__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

Now let's look at the alleged contenders for the throne of Boy George III, assuming that he does actually vacate it next year. ;-(

It is quite interesting to me that, in fact, every one of these guys is almost a carbon copy of the candidates the Republicans put up for the office in 1996. :-/ It's one of the things that, frankly, leads me to question the authenticity of this so-called "election", and the sincerity of ol' Baby-Killing Bush in "allowing" it to take place in the first place. :-(

Don't believe me? Well, let's take them one by one, and I'll prove it to you. :-)

First of all, there's the one-time "front-runner", Rudy Giuliani. He's the Bob Dole of this race. He has (or had, before Iowa, anyway) the aura of inevitability about him, although conservatives *HATE* him, and everyone assumes that Rotten Clit can clean his clock in the general election, should she obtain the nomination of her party.

Then there's John McCain, possibly the Phil Gramm of this race. Everybody's talking now like he'll probably win New Hampshire tommorrow, but, even if he does, there's no guarantee that'll give him any real future. He may still end up having to drop out in the next few weeks.

But, then again, for all I know, he may stay in it until the bitter end. There's just no way to say for sure. The race is just too damned unpredictable this year, especially on the Republican side. One more reason to think it's nothing but an elaborate charade. ;-)

Prior to a couple of weeks ago I would've sworn up and down that this man *WAS* the Phil Gramm of this race. Period. Paragraph. End of story. But now, it's all gotten so goddamned complicated, it's just about fucked my whole analogy up----at least in his case. Now the only thing that I *KNOW* he's got in common with Phil Gramm is that they're both old and bald. :-D

Then you've got Mitt Romney, the Steve Forbes of the race. Rich New England liberal masquerading as a conservative. Fits the mold to a "T".

Ron Paul, undoubtedly, is the Pat Buchanan of the race. The outsider with the looney-tooney ideas, who nobody really takes seriously, but who has a FANATICALLY loyal following.

The only difference is, of course, that Buchanan was able to gain a lot of traction by poking holes in the frontrunner's faux "conservatism" and, due to his many years entertaining the great masses of the sheopledumb with his uncanny portrayal of the real deal, was able to defy the pundits and actually WIN the states of New Hampshire, Alaska, Louisiana, and Missouri.

If Ron Paul wins even one out of the four, I actually *WILL* suck nigger dick on the streetcorner of your choosing, and I ain't gonna take it back, neither!!! :-D ;-)

The sad fact of the matter is, his supporters are simply DELUDED, and that's all there is to it. :-( They've got a bad case of the Bush Fever, and it's fried their little brains. ;-( More on this later.

Mike Huckabee is the Alan Keyes of the race. The right-wing religious fanatic with the witty little homespun homilies that make him the sentimental favorite of a lot of the Clitstain Coalition-types.

Fred Thompson is the Lamar Alexander of the race, no doubt about it. It's not just the fact that they're both from Tennessee and bald on top. Their personalities are almost identical. They're both quite intelligent, and even perceptive at times, but something about their demeanor often makes them appear either somewhat bored or lackadaisacal.

Hell, there's even a counterpart to that deranged old blowhard, Bob Dornan, who had to drop out of the '96 race after New Hampshire. It's Duncan Hunter, and he's even from Dornan's home state of California, just like Fred Thompson is from Alexander's home state of Tennessee. Now tell me that's a coincidence!!! :-0 ;-)

It all just seems so made-to-order. A little too much so to be legitimate. :-(

Well, anyway, there are your candidates: Rudy "Jew-Lyin'-Trannie", John "Mad Dog" McCain, Romney the Reptoid, Ron "Don't-Confuse-Me-With-Marshall Applewhite-Even-Though-All-My-Followers-*ARE*-A-Bunch-Of-'Rapture-Bunnies'" Paul, Kike Suckabee aka Big Jokeabee aka Huckleberry Hound aka "Huckster" Huckabee, "Feckless" Fred Thompson, and "Dirty Dick" Duncan Hunter.

