Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.
Help us Restore Liberty Donate Today: Donate
32 Comments
Help Restore Liberty!
We need help from everyday Americans just like you. We are working to Restore Liberty one step at a time!
Connect Online!
Joe on Twitter
- BO's 'Life of Julia' more fitting 4 USSR than US reflects BO's fringe view of gov't
http://t.co/PF19cK682012/05/09 10:30 - TeaParty smokes Lugar & IN's sore loser law prevents Murkowski redux
http://t.co/AzG4FFzS2012/05/08 16:29 - Govt publishes photo of CIA double agent but is "outraged" over Novak's outing of Valerie Plame
http://t.co/MdjKPrtI2012/05/08 15:26 - Officials: Al-Qaeda bomber was CIA informant
http://t.co/MdjKPrtI2012/05/08 14:07 - Socialism worldwide redux Ought 2 make BO & his advisers happy
http://t.co/ViOhl3rY2012/05/08 14:18
siteunseen says,
One of the Good ‘ol Boys.
on 05 January 2012 / 3:31 PM
Barbara J Struble says,
Santorum is a RINO, check his record. He is a big government anti-constitution person. He wants a one world government with United States as the tyrant.
Only one conservative constitutionalist left – a vote for Dr. Paul (unless Sarah jumps in) is a vote for liberty and Constitutional integrity.
on 05 January 2012 / 5:08 PM
Lisa Matta says,
Who’s “Dr. Paul”? Surely, you don’t mean Ron Paul.
on 05 January 2012 / 5:29 PM
duevalvduc says,
Ron Paul is not the answer. Or if he is then the problem is the question that is being asked. Santorum is not a RINO unless your definition of a Conservative is Ron Paul. Santorum’s comments were correct within context and it is chicken $#!+ for anyone to assemble such a video hit piece without allowing for context. Yes, it is recognized that such hit pieces are SOP within the political enterprise but they should not be used against our own candidates especially with such blatant disregard for the facts.
on 05 January 2012 / 5:33 PM
Joe Miller says,
I don’t disagree that context is very important. And any deliberate misconstruction shouldn’t be tolerated. However, there is no question regarding his defense of earmarks and the fact that many in the Tea Party are wary of him. There is also no question regarding his endorsement of Specter over Toomey, an inconceivable decision absent understanding his establishment loyalties. Not to mention his PAC’s support of numerous pro-abortion candidates.
on 06 January 2012 / 1:05 AM
Mark says,
Hi Joe!
My question for you is this: With the field narrowed now to just 6 candidates, who should we be looking at here? As a Tea Party conservative, who among these six isn’t in some way tied to the GOP establishment? I think part of my problem, and I do believe it is shared by others, is that in reviewing who remains in this field, there’s not a lot to recommend. Romney? I can’t do that. Santorum has issues, though I think the case in this particular post is overstated slightly. Gingrich? Smart guy, but…he has more baggage than a transpacific 747. Paul? Obama’s leaving the country naked enough. Huntsman? Is he seen as a credible candidate anywhere? Perry has been Dan Quayled, in part by his own performance. It isn’t probably fair, but it never is.
So what’s a conservative to do?
on 06 January 2012 / 5:10 AM
James says,
I think the real issue here is that all the GOP candidates are all compromise candidates.
Santorum has issues with earmarks and past support of less than pro-life RINOs. Nonetheless, he is a conservative, not a libertarian. If you want to vote for a libertarian vote for Ron Paul or whoever the Libertarian nominee is going to be.
Gingrich is an absolute establishment star because there is no such thing as an outside the establishment Speaker of the House, he has taken tons of money from Freddie Mac as a lobbyist, and compromises his conservative principles often as a matter of ego (i.e. attacking Paul Ryan’s entitlement plan, global warming, individual mandate issue). I will not even go into the numerous transgressions in his personal life that seem to cast a pale on his character.
