moonbattery logo

Aug 01 2016

Endorsement: Darrell Castle, Constitution Party

Shrillary is unacceptable. Donald Trump is unacceptable. Gary Johnson is unacceptable. Vote for any of these people and you have signed over your soul to them; you are guilty of every vile, tyrannical act they inflict on the country, or would inflict if there were only more like you to give them the power.

So what to do, stay home? Of course not. Vote your principles. For countermoonbats, that means the Constitution Party.

The party’s platform in a nutshell:

• Adherence to the Constitution
• Withdrawal From the United Nations
• End the Federal Reserve
• Withdraw From Agenda 21
• Pro-Life Stance

Compare that to the suffocating, corrosive, authoritarian Big Government platforms of the Republicrats and you have a very easy decision.

Trump supporters sneer at the concept of voting on principle. That is all you need to know about their cultist mentality. Without principles, you don’t exist as anything but a pawn.

If you can vote for a conservative like the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle, even if you have to write him in, but chose instead to vote for a progressive statist, you have no right to complain about America’s ongoing deterioration.

darrell-castle

Graphic via Ex-GOP AverageJoe.



  • FrozenPatriot

    +1! I’ve been telling my republican friends about Castle for a few weeks now. Sadly, Mr. Bean (a.k.a. Gary Johnson) isn’t even a reasonable protest vote. Libertarians have failed yet again to offer a good alternative.

  • Jack

    He sounds acceptable

  • mouth2taco

    Option 5: throw your vote away on a 3rd party candidate and get Hillary elected.

  • Tom

    So a personal-injury lawyer is who you want to be president?
    From wikipedia:

    “Upon receiving his J.D. in Memphis, Castle became an attorney. In 1984, he opened a private firm which later grew into Darrell Castle and Associates. Since then, Castle has opened firms in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Detroit, Michigan; and Kansas City, Missouri. His firms focus on consumer bankruptcy and personal injury, but also represent clients in the areas of social security/disability and workers’ compensation.”

    You just don’t get it, do you? We’re TIRED of being governed by frickin’ lawyers…now you support an ambulance-chasing “Meso? Vaginal Mesh? CALL NOW!” attorney to be the president?

    And for all your “Oh tempore, O mores!” yawping about the moral decline of America and the world, here’s how wiki describes his views:
    ” When it comes to prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships, or any other activities made by consenting adults, Castle says he sees no role for the federal government to get involved…. He has vowed, if elected, to get the United States out of the United Nations and NATO.”

    Weren’t you folks all outraged when Trump said something not-as-drastic about NATO a week or so ago? But your guy wants OUT completely….that’s better?

    No thanks…not gonna waste my vote on an ambulance-chaser.

  • Bob

    how about Nevermoonbattery? Dave you are blowing it. A vote for anyone is a vote for Clinton. Trump has my vote.

  • GhostRider2001

    Tough choice this election cycle— a parasitic lying crony capitalist vs. a parasitic lying career politician. Both have built their fortunes feeding at the public trough, and using political influence to steer public funds their way. Both skirt along the edges of the law.

  • GhostRider2001

    Every time you turn around Johnson and Weld are giving conservatives a reason not to take them seriously. They are blowing a golden opportunity by courting the Bernie vote.

  • KirklesWorth

    Another “split the republican vote” and everybody loses. How did things work out for Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, etc.?

  • KirklesWorth

    Yeah, what’s the difference between 100% progressive for Hillary and 34% progressive for Trump? I doubt Hillary “earned” her fortune as honestly as Trump did, what with the Clinton Foundation, speaking fees, Saudi donations, etc..

    https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/hillary-clinton

    https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/donald-trump

  • JoshO

    If it was 2008 you might have a point but those court nominations CANNOT be selected by hilary

  • grayjohn

    The man has no chance in hell. Is there anything left of the dead horse you’re beating? They all suck.

  • Ed. G. Mann

    Johnson never had any Libertarian creds. Now he wants the vote? After making that Proggy statement that the little people should have to bake the cake.
    I’ve voted Libertarian except for Reagan and Goldwater. Never Johnson. Weld? He’s squid hump.

    Vote for the NEW Third Party. Trump! You will see the purge of the corrupt GOPe in the first year.

  • chris black

    I have a better chance of winning that half billion dollar lottery jackpot then this guy has winning the presidency.
    It’s Trump or Bust!

  • mouth2taco

    Is the Constitution Party on enough ballots to even have a mathematical chance of winning? I think not.

  • ! ! ! ! !

    .

    Look at Germany.. now realize that the vile hag you will be helping win the election has stated that her biggest idol is iMama Merkel.

    Now you know what America will look like after the hag gets in..

    Lots of those who complained that people refused to vote for Mittens in 2012 are now throwing a hissy fit because Trump is the Nominee. Lots of people held their noses for McCain and Romney – and frankly, Bush – and now that the situation is DIRE as can be, the same people who were able to stomach voting for Dubya McLame and Mittens suddenly find a vote for Trump a violation of their core principles.

    Remember that the REASON that Trump is there is because the feckless Republicans LIED about their intentions if they got the House and the Senate, both of which were delivered them by the voters.