For the historical record, I suppose it should be pointed out that, originally, there were four other candidates: Tommy "Bladderboy" Thompson, Jokin' Jimmy Gilmore, Sam Wetback, er, Brown-nose, er Brownback, and, last but certainly not least, "Terrible" Tommy Tancredo: The Wetback's Worst Nightmare.

It sucks that he had to drop out of the race at the end of December. (All the others dropped out back in late Summer or early Fall.) I was so looking forward to getting to call him "Terrible Tommy" for the duration. :-) (To all VNNers that may be reading this: Yes, I realize that Tom Metzger likes to refer to himself as "Terrible Tommy", but I always thought he was being too kind to himself. :-D At least, in the interest of full disclosure, he should add, 'The Nigger-Hatin' Commie' to the appelation. :-/ ;-( )

"Huckster" Huckabee won Iowa, but that only came as a surprise to those who weren't following him the past three or four weeks beforehand.

The media set him up as "the next big thing" just to wreak more confusion in the race. I think they want to derail Romney, so that either McCain or Giuliani will get the nomination, but I'm not sure which. Depends on whether they actually want the Republican candidate to WIN this time or not. :-/

Now it's looking like John McCain's likely to win New Hampshire. If he does, it'll just prove that, as far as Republicans are concerned, the bigger an ASSHOLE you are, the better your chances in that state. :-/ That's why "nice guy" Huckabee doesn't have a prayer. New Hampshire is like most women nowadays. They want a man who will beat the crap out of them, call them a fat, ugly cow, and take a shit on their face. Flowers and candy will only get you kicked in the nuts and called a wuss. Hitler would be proud. :-(

Since both McCain and Giuliani are pretty well-despised in the South, its anybody's guess as to whether the Southern states will rally to Huckabee or Thompson.

Thompson's a better debater than any of them, besides Ron Paul, of course. (After all, there's no substitute for having the TRUTH on your side. ;-) ) Even the CNN guys gave him his props for the job he did in the ABC/Facebook Debate last Saturday. He wiped the floor with the rest of the frontrunners.

Unfortunately, he's just as *LOUSY* a campaigner as he is an excellent debater, and for the same reason: Ol' Fred's a plodder, not a runner. A work horse rather than a race horse. He kinda reminds me of the old hound dog, Duke, from THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES. For sniffing out prey, there's not a dog who can beat him, but he's not gonna win any races. Such a candidate is Fred Thompson. For thinking on his feet, he's your man, and can put "Rudy McRomney" in his place real quick. But he's not exactly gonna dazzle you with his rhetorical brilliance. ;-)

But, then again, neither are any of the other Republican candidates. There's not a Barack Obama in the bunch. It truly makes one long for the days of Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes. Ah, the good old days. When we had nothing to worry about but the possible declaration of martial law and those pesky UN troops. :-0 :-D ;-)

Huckabee is a fairly good speaker,---probably the best of this year's Republican crop,---but he's one of the worst debaters I've ever seen. If he expects to do well down here, he'd better pray that most likely primary voters haven't been watching. :-/

And, now, the time has come for me to turn my attention to something I've been dreading: Addressing the whole Ron Paul "Rapture-Bunny" phenomenon. I've been dreading it because, frankly, it gets me so riled up that I can't hardly think straight. When I think about all the otherwise-intelligent people I know that have fallen under the spell of this Satanically-inspired delusion, I start to see red. (And, no, I don't mean "red" in the "Communist" sense, either. It's much more subtle and sinister than that.)