I would love to vote for Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is absolutely negligent. I will not sacrifice Israel at the mantel of isolationism as Dr. Paul is all too willing to do among other things. Domestically though, Dr. Paul is like voting for Milton Friedman for President and I would love to be able to do that.
Perry is just not ready for primetime and it shows almost on a daily basis.
I shall not even talk about Romney’s failings or shall we call them pragmatism for choosing positions by sticking his finger up to determine the direction of the wind.
I am comfortable voting for Santorum, because I believe he is a genuinely good and consistent man with conservative principles that believes what he espouses. Do I like the fact that he supports earmarks? NO, but so does Jim Inhofe and a litany of other US Senators, some of whom I respect. Do I appreciate the fact that Santorum supported Specter? No, I believe that was a huge mistake, and he has identified it as such. Do I like that Santorum has given to less than pro-life candidates from his PAC? No, but Santorum for a time was the youngest Senator in Senate leadership. When you are in leadership you almost always have to compromise to build consensus, which is exactly why so many people are annoyed with Speaker Boehner. I appreciate the fact that Santorum’s compromise was not in legislation or his passion for HIS principles, but giving money to colleagues. I hate to break the news, but I’m sure Santorum’s PAC monies allowed him some consideration when his less than pro-life colleagues attempted to do less than pro-life things.
In this election there is no perfect candidate. There are candidates that we all have to hold our nose for on one issue or another. Since day one I have known that Santorum was the one candidate in the field that I would be able to readily support with only minor reservations. He is not perfect, but compared to the other candidates he has always stood out in my mind.
on 06 January 2012 / 10:33 AM
Bill says,
1) Listen closer … he says there are “…elements within THE REPUBLICAN PARTY and the Tea Party….” He’s not downing the TP; he’s talking about fringe elements in both the TP AND the GOP. Also, he has explained his support of Specter – citing the fact that Specter was head of the Judiciary Committee, and without him there we would most likely not have Justices Alito and Robinson (sp?). I support Rick S. all the way.
on 06 January 2012 / 11:13 AM
KH says,
You obviously haven’t followed Santorum’s voting history then.
on 06 January 2012 / 2:57 PM
onceproudamerica says,
Ron Paul has the most conservative voting record of anyone in either house of Congress since 1937:
http://voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm
Folks should realize that all of the MSM including FOX is liberal. Fox is just more RINO & Neo – Con
on 09 January 2012 / 1:28 PM
RD says,
I’d vote for Rick Santorum in a NY minute. I am a Constitutional Conservative–and I approve this message
on 05 January 2012 / 5:37 PM
KH says,
You can’t be a Constitutional conservative and be for bigger federal government, bailouts, pork spending and unconstitutional wars without debate or a declaration. You can’t be a constitutional conservative if you support the Federal Reserve’s ability to counterfeit money to sustain an unsustainable military size, police the world, protect the borders of foreign countries who have better economies than we do to the detriment of the US taxpayer. You can call yourself that but it doesn’t make it true.
on 06 January 2012 / 2:44 PM
siteunseen says,
Santorum was very close friends with Newt Gingrich. He was his mentor. You like Big Government? Then vote Santorum. I find this very disconcerting because the name Santorum means Saint or Sacristan. He came from a good family, and he is a good family man, but as a politician, I’d really not wish to vote for him. If it were between Obama and Santorum, I’d vote Santorum. I’d never vote Obama. I want Ron Paul. Santorum started listening to Ron Paul and even told Sean Hannity he AGREED with his foreign policy…I wish someone could get that clip. I heard it and my sister heard it, and we’d nearly fallen on the floor. I say if Santorum got the nomination (which he won’t), he’d do well to choose Ron Paul as his running mate. Yes…RON PAUL. You would get the Conservatives and the Moderates and the very young people over to the Republican Party, but it’s not going to happen, so let’s stop dreaming.
on 06 January 2012 / 8:49 PM
patriotact says,
Knowing what I know about Rick Santorum, I think his concerns with the “Tea Party” is making sure it doesn’t get too caught up with only fiscal matters and in the process overlook important social issues like faith, family, and freedom.