    Seems as if jellyfish like ¡Yeb! who declared his intentions to win against the will of the base, are more acceptable to some than Trump. If ¡Yeb! were the Nominee we’d doubtlessly hear calls to once again hold our noses and that if we didn’t the resulting mess would be all OUR fault.

    NO MORE!

    DON’T BLAME TRUMP. BLAME RINOS!

    .

  • Artfuldgr

    The third party candidate wiht the most votes in US history was Ross Perot
    unless you think that this man can out-do ross perot by over 1000%, all your going to do is give the election to hillary and then blame the “people” you hate for voting for your man, who can never get enough votes to win, but CAN get enough votes to give the election to hillary… the same way ross perot accomplished the same plan you have for the democrats the same way your fighting FOR the democrats

    you can hold any delusion you want in your head, its a free country

    but if you think your games of confounding the peoples will is the way to go in a democratic republic, then your not very constitutional

    the constitution does not give you the right to do what your trying to do, so the idea of electing a constitution party whose people ignore the constitution is kind of funny in a ironic sad loser way

    where were you all those years your republicans put up rinos, reached across the aisles, and more? now when the frut of your inaction falls from the tree, you dont like it? well, if you complacency didnt work to make a better country, you can be darn sure that your action at the last minute for a person no one knows to take a third party swing, which always fails, is insanity writ large

  • Occam’s Stubble

    Dave, you know I’m not a fan of Trump but it isn’t a matter of principle. It is a matter of mathematics and probabilities. The most successful third party runs in recent memory were Ross Perot in 1992 and George Wallace in 1968.

    Wallace got 13.5% of the popular vote and won five whole states netting him 46 electoral votes.

    Perot got nearly 19% of the popular vote but took no states.

    In 1968, Wallace was not a factor since Nixon’s electoral haul would have won even if all of Wallace’s states had gone to Humphrey.Nixon led Humphrey in most of Wallace’s states so Wallace just reduced the size of Nixon’s victory.

    In 1992, Perot’s vote total likely would have swung the election the other way had he not been in the race.

    What both elections prove is that all third party candidates do is to subtract votes from the candidate whose party they most resemble.

    That isn’t to say third parties have no chance. If that were the case, we’d still be dealing with the Democrats and Whigs. However, you have to have a strong movement to make a third party work. Wallace had racial segregation and Perot had a household name and a pro-business platform. Even the Republicans had abolition.

    The third parties this cycle have no such movements. Gary Johnson is the least libertarian candidate in a long time and I only heard about this Castle guy last week.Neither therefore have a chance and will only subtract votes from the candidate whose party they most resemble and in this case that will be the GOP.

    Knowing this, a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Hillary. It is a statistical fact. Therefore, anyone who votes for Johnson or Castle will be responsible for anything Hillary does.

    The way to fix the problem is for states to award delegates proportionately rather than winner-take-all. Fortunately, this does not require a change to the constitution but does require an interstate compact.

    If we want to have better choices in the future, we need to get this done first. Until then, it’s a binary choice so if you don’t choose one, you get the other.

  • Artfuldgr

    Blame the supporters of such, as we didnt support them, we disliked that and wanted other.. now we are going to put other into the office..

    i wonder what Dave would do if Trump turned out to do a lot of good?

    to think that the minute trump doesnt take over the world and make a nuclear holocaust, everything Dave said, or wanted or put forth ends up on the chopping block of wah wah wah and dave was willing to hang his hate and 100% of his reputation on Trump not doing well… when he does well, then waht?

    i wonder what Dave would do when for the rest of his life every one answers his political points with – yeah, well, you were so right with the donald, we dont listen to you…

    gonna be interesting as trump wants his name regarded positively and that drives him… and he follows the laws others made, not makes his life a protest event with losing as the reward as people who dont like him want him to do to be acceptable.

    if trump does well, daves reputation is over for the rest of his natural born days… and he is willing to risk that rather than just shut up and put up the junk and skim the ad revenue

  • Artfuldgr

    Castle has said he is more libertarian than 2016 Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson

    He describes himself as pro-life, and opposes federal funding of Planned Parenthood

    He opposes the war on drugs. When it comes to prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships, or any other activities made by consenting adults, Castle says he sees no role for the federal government to get involved [didnt dave complain that Trump wants the same?]

    He favors the United States withdrawing from NATO [didnt dave complain that Trump wants the same?]

    and he most important thing you need when running againts hillary funded by the saudis and isis, and more.. and trump funded by his billions

    As of June 30, 2016 Castle has raised $10,289

    I guess the best you can say is no one is giving him any money so he is safe from being bought out by bankers… but how far can 10k go in this election in the next few months to take it all?

    He favors the United States withdrawing from the United Nations, TPP, NAFTA, CAFTA, Gatt, and WTO
    [kind of the same as trump, no?]

  • Tchhht!!!

    These folks want the hag to get in. The Wall Street/CoC/GOPe cartel plan was to get Jebby boy in and, barring that, Hillary. Then Trump came along and spoiled Jebby’s chances. Trillions are at stake. The cartel wants open borders, Obama Care, common core, and offshoring of jobs. Hillary will give them what they want. Jesus Christ himself could run third party and still have no chance of winning.