In truth, much of the phenomenon owes itself to the ignorant, wet-behind-the-ears college kids and stubborn, cowardly old farts of the "Save America" school, who make up a good chunk of Mr. Paul's aupporters. (I would say *AT LEAST* half, and maybe more.) It's the inclusion of the OTHERS that has me worried. :-/ Well-informed, seemingly radicalized people, who, frankly, *OUGHT* to know better. :-(

So, for the benefit of any Ron Paul supporters who may come to this site, I will do my best to make you see the error of your ways, both those of you in the "Save America" camp, and those of you who already know better, but, apparently out of sheer mental fatigue and/or desperation, brought on by seven years of Bush/Cheney, have simply taken leave of your senses.

First of all, to the "Save America" people: YOU ARE WRONG. THERE IS *NO* AMERICA TO SAVE!!! :-( The United States of America ceased to exist in 1861, when the Southern states seceded from the Union. When the South fired on Fort Sumter, they did so as a sovereign nation, resisting an occupying power in their midst. And when Lincoln responded to this act of self-defense by raising an army and sending it South, he invaded a sovereign nation.

Once that nation, the Confederacy, had been defeated by this army, it was treated as a conquered power for three years, and denied representation in Congress.

During that time, phony "representatives" chosen by the self-imposed "authority" of the Federal occupying power passed the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, effectively ending slavery and conferring the so-called "right" of citizenship to former slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment also prohibited former Confederates from running for or holding elective office for a set period of time.

Since these so-called "laws" were passed using hand-picked surrogates and *NOT* lawfully-elected representatives, and since, once lawfully-elected representatives WERE finally sent to Congress, they were forbidden from overturning these so-called "laws", that means that both the Amendments themselves and the so-called "Constitutional Government" that passed them are NULL AND VOID!!!! THEREFORE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT EXIST!!! Comprende, usted???

When those FUCKING TRAITORS agreed to sell away their birthright by taking that Satanic oath, they only had the right to do so for THEMSELVES, *NOT* for their posterity.

They were only elected to speak for those individuals at that point in time who had actually VOTED for them, *NOT* for still-unborn generations to come, who got no say in the matter. They had no right to sell their children, grand-children, great-grandchildren, etc. into slavery BECAUSE IT WAS *NOT* THEIR DECISION TO MAKE!!! :-(

My generation of Southrons *DID NOT* choose to enslave ourselves to a Zionist Occupational Government. CHARLES GAVAN O'LANAHAN *DID NOT* CHOOSE TO BE A SLAVE!!!

Since the Supreme Court has decided, time after time after time, that any so-called "law" that violates the Constitution is null and void, (Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US [2 Cranch] 137, 174, 176., Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491., Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442., 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.) and, since the so-called "Constitutional government" assembled between 1865-1867 *CLEARLY* violates the Constitutional standard of the definition of "Constitutional government" laid out in Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of said document, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT EXIST!!!

What has been set up in its place is a VILE SHAM. An UNGODLY MASQUERADE. A Satanically-conjured hologram of nonexistent authority. All those who pledge their allegiance to it damn their souls to Hell.

It is the very voice of the Image of the Beast mentioned in Revelation 13---its forerunner. And, as an antetype of that foul Image, it teaches us a valuable lesson about how the False Prophet will cause the Damned to worship that Image: Through MIND CONTROL.

The so-called United States of America is, in reality, only an imaginary Zionist soap-opera state which exists only in the minds of those who believe in it. Those hapless fools, who, through love of worldly pleasure, have allowed themselves to be deceived, and are now slaves to Satanic delusion. (II Thessalonians 2:11-12.)

Therefore, you see that the final step in this process will, ultimately, be the changing of the very NAME of this imaginary nation, and its national holiday. If they can replace their OLD propaganda----tied as it was to *ACTUAL FACTS*, which are always dangerous to tyrants, because the masses may start to take a closer look at said facts, find out the Truth, and demand that their freedoms be restored,----with NEW propaganda and make you believe THAT as well, then their power over you will be complete. As it was in Orwell's novel, 1984, if Big Brother tells you 2 + 2 = 5, you will believe him. :-0 :-(

And that is what we *MUST* and *WILL* prevent, no matter how many people have to die, no matter if life as we know it ceases to exist. *NOTHING*, I repeat, *NOTHING* can be worse than what our Enemy has got planned for us, and we are commanded by God to stand and fight against it until the End. (Daniel 11:21-45, 12:1.)