Folks, if we keep attacking all our conservative candidates as being “RINOs” and “good ole boys”, we’re going to keep losing good people (Cain and Bachmann are now gone… Perry appears to be on his way out soon) and we’ll be left with nominating a milquetoast GOP establishment candidate like Romney (a.k.a. McCain 2.0) and we’ll be stuck with Barack Obama for four more years.
Just sayin’.
on 05 January 2012 / 7:53 PM
scott says,
I reluctantly agree with Patriotact. I would’ve financially supported Bachman if I thought she had a chance. But I knew she unfortunately didn’t. Santorum is just being honest. Practically speaking, we all know we need some form of govt. Just has to be cut down a lot from what it is. As far as earmarks, I hate them, but far better are earmarks bent in favor of conservative values than liberal ones.
on 05 January 2012 / 10:23 PM
Gerold Gugel says,
I do not think that we have any other option at this time except Rick. As an Alaskan with so little representation in the Congress or House, Earmark have played an essential part in funding essential projects here in Alaska.
Non of us will agree with any candidate on all the issues. The only thing that even comes close at this time is Rick and I sent him 100.00.
on 06 January 2012 / 1:46 AM
KH says,
You mean like the “bridge to nowhere” Santorum voted to appropriate money for?
on 06 January 2012 / 2:48 PM
KH says,
Throughout history people didn’t realize what personal liberty and freedom was about until they lost it. That’s what happens with RINOs albeit maybe at a slower pace. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you can start to dig yourself out. I will never vote for any of the establishment republicans ever again because I’ve been lied to for decades. If I have to I’ll write in Ron Paul on my ballot.
on 06 January 2012 / 2:47 PM
onceproudamerica says,
I guess we better define ‘conservative’! I cannot think of anything more conservative than strict obedience to the Constitution.
Only one candidate who has run this century can be counted on in that regard.
on 09 January 2012 / 1:30 PM
CarolynH says,
Santorum is a George Bush big government social conservative (read his actual record) . He is not a fiscal conservative ergo his issues with Tea Party.
on 06 January 2012 / 1:01 AM
Barbara Haney says,
Santorum has serious problems and I cannot possibly understand how he can be considered a conservative. Even so, if he couldn’t beat a novice in the PA Senate race, how can he beat Obama?
Rick Santorum on the 2nd Amendment
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/18212
Rick Santorum and Drug Companies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WejGyLTSk
Big Lobbyist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz1Ty8VxEqA
And let us not forget that he worked with Diane Feinstein on gun control! How is that different from working with Nancy Pelosi?
At least Gingrich wasn’t in office, and was trying to stear the conversation (and later said it was dumb) Has Santorum ever said working with Feinstein was dumb? No.
Negative Ad by Perry “Earmark King” called “Unelectable”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt6XCZz2X1Y&feature=related
Jepardy: Highlighting Santorum Big Spender by Perry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XApvbISkJeE&feature=relmfu
Anti-Gun Santorum By National Run Rights. Org
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/rick-santorums-anti-gun-history/
Today in New Hamphire, he was Slamming Reagan http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2012/01/05/dear-mr-rick-santorum-slamming-ronald-reagan-just-caused-you-a-world-of-conservative-regret
Then after he left office, he became a lobbyist
on 06 January 2012 / 3:10 AM
onceproudamerica says,
Nice going Barbara!