  • MAS

    Apparently the commenters below have a blind spot Dave…they cannot see the word PRINCIPLE expressed in your article. Maybe that’s because they have been living lives based on pragmatics for so long that the idea of standing on principles like honor and morality is simply too alien a concept for them. Maybe they don’t worry about the Lord and how He wants them to actually live, even in a ballot box, or that it is actually Him who decides who will be in authority. But then that’s the problem with democracy, everyone gets what the majority deserves.

  • GhostRider2001

    Trump’s fortune was highly dependent on special tax breaks to make his deals work. He isn’t the great negotiator he pretends he is and often overpaid.

  • GhostRider2001

    Funny how the GOPe are now clinging to Trump like a bunch of hungry ticks. I don’t see any purge coming.

  • Willard the Newt

    “Without principles, you don’t exist as anything but a pawn.”
    .
    Sure. And if Hillary wins the election she promises to grant amnesty to the estimated 12 to 30 million illegals. Add to that the attendant chain migration (at least 60 million more) and the result will be a permanently transformed America. An America where “constitutional conservatives” will never again have any prospects of gaining power … EVAH! Via the demographic shift, the socialists will have achieved a lock on power
    .
    So, keep deluding yourself into believing not voting for the only candidate that can stop Hillary will manifest itself in anything positive … obviously It won’t.
    .
    PS
    .
    Hillary plans to increase the admission of Mulsim refugees from Syria 550% over the number Obama wants to admit.
    .
    The USA is commiting national suicide via massive immigration from the Third World.
    .
    Trump is the ONLY candidate speaking out against our national suicide.

  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • Nobama

    The only principle that matters right now is doing everything possible to stop Hillary. If she wins, any remaining conservative principles will be gone forever. What the hell is it you people don’t get about that?

  • TED

    http://i.imgur.com/Q6Mqxho.jpg There’s those dem SANDARDS(?) AGAIN!!

  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • CTsOpinion

    Castle a certified nutcase.

  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED

    http://i.imgur.com/4Uyw0fm.jpg PROOF!! THERE IS LITTLE TO NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO!!

  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • TED
  • KirklesWorth

    Okay…so? Is Trump alone “highly dependent on special tax breaks” or is everyone else who has to pay taxes? Did he get rich by reading the article “How the Clintons Got Rich Selling Influence While Decrying Greed”?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438366/clintons-got-rich-selling-influence-while-decrying-greed

  • TED

    PRINCIPLE is one of those LONG FORGOTTEN QUALITIES the left has destroyed any trace of. One of those NOW BANNED things this country once VALUED!!! All PART of the process!

  • TED

    EXCEPT CASTLE means it.

  • TED

    UNFORTUNATLY, THAT is the way system is RIGGED. Thinking we have any other choice other than CRAP vs CRAP is a pipe dream…

  • TED

    WE are going to be stuck with CRAP either way SO, voting for Castle could be a way of showing THEM WE are tired of being handed CRAP to vote for and are WANTING AND working to CHANGE IT!

  • Artfuldgr

    wish TED Would not bomb the discussion with other peoples art work and deny them a living as he is not paying them for the political cartoons he is steeling

    on anothe note:
    “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray
    to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your
    welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).

  • MAS

    I wonder how many Branch Trumpians are even capable of considering themselves to be progressive pawns? It’s like watching a cult convention when Dave dares to stand against the orthodoxy of The Donald acolytes.

  • Artfuldgr

    one common thing about the saints is that they had a lot of principal to not renounce their religion upon being tortured to death… yeah, they all died.. yeah, they died horribly… but they had principals man…

    “Political liberty,” what are we to understand by that? Perhaps the individual’s independence of the State and its laws? No; on the contrary, the individual’s subjection in the State and to the State’s laws… Political liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom of conscience signifies that conscience is free; not, therefore, that I am free from the State, from religion, from conscience, or that I am rid of them. It does not mean my liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots, like State, religion, conscience, is free. State, religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave, and their liberty is my slavery.
    ― Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own

  • Artfuldgr

    Fallibilism: the principle that propositions concerning empirical knowledge can be accepted even though they cannot be proved with certainty

    Folly consists in drawing of false conclusions from just principles, by which it is distinguished from madness, which draws its just conclusions from false principles. John Locke

    As so often happens in philosophy, clever people accept a false general principle on a priori grounds and then devote endless labour and ingenuity to explaining away plain facts which obviously conflict with it.
    C. D. Broad

  • mouth2taco

    I wouldn’t hire any lawyer that advertises on TV and has offices all over the country, and I certainly won’t vote for one to be POTUS – unless he was the only viable option to HC. But he’s not, so I won’t.

  • Occam’s Stubble

    I’d be the first to sign up for an effort to change the system but until then, we have to choose the least crappy of the two craps we’re given.

    They will never care as long as one of them is winning That is why we must change the system.In the mean time, we must minimize the damage and I think that’s easier with Trump than Hillary.