Now that the fact has been established that the United States of America does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1861, it is of little importance that the Federal Reserve Act, Income Tax Amendement, etc., were not properly ratified. Those facts are merely academic.

The only other thing that needs to be established is the fact that, in 1933, a very *REAL* tyranny was established in the place of the non-existent sham government, which basically did as it pleased, while giving lip service to Constitutional principles. A COMMUNIST TYRANNY WAS ESTABLISHED IN AMERICA, AND, WHEN IT HAD FINALLY BEEN COMPLETED, (It was necessary for them to take us into a Second World War, in order to justify the creation of this illegal Communist regime.) AMERICA OFFICIALLY BECAME AMERIKA.


When you try to explain this to people, most of them initially balk at the idea. They insist that we aren't Communist, because we have a capitalist economic system of free enterprise. They suggest that we are perhaps, socialist, or fascist, even, but not Communist.

The fact of the matter is, there are more types of Communism than the Marxist-Leninism which they "teach" (brainwash) us in school is the *ONLY* type of Communism. Marxist-Leninism, with its state-run economy, is only ONE type of Communism. The other types are Fabian Socialism, the Frankfurt School model, and Gramscianism. I would encourage all interested readers to do a Google search on those terms, and begin their research from there.

What I can tell you about each of the other types, in brief, is that they all advocate a kind of "Third Position": An intermediate phase between pure capitalism, and the Western Tradition of Free Enquiry (Free Speech, Freedom Of Religion, Freedom Of Association, etc.) that has, historically, gone along with it, and the pure communism of Marxist-Leninism.

This type of government has a "mixed economy", (Big Business and Big Government hand-in-glove with each other. Very little real competition. Mostly corporate-owned monopolies.) and a media-controlled culture of SELF-HATE like that of Orwell's fictional Oceania and that accurately (and eerily) prophesied in the TV mini-series, AMERIKA. The people are taught from birth, via the media and public school system, to hate their own culture and traditions.

That is *EXACTLY* the kind of system we have had in this country since 1933. AND IT *IS* COMMUNIST!!! For the love of God, let's just call a spade a spade!!!

And do you think, do you REALLY think that you can fight this Communism through the ballot box, which *THEY* control??? Or through the mass media, which *THEY* control??? Don't kid yourself. Since the beginning of time, there has only been *ONE* way to successfully fight and overthrow Communism: Through bullets, bombs, and anything and everything else that KILLS JEWS DEAD. ;-(

Therefore, if I vote, I vote as a revolutionary. I vote *ONLY* if and when there is a candidate running that is so HATED by a large class of people that, should he or she win, that class of people would rise up and start killing right and left, and there would be blood in the streets.

Or, otherwise, when there is a situation where a certain class of people are demanding that a certain candidate be elected or else, and, though they mean it, said candidate isn't at all likely to win, I vote for that candidate, and sit back and wait for the fun to ensue. :-D Because, ultimately, it will lead to the same thing.

I *DO NOT* vote based on IDEOLOGY, like some ignorant, self-deluded little shit who doesn't know the score. ;-( Who I may actually like or agree with makes no difference whatsoever. That is strictly for *CHUMPS* who don't know any better. Who think they actually stand a chance of "changing the system" via the ballot box.

I happen to know that, if there is anyone in the race that I would tend to agree with, they are either there working for the enemy, to "feel us out", or, otherwise, are either UTTERLY CLUELESS or on some kind of a pointless, self-serving ego trip. In the case of Ron Paul, I suspect it's the latter.

So, anyway, that takes care of all of you *FORMERLY* ignorant "Save America" people.