on 09 January 2012 / 1:32 PM
Janice says,
I am a proud Tea Party Patriot and have been a Santorum supporter before he decided to run in this political cycle. It is funny that when Santorum explains the problem with the Republicans and earmarks, he is considered the RINO. It is very deceiving how McCain, the real RINO, tried to blame earmarks for all the wrongs with our budget. He also attempted to take away free speech and Thank God was defeated for now. For you Libertarians, go back to one of the recent debates and you will see that Ron Paul actually agrees with Santorum on the issue of earmarks. EARMARKS are a red herring – they have not caused; nor could ever cause the financial aremeggedon that we are currently seeing. PEOPLE, if your Congressman or Senator, doesn’t ask for earmarks, the monies are then allocated to the General Fund and the President make the determination as to how the money is spent. I would rather have that money returned to the States for good projects. And Santorum didn’t say he had a problem with the Tea Party. He said that he had a problem that there are those “within” both the Republican and Tea Party that are trying to redefine Conservativsm and I am in full agreement with that. My only real issue with Santorum was the Toomey/Spector issue but once you hear his explanation, he made the right decision. If he didn’t support Spector, we probably wouldn’t have a right leaning Supreme Court (i.e. Clarence Thomas, Alito and Roberts). Things are not so clear cut and PURITY is an illusion. Rick Santorum makes only those in the Tea Party whose only concern is fiscal uncomfortable which actually makes them align up better with the RINO’s in the party who have proven to be a disaster to the Party and more importantly, to the future of this great Country. I am paraphrasing but our founding fathers were very clear – this form of government (Our Constitution) will only work for a moral and religious people. I think that this has been already proven, given the last 4 decades of “anything goes” and why people like Santorum, Bachmann, Perry and Tebow make many uncomfortable. I’m with patriotact and Scott. This is not going to end well if Obama is the last man standing.
on 06 January 2012 / 7:40 AM
@Oil_Ranger (on twitter) says,
LOL Amazing, I find it quite disconcerting and ludicrous the way people jump from one candidate to the next simply because they saw someone else do it, not because they did their own homework.
A week ago, no one would give Santorum the time of day, now all of a sudden he’s the great hope? pffft. He’s a big government guy, pure and simple. And this support now is ridiculous.
There is one person on that stage that has the right plans, the right platform, has been with the REAL TP from day one, not the LIBERALtarian version that the RP bots hijacked, truly conservative with a record to prove it and because of FALSE negative ads, you are looking the other way.
People claim they don’t want the establishment or the media to pick their candidate, yet they are doing exactly that! Lemmings.
It’s not enough to just oust Obama, we have to select someone who will know from day one what to do and is capable of hitting the ground running.
That person is Newt Gingrich, and everyone needs to wake up to that fact before we end up with another Obama in Mitt, another novice in Santorum, a kook in Ron Paul, or Obama hisself.
on 06 January 2012 / 9:48 AM
Brad says,
It is very difficult for me to accept supporting a candidate that does not stand by fundamental conservative principles. I consider State powers under the Xth amendment, the recognition of abortion as a modern-day horror, and fiscal responsibility to be fundamental to conservatism. I would also include providing for an adequate military defense as fundamental. That being said, if I have to vote for a “moderate” in November as opposed to not voting or voting for Obama, I will certainly “pull the lever” for the “moderate”.
on 06 January 2012 / 10:40 AM
wager says,
Obama just slashed the military budget by some 400 billion before the reductions required under the super committee default (another 500 billion) kick in. And our boys in Congress again increased our debt this year by failing to take the horse by the reins and yank it in. The leadership we need in large part in a president is the ability to yank in deficit spending without neutering the military.
Ear marks, as Santorum said, are but a small part of the budgetary problems. But it is important they not return again. And he seems to see no problem with them.
What concerns me about Santorum is what I read last night on CREW about taking money before or after pressing certain legislation. Read what the report says about him here. http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Reports/CREW_Beyond_Delay_Report_20060920.pdf?nocdn=1
That report more than anything else indicates corruption. The real question is whether there is a single candidate who has not been corrupted by “donations.”
The answer is probably, with the exception of Joe and a few others, no. So the answer may lie in focusing on support for those Congressional candidates who pledge to be free of this corruption.