  • TED

    AMEN!!! Branch Trumpians, ROTFLMAO!!!! 😎

  • KirklesWorth

    That’s just too pragmatic. We should all just pout we don’t have the perfect candidate and let Hillary win the election like Obama did with McCain. It’s not like Hillary would attack the 1st and 2nd amendments, appoint progressive-liberal-socialist judges, declare Obamacare a crisis and impose single-payer healthcare, open the borders to illegals, refugees, and jihadis, etc….

  • TED

    I thought that’s what I said – Oh well – That’s what I meant.

  • KirklesWorth

    As opposed to fair-weather-republicans? Funny how you use the leftists’ all-or-nothing tactic of placing all Trump-supporters into one group and insulting them in one fell swoop. I guess that makes the mirror image also true – you anti-Trumps must be pro-Hillary by using your own “logic”.

  • KirklesWorth

    Oh great, another TED flood. Give it a rest!

  • Artfuldgr

    on what the bible says about doing the wrong thing to support principles.

    “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).

    The apostle Peter says Christians are “exiles” on this earth (1 Peter 1:1)

    the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most
    likely to bring the best results for the nation?
    Not exercise spite under the false skin of principals and morals…

    “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray
    to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your
    welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7)

    if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump,
    this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need
    one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask
    is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like
    Hillary Clinton win the presidency?

    for the spiteful, of course..
    “Resentment is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die. ”

    Carrie Fisher

    …There are also those who inadvertently grant power to another man’s
    words by continuously trying to spite him. If a man gets to the point
    where he can simply say, ‘The sky is blue,’ and people indignantly rush
    up trying to refute him saying, ‘No, the sky is light blue,’ then,
    whether they realize it or not, he has become an authority figure even
    to such adversaries.”

    Criss Jami,

    Killosophy

    The teachings of Scripture do not allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do nothing. Obadiah rebuked the people of the Edom for standing by and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem.

    “On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that . . . foreigners
    entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of
    them.”
    (Obadiah 1:11)

    Trump has pledged to work to repeal the 1954 Johnson Amendment to the
    IRS code, which has been used for 62 years as a threat to silence
    pastors from speaking about political issues, for fear of losing their
    tax-exempt status.

    How can we know that Trump won’t change his mind?

    “But Trump has changed his mind in the past,” a politically-minded
    friend said to me. “How do you know that he will do what he has
    promised? Maybe he’ll betray you and appoint a liberal Supreme Court
    justice.” // My reply is that we can never know the future conduct of any human being
    with 100% certainty, but in making an ethical decision like this one,
    we should base the decision on the most likely results. In this case,
    the most likely result is that Trump will do most or all of what he has
    said.

    in other words, dont vote for the certainty of bad if another offers the potential of good and bad is uncertain… (opinion is not logical conclusion – so far, his entire life he hasnt done anything bad. going to court to settle a difference is not bad, its using what the US courts provide to settle disputes, and to be held negative for not hiring a hit man or dropping all altercations to be upset that he calls for a referee… same with restructured bankruptcy, he paid for his bankruptcy, sold his airlines (hillary lied), and his creditors did not lose out. far different than too big to fail that took our money without our permission to fix their mistakes)

    in the history of the US no president has gone back on all his word except mayb obama… so the idea that trump will be the first and leave hsi family name tarnished forever, is insane… at the very least a narcisist would protect that which their ego worships (if one wants to use the false narcisist argument)

    Trump could have picked a moderate but instead picked a lifelong solid
    conservative who is a thoughtful, gracious policy wizard. Pence is a
    lawyer and former talk radio host who served 12 years in Congress and
    had significant congressional leadership positions, so he will be
    immensely helpful in working with Congress. He is a committed
    evangelical Christian. He is a former board member of the Indiana Family
    Institute, a conservative Christian lobbying group in Indiana.

    actually he could have picked bernie and tried to win by getting berns votes!!!

    To my friends who tell me they won’t vote for Trump because there is a
    chance he won’t govern at all like he promises, I reply that all of
    American presidential history shows that that result is unlikely, and it
    is ethically fallacious reasoning to base a decision on assuming a
    result that is unlikely to happen.

    This post was a mash up of Wayne Grudem (article) and myself commenting

  • Artfuldgr

    They will hate you if you are beautiful.
    They will hate you if you are successful.
    They will hate you if you are right.
    They will hate you if you are popular.
    They will hate you when you get attention.
    They will hate you when people in their life like you.
    They will hate you if you worship a different version of their God.
    They will hate you if you are spiritual.
    They will hate you if you have courage.
    They will hate you if you have an opinion.
    They will hate you when people support you.
    They will hate you when they see you happy.

    Heck, they will hate you while
    they post prayers and religious quotes on Pinterest and Facebook. They
    just hate. However, remember this: They hate you because you represent
    something they feel they don’t have. It really isn’t about you. It is
    about the hatred they have for themselves. So smile today because there
    is something you are doing right that has a lot of people thinking about
    you.”


    Shannon L. Alder

  • Nobama

    So true. Trump has forced the Republican party leaders to expose themselves for who they really are.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/sally-bradshaw-jeb-bush-donald-trump-florida/index.html

    It’s clearly no longer about Republican vs. Democrat. It’s the globalists vs. American sovereignty.