Now, a few words for those who already knew the things that I've spent the last couple of dozen paragraphs explaining to the ignorant: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU??? :-/ Have you lost your goddamned MINDS??? What exactly do you think you are going to ACCOMPLISH???

Are you not aware that Ron Paul has stated, on numerous occasions, that he, most likely *WILL NOT* seek the Presidency as a third party candidate this year??? And I am sure you realize that he stands about as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as I have of making Kate Beckinsale my loveslave, which is about the same chance that David Duke has of winning the NAACP Image Award. ;-( So....please......for the love of God......tell me *WHY* exactly you have chosen to hitch your wagon to this stump!!!!

You know he just got his ass handed to him in Iowa, don't you? Came in fifth. And he's likely to only come in fourth or fifth in New Hampshire. Do you think it's gonna get any better when the contest moves down South? THINK AGAIN!!! I happen to know these ZOG flag-wavin', baby-killer cheerin', Cheeto-eatin', droolin', mouth-breathin' inbreds down here, and let me tell you, they've got about as much use for Ron Paul as they do for an African in-law. They'd vote for McCain or Giuliani long before they'd even think of voting for Ron Paul.

And the reason is that, like *ALL* Republican primary voters, as far as they're concerned, there's only *ONE* issue, and that's the Iraq War, which they're all for. And they're *NOT* gonna vote for any candidate that doesn't suck "Shrubya"'s scrotum on that issue. Period.

The *ONLY* reason Ron Paul has done as well as he has so far is because, in those primaries, they let independents vote. Not that way down here, though. (Well, it is in the state of Tennessee, but we don't even get to vote until February 5th. By that time, the Deep South will have already voted.) Wait until he gets to a state like South Carolina or Florida, where only registered Republicans are allowed to vote, and the whole affair is heavy-handedly presided over by Party apparatchiks. He'll be so far down the list he won't even register. He'll do good to come in seventh in a field of seven.

And, aside from all that, let's just suspend disbelief for a moment, and pretend that the guy actually had a chance of becoming President. What could he POSSIBLY even manage to accomplish with a far-Left Democratic Congress??? :-/ And that is *EXACTLY* what all the polls say we're gonna get this November: a Democratic supermajority, that can do basically as it bloody well pleases.

Do you really think that Ron Paul, the ardent Constitutionalist is gonna put all his convictions aside and start acting like a dictator, just because that's what his constituents want him to do??? Don't count on it. Face it, guys, President Ron Paul with a Democratic Congress is like a harmless, fuzzy little woodland creature standing in the direct path of a semi truck. :-0 Those COMMIE SCUMBAGS will pass gun control, "Hate Crimes" legislation, and every other vile little item on their Stalinist "To Do" list, while Ron Paul merely stands by helplessly. :-(

Or do you think he has some magic wand he is just gonna wave, once he gets elected, and make everything wonderful again? And, if so, do you also believe that he "used his magical fire breath to save the maidens fair"? Just curious. ;-)

GENTLEMEN, THIS IS *MADNESS*, AND YOU KNOW IT!!! Have seven years of Bush/Cheney simply loosened the seeds in your gourd??? Well, buck up, me boyos, because it's gonna get WORSE. Believe me. ;-( I warn you: If you persist in this folly, and it results in Hillary or Giuliani or Romney becoming president, we will look back on the Bush/Cheney years as "the good old days"---if, for no other reason, because of the populist, semi-conservative, and somewhat rebellious Republican Congress that held power from 2001-2006.

