stated was “nothing wrong” is his personal fear of what will emerge during the discovery phase. Bush has changed the rationale for this immunity request repeatedly, and each rationale has been repudiated factually. But hey, at least you are able to, once again, avoid answering anything but instead throw out another question (i.e. the Socratic method). And you have still not provided one iota of factual support for your claim. None. Zilch. Nada.
“if there was any substantiation for the notion that telecom illegalities saved “innocent people,” this administration would proclaim it from every venue. Show how you can make this claim factually.”
“That is a ridiculous assumption to make. This administration has blown so many opportunities to toot its own horn, or just plain defend itself and its policies, that it isn’t even funny.”
Again, no substantiation, just an opinion, devoid of anything to support it. “Blown opportunities to blow it’s own horn…?” What might those be? This administration has taken every opportunity to claim some kind of security triumph, none of which ultimately had merit. This is incredibly easy to verify, unless you prefer not to know anything factually.
That is the only way the legions of hysterical liberals have gotten away with painting them, just as you have, as some Nazi-esque regime whose defense policies aren’t even designed to, much less successful in, saving lives. Such a view is preposterous on its face.”
Let’s see how much substance is in this paragraph…’legions of hysterical liberals’…’such a view is preposterous on its face’…again, all opinions. No facts. As far as being ‘painted’ as ‘Nazi-esque’, that is a legacy of Bush’s 7.5 years of attacking the Constitution, chronic lying, signing statements, torture, illegal wiretapping and on and on. No one made this stuff up, pal. These are facts (yes, I realize you don’t like them, but hey…). Personally, I liken him more to Spain’s Franco than Hitler; fascist, but with a more ‘corporate plutocracy’ view.
Like a good little wingnut automaton, you filled your rants with all the right buzz words (‘liberal’, ‘ACLU’, ‘innocent people’, ‘national security’) but have demonstrated the sheer inability of Bush lackeys to make any kind of objective, factual case. Ad hominem attacks, diversions and fantasies are all you have.
Yawn.
The only real inability I have to sit on a computer for 24 hours a day laying out the obvious truth in all its excruciating minutiae. I am not going to sit here and explain to the Alex Jones Fan Club how intercepting terrorist communications save lives.
I hope Carl Mumpower buys himself a nice big bar of soap.
Simply brilliant Dionysis!!!
Bush does now seem to be concerned about inculpatory discovery, this is smacking of a Watergate style cover-up.
Could it be that when the flashlight is turned on and the rock uncovered, as the corporate insects scurry for cover, that a very ugly reality of 7.5 years of lying and spying on the American public will be revealed?
Could it also be that Lord Bush could be brought up on charges of treason against the people and the constitution the United States?
No wonder Bush and Cheney have made contingency escape plans to move to Paraguay, just like the Nazi’s of old.
The people of Paraguay’s being none to happy about the fact those two have bought large tracts of land over Paraguay’s largest fresh water aquifer.
Excellent points Dionysis , If I did not know any better Id say you might be a lawyer.
As for cmitchz he’s simply an idiot, I strongly suspect my comments about him being a mindless ditto head were spot on. Scary thought is there are 20 million of them, that tune into that idiot weekly, to receive propaganda mind control and demagoguery
“The only real inability I have to sit on a computer for 24 hours a day laying out the obvious truth in all its excruciating minutiae. I am not going to sit here and explain to the Alex Jones Fan Club how intercepting terrorist communications save lives.”
Translation: “There is no way I can substantiate squat factually, so instead, I’ll feign ‘lack of time’ and slither off.”
Bye now!
“Excellent points Dionysis , If I did not know any better Id say you might be a lawyer.”
Thanks for the nice words. I’m just a guy trying to do what I can to make this country a better place, one wingnut at a time.
And I’m not a lawyer.
