Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February 13th, 2010

Tea Party Patriot Rick Miller’s blog entry is must reading for every thoughtful tea partier across the country. Miller understands the downside of a third party movement and has realized what tea partiers must do to free America from the progressives’ politically correct, nanny state nightmare. 

“To vote for a third party candidate, is to throw your vote away”.  … a third party would split the vote with the G.O.P., thus opening the door to another four years of this horror. … we don’t need a third party.… we need to … reform the G.O.P.  

If we (Tea Party Patriots) are large enough, and organized enough, to elect candidates on a national level, we should … win in the G.O.P. primaries… if we can’t win a primary, we can’t win a national election. And when we do win in the G.O.P. primary, we also win the backing, support and available monies of the G.O.P.”—Rick Miller

Tea Partiers should join the Republican Party en masse to effect change in its leadership and elect candidates who oppose a living Constitution, unlimited government, and collective liberty and support the original intent of the Constitution, limited government, and individual liberty.

Tea Party Patriots is a national grassroots organization that supports over 1000 community based tea party groups around the country. The group’s Web site lists states, cities, and towns that have active Tea Party groups. According to the site, the nation currently has 15 million registered Tea Party Patriots, and more people are joining every day.

I.M. Kane

 


 

P.O.P. A Third Party?

By Rick Miller

For quite some time now, I have been very concerned over the thought of the establishment of a third party. I as much as anyone want a change, definitely not the change (transformation) we are seeing, but real in Washington.

I am a Tea Party Patriot, who loves and supports the movement, just as I’ve loved the America I have grown up in. Obama and this current administration must go!

This has been my dilemma, as it is always said “To vote for a third party candidate, is to throw your vote away”.  My dilemma, that a third party would split the vote with the G.O.P., thus opening the door to another four years of this horror.

I look back at N.Y. district 23, we ran our candidate, thank God, but we didn’t win. The G.O.P. nominated some lame candidate, who was a real joke. Proof of that, was giving their support to the Democrat when they pulled out of the race. Perhaps if the G.O.P. had gotten on board with Hoffman sooner, he just might have done better. As Hoffman said “I’m no rock star”, which we already have one in Washington now, one too many at that!

Then it dawned on me a few weeks ago, we don’t need a third party. What we need to do is to reform the G.O.P. Why not? ??   WE can do with the G.O.P. the very same thing the Progressive/Commies have done with the Democratic Party.

As Norman Mattoon Thomas, a socialist, pacifist, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, said in a 1944 speech, “I no longer need to run as the presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform”.

If we (Tea Party Patriots), are large enough, and organized enough, to elect candidates on a national level, we should then have no problem to win in the G.O.P. primaries.

What we need to do:

(1) We join the G.O.P., ( so we may vote in the primary elections)

(2) We find our Champions of the Constitution, and enter them in the primary

(3) We work for getting our candidates elected.

As I said, if we can’t win a primary, we can’t win a national election. And when we do win in the G.O.P. primary, we also win the backing, support and available monies of the G.O.P.

How important is a name?  Whether it’s the G.O.P. or the P.O.P. (Party of Patriots),  winning is important, second place is losing.

We need to reach every God fearing, American loving, Flag waving Patriot across this Great Country, to join the Movement to Save AMERICA !!

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

“[T]his case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations.”—Alan M. Gottlieb, Executive Vice President Second Amendment Foundation

 


 

Judge: Seattle gun ban is illegal

By Martha Kang

The law has sided with gun rights advocates who took the city of Seattle and former Mayor Greg Nickels to court over the city’s gun ban.

King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer on Friday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs – the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens’ Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington Arms Collectors, National Rifle Association and five individuals – and declared the city of Seattle’s gun ban at public places is in direct violation of Washington state’s firearm pre-emption law.

In issuing the ruling, Shaffer wrote, “Seattle’s Department of Parks and Recreation’s Rule/Policy Number P 060-8.14 (“Firearms Rule”) violates Washington law and on that basis, is null and void.”

The city has been ordered to remove all signage banning weapons from public areas within 30 days.

Last June, Nickels issued an order banning guns on city facilities where children are likely to frequent. The places on the ban list include parks, playgrounds, community and environmental learning centers, sports fields and courts, swimming beaches, pools, water play areas, skate parks and golf courses.

The plaintiffs’ complaint challenged Nickels’ executive order, stating “ownership of firearm is a clearly protected right under the United States and Washington Constitutions.”

The complaint also cited Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna, who issued an opinion in response to the city’s ban, stating state laws “preempts a city’s authority to adopt firearms law or regulations of applications of the general public.”

SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb called Friday’s ruling “a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens.”

“It is also a victory for the Legislature,” Gottlieb said, “because this case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations.”

City officials were not available for comment.

Read Full Post »