There'll be no Ron Pauls or Tom Coburns in the uber-Democratic Congress elected this November to put the brakes on the Satanic New World Order agenda of whichever slimy, reptillious creature that manages to slither into the White House. Said reptoid will get the "rubber stamp" treatment all the way. :-0 :-/

This is why I have to reiterate the fact that *NOTHING* will save us from this horrible fate but *REVOLUTION*. *REAL* revolution, not some cheap-ass political slogan. It ain't the "Ron Paul Revolution", guys. Just the Ron Paul Circumlocution. And talking ain't gettin' it. ;-(

Now contrast this Pig in a Prom Dress you've chosen with my boy, (Pun intended. :-D ) Barack Obama, who the niggers and angry young folks love and all other whites hate and fear. Barack actually stands a *REAL* chance of winning his Party's nomination, unlike your little Fairy Queen. And, if he gets it, and loses the general election, we *WILL* get our revolution. If he wins the election, however, same thing. :-)

I'M TELLING YOU: WE CAN'T LOSE WITH THIS GUY!!! Come on, guys!!! Stop this silly little game of "goody-goody" that you're playing, and come on over to the Dark Side!!! Believe me, it is *MUCH* more fun here. :-D ;-)

OK. End of soapbox speech.

With South Carolina looming over the horizon, and Obama the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, (Barring an assassination, which even I tend to think is unlikely.) the Republicans need to take a long, hard look at the candidates they've got, and ask themselves this question: WHICH ONE CAN BEAT OBAMA???

Mitt Romney? Not hardly. Obama would use Romney's scaly little butt for a Swiffer Sweeper and mop up the stage with him.

John McCain? Hell, no!!! That creepy, crotchety old fucker would scare young people our of voting Republican for the next twenty years!!! :-O :-D Imagine "Mad Dog" and Obama on the same stage. Remember that scene from ROOTS? That's what it would look like. ("What's yer name, yew Communistic nigra yew?" "OBAMA!" "Barack Obama!")

Mike Huckabee? Well, I could see why they might think him best suited to handle the challenge, seeing that, as a former Baptist preacher, he's the best SPEAKER they've got, but, one must remember that, aside from being a brilliant orator, Obama was also a wily civil rights lawyer, so he knows how to think on his feet. Huckabee, on the other hand, is a *HORRIBLE* debator. Even I felt sorry for him, watching him on that Fox News Channel debate Sunday night, and I can't stand the guy. :-/

Fred Thompson? Well, he's a damn good debator, but, unfortunately, he's such a boring SPEAKER, that, by the time he got the chance to show his logical chops, most people will have already changed the channel.

And we all know Ron Paul ain't gonna get it.

So.....who does that leave? Ah, yes. Rudy Giuliani. :-) And, you know what? When it comes to debating Obama, I think ol' Rudy is the best they've got. As much as I despise everything he stands for, I'll admit the man is both eloquent and, seemingly, logical, presuming, of course, that one doesn't know the truth, and, sad as it may be, the vast majority of the Amerikan sheople most certainly *DO NOT*. :-(

Just as important, however, is the fact that he is an urbane, (if effete) sophisticated Northerner. Therefore, it is permissible, under the rules of political correctness, for him to beat a black man in a debate. :-) (Just so long as he doesn't, you know, actually beat him, which in Giuliani's case, I would find *HIGHLY* unlikely. More likely, Obama would kick his little cross-dressing butt. :-D ) That wouldn't be the case with one of the Southern candidates.

Only Giuliani has the ability to play the role of Mr. Drummond to Obama's rambunctious young Willis. And, after a few minutes of stinging rhetoric from our Dago Duellist, I suspect that most of the audience will be agreeing with him that Willis shouldn't get the keys to the car, (read: White House) until he buckles down and shows some responsibility. ;-)

And, when Obama comes back with the inevitable, if slightly more subtle than usual, "You're an old, rich white man, and you just don't get it." jab, it remains only for Giuliani to remind the audience of Obama's promise to meet with Iranian President Achmedenejad, and Obama's own Islamic connections, and, suddenly, the seemingly unbeatable Obama becomes simply Mr. Buck-Wild, Crazy, America-Hatin' Nigger.

In the end, I suspect we will see a brokered convention on the Republican side. Whether the Party bosses will be smart enough to choose Giuliani or not remains to be seen.