    Trump, despite all his flaws, is our last chance, then it’s over folks.

    You still think this is about conservative principles? Seriously?? The fate of our nation is at stake. Hillary wins and it’s GAME OVER.

  • seaoh

    “Every political issue has a theoretical path to SCOTUS” THEREFORE, TRUMP MUST BE PRESIDENT OVER HILLARY
    http://iotwreport.com/every-political-issue-has-a-theoretical-path-to-scotus-therefore-trump-must-be-president-over-hillary/

  • MAS

    I’m not a Republican or a Democrat so there’s that. Also I am referring to the trolls who come here and display exactly what I wrote, Tоварищ .

  • MAS

    “one common thing about the saints is that they had a lot of principal to not renounce their religion upon being tortured to death… yeah, they all died.. yeah, they died horribly… but they had principals man…”

    Deep maan…

  • Tom

    Oh yeah…a couple thousand votes nationwide for this ambulance-chaser will REALLY get their attention. Laughable…

  • Tchhht!!!

    Principles? Honor? Morality? In POLITICS??? Umm…okay, if you say so.

  • TrojanMan

    Are we not allowed to vote for whom we wish, based on our principals and convictions?

  • mouth2taco

    Of course you can. But if you are not a moonbat, then why not show a little responsibility and try to keep Hillary out of the White House?

  • Eastwood Ravine

    Stop it with this effing virtue signaling posts Dave. We get it, you don’t like Trump. You think he’s a phony. But you know who isn’t a phony – Hillary Clinton. She’s a full blown enemy of the Constitution.

    Moonbattery has gone full moonbat. If Dave thinks Darrell Castle has a chance of carrying even one state, he’s a moonbat.

    Trump is the only guy with a real chance of beating Hillary in November. It boils down to game theory, if you don’t want Hillary as the next president, then Trump is the best chance to deny her.

    We can work with a President Trump. We can’t work with a President Hillary.

  • Eastwood Ravine

    In a perfect world, yes. But we don’t live in a perfect world. Remember, perfect is the enemy of good.

  • TrojanMan

    So we are allowed to vote for whom we want as long as it is Trump? Makes sense. I did that in 08 and 12, it did not work either time and it will not work now. I will no longer support the liberal RINOs. A battered wife needs to say enough is enough at some point.

  • hetz

    This is a joke right?

    A vote for Castle or Johnson is a vote for Hillary.

    Grow up.

  • Ed. G. Mann

    You will over time as those like McConnell clash and lose. Remember, well if you are old enough, of what Nixon did to MA for voting for McGovern. Nixon won the rest of the states. MA took a beating in Congressional funding and with Executive actions.

    McConnell and other Globalists (like Ryan if he wins his primary) will have to deal with a popular President; Maybe not in the second year, but paybacks are a bitch. One gets others to do the nasty work.

  • mouth2taco

    I answered your question and you whine about it. Just fucking vote for Hillary already.

    I’ve blocked this site at work, and now I’m blocking it at home.

    So long, asshole.

  • TrojanMan

    Bye

  • Muhammed’s pink swastika

    A split vote guarantees A Democrat victory

  • MissAnthropy

    It has been sad to watch the demise of what was once one of the best anti-Moonbat sites. I kind of thought once we got into the final stretch of the general election, the gravity of the situation would force a reality check. Lots of the #NeverTrump crowd decided to abandon SS Cruz after he plowed directly into that iceberg on national TV, but I guess Moonbattery.com is committed to going all the way to the bottom. But hey, being hard-headed in 2016 and sticking to those principles will certainly take the sting out of the 40 years worth of Supreme Court rulings that Hillary’s appointees will be making.

    Seriously, Moonbattery?

    A Hillary Clinton presidency will be the final nail in America’s coffin. Given the GOP’s utter failure to fight back on any front in this Culture War that has been raging for decades, perhaps it is simply inevitable at this point. Perhaps this war became unwinnable longer ago than any of us would care to admit.

    But I am not going to let fatalism decide my vote for me, so I will vote for the one candidate who might beat her, and that candidate is Donald Trump.

  • squareWave

    Sure go for it. If your principles will keep you warm at night, as President Hillary shores up unassailable Democrat domination for generations to come. Me? I’ll be plenty pissed at people who could have helped stop a Hillary-packed Supreme Court but instead chose to chuck their vote at some historical footnote.

  • 762×51

    “We can work with a President Trump. We can’t work with a President Hillary. ”

    Stated another way, We can work with a totalitarian fascist. We can’t work with a totalitarian fascist in a pants suit.

    Just how much freedom are you willing to bargain away this time?

    I wouldn’t care if it were only your own freedom you were giving away but you have no right to bargain away mine.

  • BillyBob Bob

    I note no word referencing muslim, migrant, immigrant, illegal alien, homosexual, homosexual agenda, homosexual adoption, homosexual marriage, hordes, Hispanic, crime, black, African American,……

    Whoever appoints the Supreme Court wins. Maybe he could give us some names so they could be vetted…….like Trump.

  • 762×51

    Funny, we feel the same about Trumpanzees. Maybe your new friends, the 12 million democrats that elected tRump in the primaries will help you out.

