Skip to comments.Ron Paul Wants Off Montana Ballot
Posted on 09/11/2008 9:11:07 PM PDT by Night Conservative
HELENA Republican Ron Paul does not want to be on the Montana ballot as the Constitution Party presidential candidate, but state election officials said Thursday it may be too late to remove his name.
Paul, in a letter to the secretary of state, said his name was nominated by the Constitution Party of Montana without his permission.
The secretary of state's office said there does not appear to be a provision to remove Paul's name at this point. At least some counties have started printing ballots, officials said.
"We have received the letter, and we are looking at the law. So far, we are not sure that the law allows for anything to be done about the situation," said agency spokesman Bowen Greenwood.
The Montana Constitution Party put Paul's name on the ballot earlier this week. Paul supporters said, at the time, that they had Paul's permission to do so.
In his letter dated Wednesday, Paul said he never wanted to be on the ballot. Paul lost a bid for the GOP presidential nomination earlier this year.
"While I certainly appreciate the Constitution Party of Montana's nomination, and all of the hard work of its members, I am writing to respectfully request that you remove my name from the ballot in Montana as I did not seek nor consent to this nomination," Paul wrote.
Paul also said the national Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, should be on the ballot instead.
(Excerpt) Read more at flatheadbeacon.com ...
I love this Republic. I love the Constitution. I love what the founding fathers have bequeathed to us. I don’t want to see these things destroyed by people loyal to a foreign power and not the United States.
Your earlier post belies your claim in this one. According to you this country is at fault for being attacked by these Islamic Jihadist who wish to dominate the entire planet. According to you, the United States is only interested in oil. Sell it on the street corner with the rest of the moonbats.
I have to admit that I stopped reading from the earlier post before I got to this statement. I wish that I had read all that you wrote before I responded. That way I could have derided you for being ignorant about history as well. WE IN THE WEST DID NOT EXIST DURING THE CRUSADES. This statement in and of itself is all that is needed by anyone to see you for what you are. TROLL.
Western Civilization, Western Europe, Christiandom, did not exist before the 15th Century? Richard the Loin Heart was a Chinaman I suppose?
Richard the LOIN Heart? Um, perhaps you should go back to school. Christianity began approximately 2000 years ago, not after the 1500’s. If Christianity began after the 15th century, that would make it younger than Islam which was founded in the 7th century. However, as anyone with a small amount of education would tell you, Christianity is several hundred years older than Islam. Again you demonstrated yourself as nothing more than a simple minded foolish TROLL.
I was questioning you. I know that Western civilization existed before the 15th Century. You are the one who denied that.
Image The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.
The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.
The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom, the most important were the Eastern Crusades, which are the only ones treated in this article. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm
We (Western Civilization) did win some and lose some of these wars. At times Christians Europeans occupied these lands only to be driven out again. The point is at that time the only reason that the Muslim world was rich and powerful enough to put up a fight, was the fact that they controlled the trade routs that we (Christendom) depended. Once we found a way around those trade routs the power and wealth of those Muslim countries faded rapidly. Not until the 20th Century, did the Muslim start to regain its wealth because of our need for oil. Once again they controlled transportation. If we find a viable alternative to oil they will pose no threat to us as they follow their camels around the desert once more.
To put it in very simple terms that you can understand:
If we don’t need their oil, we win and our sons and daughters don’t have to die!
....”To put it in very simple terms that you can understand:”....
Well, to put it very basic terms that YOU can’t seem to understand (as has been said to you at least twice already on this thread).
GO AWAY TROLL....
Doesn’t matter, I’m told by WOSG, for Texas.
That’s just the statute, but the Secretary of State can ignore the statute and decide by fiat, and the infallible courts will decide that’s okay.
And he had the state in the bag.
Had your eyes checked lately? Or a brain scan? I don't think a scan would show any cognitive ability.
I know you got the boot, but I bet you're reading responses. You probably approve of the William Ayres connections to 0bama.
Enjoy the loss in November.
Ron is trying to stay out of McCain’s way, without openly saying so.
About a month ago, I tried to run off about 15 or 20 unwelcome cattle and their calves. They were not easy to govern :o(
That is very bad form. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Ron Paul lives on planet earth, but some of his supporters apparently do not.
The libertarian vote played a major role in Tester defeating Burns. Jones got 3% of the vote.
Paul did do better than McCain in the Montana caucus; finishing in second place behind only Mitt Romney.
Let me know when he does it in a format, where anyone who wants to, votes.
You are hell bent on trying to equate the United States of America with the Roman Empire and the British Empire of the 1500’s and earlier. You have done nothing but compare an apple to an orange and tried to call them both a kumquat. Your argument is specious at best and a bald face lie at the worst. You have zero facts to back up your claim that the war in Iraq is only about oil (other that the claims of people who are so far to the left as to be ridiculed for any comments that issue from their mouth).
I didn’t deny anything. You have tried through semantics to tie the United States with events which you don’t even understand in the first place. The Crusades were not a failure. Go back to school and study this time period and what took place, then get back to me. You don’t seem to have any understanding that three times in human history after the ascention of Islam there have been three one hundred years wars that were caused by Islamic uprising which were put down. The Crusades was but one of those events. We are now in the fourth installment of a 100 years war to put down yet another Islamic uprising. You would know that if you would take time to study history. But you are only interested is spewing forth your liberal hatred of this nation. Go Away TROLL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.