Mumpower’s hardly a liberal. There is the Republican position on immunity and the conservative position on immunity. Bush and the neo-con Republicans supporting him have convinced the American people they are “conservatives” but, in reality, they are not. They do not believe in a small, limited federal government or in the enumerated protections of individual liberties that the Constitution affords. Mumpower does. So do these folks — all highly respected conservatives:
The invasion of America: Creeping intrusions against our privacy rights are an assault on the Constitution
by Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,1665050.story
Granting immunity rewards lawlessness
By Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/B898B48CBFBE8434862573FD0002459F?OpenDocument
“The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns. — David Keene, Chairman of The American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest conservative advocacy group
“If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans’ personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act’s controversial record search provisions.” — Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation
“When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans’ private information,” said Barr. “However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans’ private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism.” — Former U.S. Representative and conservative Republican Bob Barr
“I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches.” — Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank)
“Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping.” — Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
“But the very fact that the FBI has to do a little paperwork beforehand slows them down and makes them think for a minute. It doesn’t slow them down as much as the president has made out to believe, because there’s a wrinkle in it saying that if it’s a real emergency and you have to get this information, then you can get it and get the approval within 72 hours afterwards. So there’s always this struggle in a war between liberty and security…But just as FDR later made a mistake with the eight saboteurs and hanged them all, and just as we made a terrible mistake with the Japanese-Americans in World War II and have apologized for that. During wartime, we have this excess of security and afterwards we apologize. And that’s why I offended a lot of my conservative and hard-line friends right after September 11th when they started putting these captured combatants in jail, and said the president can’t seize dictatorial power. And a lot of my friends looked at me like I was going batty. But now we see this argument over excessive security, and I’m with the critics on that. — conservative columnist William Safire
“This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration’s stance that warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency targeting American citizens on American soil is a legal exercise of the president’s inherent powers as commander in chief, even though it violates the clear language of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was written to regulate wartime surveillance.” — conservative columnist George Will
And some good video clips:
FISA: Protecting America or executive power grab? (video and transcript of interview with conservative Republican Bruce Fein, former Reagan department Justice Department official)
http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=870&thisview=item
A Veto of the FISA Bill Endangers Americans (video and transcript) by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC News (okay, Keith Olbermann is no conservative, he’s a feisty commentator and this is a good segment)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021508A.shtml
Thank you.
Thanks to ‘Real Conservative’ for calling these fake ‘conservatives’ out for what they are and for what they are not. It’s galling to hear the braying neo cons, steeped in a kind of ‘cult of personality’ around Bush, describe themselves as conservative, when in fact they’ve engaged in behavior that is inimical to true American conservatism.
To the fake ‘conservatives’: how about a little truth in advertising; you have no right to hijack the term conservative and turn it into a euphemism for blind, unthinking loyalty to a discredited president. If you’re going to call yourself ‘conservative’ define it correctly, i.e. ‘I conserve my mental abilities by rarely thinking beyond lizard brain level’. Thus, I am a conservative.
Thank you, Dionysis, for your cogent and thoughtful analysis and rather adept rebuttal to cmitchz. And hats off, too, to DR.ANTINEOCONUS: I’m guessing you’re rather fun at parties.
It’s nice to see so many people from all parts of the political spectrum come together on this issue. We must be on to something if Chad Nesbitt and a liberal Democrat can both agree ;)
It really bothers me that people of good heart and mind are otherwise so willing to abandon the very principles — enshrined in the Constitution — that make this country great when it suits them politically. Even worse, when they do so not for any noble purpose, but out of fear and blind trust in their leader who, it has been shown repeatedly, plays fast and loose and dangerously with the truth.
I’ve asked a lot of my Republican friends how they feel about the government bugging their phones and they tell me, without batting an eye, that it doesn’t bother them. “If you’re not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about” they say. That’s scary.
And people wonder how the German people could have let Hitler come to power. Hitler was popularly elected and popularly supported. Most German citizens had no problem looking the other way if that’s what it took to feel safe and be prosperous.
Are we that quick to abrogate the very things that guarantee our freedoms and make us special as Americans…to sacrifice our liberties to cover-up the serious crimes of people at the highest levels of government — for the sake of executives at, of all things, the phone companies?
Upton Sinclair once famously said that “When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
I have voted all my life in the presidential race for a Republican. I’ve been one of those folks who has given the President and the Republican Party the benefit of the doubt. I’ve been guilty of looking the other way too…a little bit here and a little bit there. But Bush and those of like mind put a chill down my spine.
In good conscience, I cannot vote for a Republican president this year. We need new leadership. I’ll split the ticket and vote for Obama and Mumpower. It’ll take the sea change of Obama to rid our nation at long-last of the neocon poison and, unlike Shuler, at least I know Mumpower will stand up for my basic constitutional liberties and won’t be in the pocket of big corporations or PACs.
Thank you.
‘Real Conservative’, if those who call themselves ‘conservative’ these days exhibited the type of integrity and principles you do, this country would be way better off.
Thank you for your insightful words as well.
Cheers!
Thank you Mumpower
i was sceptical about Mr. Mumpower until i read this.
whether its a lie to gain support (the normal politician behavior) or whether he is really speaking the truth can be determined by further examining his principles.
I suspect this is just lip-service to gain support since the GoP traditionally is “evil” as late – that is until Ron Paul brought back a good name to the GoP and “conservatism”