  • 762×51

    Now where have I seen that platform before . . . .?

    Oh I remember, it was the GOP, BEFORE IT WENT Progressive.

    Were it not for the dire consequences of their mistake, I could laugh at the Trumpanzees trying to defeat a Progressive with a Progressive while becoming Progressives themselves. Comical yet darkly satirical at the same time.

    At least it helps clarify and solidify who the enemy is, now we just need to engage them.

  • KirklesWorth

    What should we do? Who should we vote for?

  • 762×51

    YAWN.

    What should YOU do? As far as I’m concerned, you should take a pistol with one round in it, stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger. The world will be a better place after you are gone.

    That also alleviates the problem of who you should vote for, An elegant solution as long as you do it outside where all we have to do is hose you off the sidewalk.

    Alternatively, you could vote for your cult leader because the 12 million democrats that elected him in the primaries will be voting for Hitlery. He’s going to lose, always was. All of this is on you and your kind. The media has played you saps like a cheap fiddle.

  • Eastwood Ravine

    I didn’t say what you think I said. I’m not suggesting Trump is a Reagan in the making at all, but his political positions seem to be migrating to the right — just like the Gipper. Whereas with Hillary, well, her positions on issues are getting more extreme Leftist by the day.

    This choice isn’t a hard choice if you take pride out of the equation. He may not be perfect, but Trump is infinitely better than Obama or Hillary.

  • koblog

    Yeah, this guy will win. Right.

  • Nobama

    Once again, only Trump has promised to send back the refugees AND illegals.

    You call that crap?? That’s all that matters now! Why won’t you people get that?

  • FrozenPatriot

    Jesus is infinitely better than Hitlery. Trump is perhaps 6-8% better, which is essentially indistinguishable if one were to squint…

  • FrozenPatriot

    Yes, let’s delay the collapse and rebuilding until after we’re far too old to contribute. Better yet, we’ll force our kids and grandkids to fight the war which we made inevitable. How thoughtful of us…

  • FrozenPatriot

    Not when the TrumpBorg is around. Resistance and reason are futile…

  • FrozenPatriot

    You blocked it?! Do you lack the self-control to simply not visit it? Perhaps that explains your support for your savior…

  • FrozenPatriot

    Oh, that my fellow countrymen were not so constitutionally-illiterate… Please ask me what I mean and prove me right…

  • FrozenPatriot

    Nice opinion you have there. Care to offer any evidence, or do you just throw insults like spaghetti at a wall, just to see what sticks?

  • FrozenPatriot

    LOL “conservative principles will be gone forever.” From where?? Our brains? The Bible? The dinner table discussions? “Gone forever” is a pretty all encompassing statement and it seems you’ve misunderstood and misapplied it entirely.

    On the contrary, if we elect our flavor of statist-progressive, how exactly would we oppose his unconstitutional acts after installing him as the orange god-king dictator?

  • FrozenPatriot

    If things are this dire, and this close to utter devastation, just walk away and let it burn. All the super-scary things are inevitable anyway; best to let it collapse and get to building and influencing what comes next while we’re young….

  • FrozenPatriot

    No, as opposed to former Republicans. I always thought the other wing of the big-government uniparty would go full-idiocracy and elect a reality teevee star from the moving picture idiot box. 300,000,000 people in this country and this is the best the republicans can muster? Things are worse than I thought…

  • shirleyamccranie

    <<v:r. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::::!!bc295a:….,

  • seaoh

    Uuuugh go ahead enlighten us ! But if you mean to tell us that the vast majority of political issues don’t have a pathway to SCOTUS spare me/us. I get it, theoretically they don’t, but I happen to live in the real world. For God’s sake we had a supreme Court case about whether two homo’s could have their sodomy legally defined as marriage .

  • dualer

    A vote for Castle, as much as I agree with him, is helping the DEVIL get elected. Nothing is perfect in this world, and standing for it yields unintended results. There are millions of people demanding perfection in life that are total basket-cases. Clinton is CLEARLY MUCH WORSE than Trump, and 1 of them will be elected (if the PTB don’t kill him first. Come back to reality.

  • dualer

    I haven’t been to this blog in a while but I am guessing you were for Ted Cruz in the primaries– the supposed “Constitutionalist” who was born in Canada, and is not even eligible.

  • FrozenPatriot

    No, it’s not “theoretical”, it’s the law. The supreme law of the land, in fact. The supreme Court is not a panel of unquestionable kings and queens. It has only become so because people like you refuse to learn the Constitution, educate their friends and children, and stand firm on the truth.

  • Pingback: Moonbattery » A Better Candidate Than Either Major Party Offers()

  • TrojanMan

    I will sleep well knowing that i did not support any progressives in this election and that I live in Texas. I moved there partially because of the inevitable collapse of our country. No matter who is elected it is coming. For me the fast it comes the better off we will be on the other side. Texas will stand the best chance of weathering the coming collapse.

  • FrozenPatriot

    No, a vote for Hitlery helps Hitlery get elected. A vote for Trumpoleon will lead to buyers’ remorse, loss of sleep, loss of freedoms, and a further drift from founding principles and the Constitution. If you’ll sell out and vote for Trump, who WOULDN’T you sell out for?