Bachmann’s attack on R Paul in the last debate brought out my extreme concerns about him. That and abolishing federal drug laws. I understand he is being ideologically pure. But we must look at the consequences of purity.
on 06 January 2012 / 1:31 PM
KH says,
We spend more on our military than all other military countries combined. We protect the borders of foreign countries that have better economies than the US. RINOs allow the Federal Reserve to counterfeit money to support an economically unsustainable military size. When the Federal Reserve prints money it amounts to a hidden tax. That means American savings and retirement are being eroded by a police the world mentality where neocons feel they know what’s best for everyone else. That all countries want the same type of government we have and the same type of freedom we have or should I say, used to have. Now America through the Patriot Act and Homeland Security is turning into the former East Germany. Police forces are being subsidized by millions of dollars of taxpayer money so they can better spy on Americans. Is that the kind of America you want? If it is, then continue to vote for the RINOs, the big government, establishment republicans because that’s exactly what you’re going to get.
on 06 January 2012 / 2:55 PM
siteunseen says,
I say stop the Foreign Aid entirely as well. You quit giving money to rich dictators from the poor in America, and you’ll see a different landscape in the world! First…we need to balance our own budget. Ron Paul is the only one who WILL DO THAT! You don’t like his foreign policy? What part of it don’t you like? Do you know what’s going to happen when this country implodes? No Military can be sustained on a collapsed economy…I repeat…No Military can be sustained on a collapsed economy. Rome fell because they were militarizing the world as well, but they had to come home when Rome was burning. America! Rome is burning…we need to come home and take care of business over here, then we can decide if we need to be anywhere else.
on 06 January 2012 / 8:28 PM
wager says,
Here is the latest Rasmussen on SC. Romney 27%, Santorum 24%, Gingrich 18%
But 64% say that Romney is the one most likely to beat Obama.
on 06 January 2012 / 1:49 PM
siteunseen says,
I’m seeing these polls as a director of the Bilderbergers who will have us think that Ron Paul is down in this poll or that poll. We’ve seen him take 3rd in Iowa, when he should have had First, but Media slammed him to the ground. His poll numbers are rising, and they’re not telling us about it. If you don’t think these elections are bought and paid for by the underworld, you don’t know very much about dirty politics. Instead of “Real Clear Politics”, this election should be called “Real Dirty Politics.” I really believe that if we took a real look at what is going on, and what is coming down the pike, we’d be able to see this whole thing more clearly. A family friend, who happens to be a Catholic Priest, told me that they won’t let Ron Paul win no matter what. He said they’d probably kill him if he won. He had a sister who worked for Lehman Brothers. He told me that they deliberately allowed the Collapse of 2008. He said it was all planned out. He’s very good at finances, and knows that John F. Kennedy was murdered after he signed Executive Order #11110, which would have taken the coining of our money out of the hands of the Federal Reserve Bankrupters. Johnson ignored that Executive Order, after his death, and proceeded as usual. Some say Johnson had something to do with his death as well. Call it crazy if you wish, but this is a much bigger problem than anyone is admitting nor realizing. Ron Paul isn’t crazy. He’s got some strong opinions about Liberty, but he is absolutely not crazy. He knows what going on from the inside out. He not looking from the outside in as are many people.
on 06 January 2012 / 8:43 PM
Dianne Lindsay says,
We all oppose earmarks used as bribes or ally-enrichment, however, if Congress doesn’t direct where appropriated funds are the be spent, that leaves unelected, largely liberal career bureaucrats deciding which projects to fund. My problem is with out of control spending and self-serving spending. But having worked on the Hill and in D.C., I definitely do not want career bureaucrats and political appointees making all funding decisions.
on 08 January 2012 / 5:46 PM
Bill says,
@Dianne Linsay – Well Said!
on 09 January 2012 / 6:18 AM