  • TED

    OMG! A (NOT very reliable) politician P R O M I S E D.

  • TED

    Holding my breath…(NOT).

  • seaoh

    yeah ooookay…… sound like my wife the world is going to hell and it’s my fault, keep living in your … your fantasy world, where everything is lollipops and unicorn poop.

  • Nobama

    I was waiting for your reply.

    Any remaining conservative principles that are currently being respected and protected by our federal government will be gone forever.

    Better now?

  • Nobama

    At least he’s promised it, which is far more than all the others (including my first pick Ted Cruz). Hell, Trump has made it the central theme of his candidacy. For him not to deliver on it would be disastrous for him. Trump wants to be loved. And his supporters will hold his feet to the fire. He’ll be a one-termer if he doesn’t, and that’s that last thing a narcissist like him would ever want to be.

    And if he doesn’t do it, well…nothing has changed. No other candidate would have done it either. So nothing was lost. But if he does kick out all the refugees and illegals, it will save our country from complete and final destruction. Why aren’t you people willing to at least give him a chance?

  • Nobama

    Trump’s never held elected office. He’s not a politician…at least not in the elected office holder sense (the only one that really matters here).

  • Nobama

    >> On the contrary, if we elect our flavor of statist-progressive, how exactly would we oppose his unconstitutional acts after installing him as the orange god-king dictator?

    At this point, we must stop the flood of all immigrants (illegal, legal and refugees); otherwise, it’s all over anyway.

    We can worry about the other stuff when the time comes.

  • FrozenPatriot

    Good thing We The People are in charge, right? Sometimes we have to act like it…

  • 762×51

    So take your pride out of the equation, admit that you’ve made a terrible mistake by backing a Progressive like tRump and rejoin humanity.

    Saying that tRump is better than Obama and Hillary is like saying lung cancer and liver cancer is better than Pancreatic cancer. BFD, either way, in five years, you are dead. To extend the analogy, what you propose is to attempt to cure the Progressive cancer that is killing America, with smoking.

  • 762×51

    Yeah, not like the more mainstream candidates, tRump, Clinton, Sanders . . .

  • 762×51

    Agreed, if we had rebelled 10 years ago, the casualties would have very light indeed. Now they will be catastrophic, waiting only serves to give the enemy more time to prepare.

  • FrozenPatriot

    LOL the same horsecrap was said about Obama. Both times. End of America! Doom! Gloom! Aaaaaarrrggggg!!!

    If we’re this close to the end, let’s celebrate our good run, stand out of the way of the inevitable collapse of this rotted and putrid core, and get on with the work of rebuilding something worthy of God’s blessing and our willing support.

    Besides, and to quote our new queen, “what difference, at this point, does it make?” Trump already said his abortion uberfan sister would make a great SCOTUS ruler. Pronouncing differences between Hrump and Trillary is an exercise in splitting hairs…

  • FrozenPatriot

    So grab your rifle and canteen and go stop them. Government isn’t going to solve your problems. Government IS the problem.

  • Eastwood Ravine

    Did you not read my first post? There is no pride in this statement:

    “You don’t have to like voting for Trump – I certainly don’t. But it’s
    better than Hillary cementing a liberal majority on the Supreme Court.”

    Maybe you ought to read the statements and posts before assuming everything and commenting. I’m eating my humble pie. Are you so prideful not to eat yours?

  • 762×51

    I read it, whatever “virtue signalling” might be, smells like something a Marxist professor might put out.

    Pride has nothing to do with principles. tRump IS Clinton, without the cankles. The only issues he doesn’t agree with Clinton on are the issues he agrees with Bernie Sanders on.

    If that R next to his name salves your conscience, so be it. I know better. Since tRump agrees with the entire Democrat agenda and since he thinks Hillary would be so terrible and that he can beat her, why didn’t he run against her as a Democrat?

  • Pingback: Moonbattery » Nine Percent Imposed Hillary/Trump()

  • TED

    EVEN WORSE!! THANKS for the backup!! 😎

  • TED

    OK, BUT, you need to take the NOT sign off your logo, you sound like one on THEM NOW!

  • NoPasaran

    Oh yeah, THERE’S a winner! Very intelligent bit of tactical voting you’re doing there.

  • Nobama

    Let’s give Trump a chance first. Nothing to lose at this point.

  • Nobama

    Completely absurd accusation. I’ve voted for Ted Cruz every time he has been on my ballot, going back to his first primary run in Texas.

    Either Clinton or Trump will be the next president now. Cruz is gone and no other candidate is remotely close to having a chance.

    Clinton will bring certain destruction; Trump, on the other hand, well…we just don’t know for sure. But if he just stops the foreign invasion and appoints conservative justices as he’s promised, that could help save our country.

    None of the other conservative issues matter now, because they all hinge on these two crucial items.

    Trump is a still long shot. Every single vote will count.

    So why do you want to see Hillary elected? And don’t say “both are equally the same” because that’s just ridiculous and you know it.

  • FrozenPatriot

    I can’t support Trump and sleep soundly with that’s decision. I’m done holding my nose when I vote.

    Castle 2016

  • tfhr

    Cruz was born to an American mother and retains her citizenship. He did not have to become naturalized.

    Read more and sound less stupid:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/

    Cruz, like my nephew, was born to an American mother living in a foreign country. My nephew could have become a German citizen had he wanted that but declined and is as American as I am, as Ted Cruz, and I presume, you. The difference is that you are an imbecile and sadly, we cannot take your citizenship away from you but it does make you a perfect stooge for Hillary or Orange Hillary.

  • dualer

    Of course you have no clue what you are talking about (and listen to the Obama supporting Harvard Review nonsense written by the Usurper Obama’s solicitor general –nah, he doesn’t have an axe to grind). Cruz was naturalized by US Statute 8 US Code 1401 (g). One doesn’t necessarily have to be naturalized by oath, it can be by the power of Congress to write naturalization law, and 8 US Code 1401 was part of the NATURALIZATION ACT of 1952.
    Here is what the Supreme Court has to say about those like Cruz:

    ” A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
    The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away..”
    WONG KIM ARK, 169 US 649 @702, 703 (1898)

    Cruz is naturalized, not natural born— OBVIOUSLY. So it is you that needs to get a clue.

  • dualer

    Quoting Politifact??!!! HAHAHAHA

    The Supreme Court TRUMPS Politifact, which is run by the Liberal media, moron.

  • tfhr

    Facts are facts regardless of where they appear. I purposely used Politifact because I felt it would have better appeal to a fuckwit like you.

    Cruz won a case brought about to keep him from running in New Jersey. The judge, said to be an originalist, if you care, said the following in his conclusion:

    While absolute certainty as to this issue is only available to those who actually sat in Philadelphia and themselves thought on the issue, having weighed the arguments as they are presented by those trying to understand the Framers’ intent, I CONCLUDE that the more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a “natural born Citizen” within the contemplation of the Constitution. As such I CONCLUDE that Senator Cruz meets the Article II, Section I qualifications and is eligible to be nominated for President.

    http://media.philly.com/documents/Judge's+ruling+Ted+Cruz+to+remain+on+NJ+ballot.pdf

    Cruz had already had the same outcome in a PA case brought against him with the same intent before this decision was rendered. It seems the people that fear him the most prefer to fight him in court rather than have their asses handed to them in a head-on debate.

  • dualer

    The Judiciary has been lying to protect the Usurper Obama (not a natural born because of birth as a British subject to a British subject father– dual allegiance at birth thwarts the very purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement, which is “prevention of foreign influence” —SEE Federalist 68– Obama’s father –and Cruz’ father, were “improper ascendants” — i.e not US citizens at the time Obama and Cruz were born). They are still lying to protect the Usurper, because a ruling against Cruz, who is running purely to validate the legal status of the Usurper Obama, touches the Usurper.
    No “FACTS” come from “Politifact”. It is a propaganda site run by the left wing media.

    This is what the SUPREME COURT SAYS a natural born Citizen is:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 @167 (1875)

    Cruz was naturalized by Congressional statute 8 US Code 1401 (g), and according to the SUPREME COURT (a higher authority than “Politifact” or ANY state court), could never be a natural born Citizen, since anyone born abroad MUST BE NATURALIZED. Before 1934 Cruz would never have even been considered a US Citizen if born in Canada to a US Citizen mother. Therefore he cannot be a natural born Citizen, as designated by the Organic Constitution in 1789, today.

    “” A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 @ 702, 703 (1898)

    Wong Kim Ark is one of the most seminal cases regarding US Citizenship, and the fact that the Pa. or NJ Courts and also the Harvard Review nonsense, and the Congressional Research service propaganda never reference it (or reference it wrongly) tells you everything about the history that is being rewritten (“those that control the present control the past” — Orwell “1984”).

    Wong Kim Ark CLEARLY holds that anyone born outside of the US MUST BE naturalized, and thus cannot be natural born, so Pa., NJ, or “Politifact” are all lying.

    This site and many others could have stopped the present Usurpation back in 2008, and could have stopped the attempted validation of the Usurpation with the candidacy of Cruz, but it didn’t. That makes this site part of the problem.

  • tfhr

    You’re a lunatic.

    Obama is a bad person and an awful – probably the worst – President we’ve ever had. Hillary will not be an improvement. However, you are mentally ill with all of this usurpation crap and the drivel about Cruz and how “this site is part of the problem”.

    Your problem – something entirely different from the problems created by Obama and his ilk – cannot be helped by anything online.

  • dualer

    Right, So tell me how:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 @167 (1875)

    which is SCOTUS PRECEDENT, does not make Obama an illegal Usurper.

    And how:

    “” A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 @ 702, 703 (1898)

    which is SCOTUS PRECEDENT does not make Cruz an illegal candidate for POTUS?

    Don’t hurt yourself now.

  • dualer

    Of course I noted that you supplied no proof of your assertions, only invective and the words of a second hand OPINION. I gave you direct citations from the SCOTUS itself.
    You sound like the OBOTS defending the Usurper. Maybe you are actually on the same side?

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy