Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Mitt Romney, You're no Ronald Reagan!


We've had articles exposing Mitt Romney as a phony conservative and an article casting doubt on the conservaitive legitimacy of NewsMax.com and founder Christopher Ruddy.

NewsMax has removed all doubt and come out of the wolf closet by endorsing Romney and pretending he is carrying the Reagan legacy and has the "right" stuff for 2008. They are trying to paint him as a staunch conservative when he unquestionably is not.

We now know that NewsMax is simply a GOP shill who would support ANY Republican, even if he is pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, and anti-gun. We know this because THEY ARE supporting such a candidate in Romney.

Joseph Farah and WorldNetDaily.com seems to be more legitimately principled. However, despite being willing to point out the flaws and hypocrisies of the Bush bunch of professed conservative Republicans, when push came to shove he voted for Bush on the basis of the flawed "lesser evil" and court appointee logic. We will be watching closely to see if Farah does another last minute about-face this time.

Saturday, March 24, 2007





Even though Mitt Romney is the Mormon, the other major Republican candidates all have more wives than he's ever had. Both Rudy and Newt are on wife #3, and both of them were guilty of adultery.

People get divorced and it is not always their fault or their desire. However in the cases of Rudy and Newt, they are the guilty culprits.

What makes Newt's dalliances so odd is that he became known as a "good old boy" southern Baptist when he got into politics, with loads of support from Jerry Falwell. But his second marriage was in a LUTHERAN church and his latest marriage was a CATHOLIC marriage, and the Catholic church annulled his previous, 19 year long, Lutheran marriage. That was after his original BAPTIST marriage.

Newt could start his own Ecumenical Fellowship with just himself as a member.

My only response to this ecumenical adultery is to quote Newt's old Baptist Pastor:

"When congressman Newt Gingrich was a graduate student at Tulane University I baptized him by immersion into the membership of the St.Charles Avenue Baptist Church. Perhaps I didn't hold him under long enough." Rev. G. Avery Lee




Let's not forget how Rudy Giuliani is a paragon of moral virtue. He's on his third marriage and is a serial adulterer.

His first marriage lasted 14 years until he found out the girl he thought was his 3rd cousin was actually his 2nd cousin, so he dumped her.

After living with a homosexual couple for a while (hmmm?) he married TV personality Donna Hanover, whom he promptly embarrassed and trashed publicly, including stepping out with Judith Nathan, who later became his 3rd wife, while he was still married to Donna.

Incest, adultery, homosexuality ... is there any sexual deviancy Giuliani is not familar with?

Friday, March 23, 2007



I've been saying for 20 years (and others have sounded that trumpet longer than that) that there is no substantial difference between the Republicans and the Democrats (which is why I joined the Constitution Party in 1992).

If you won't believe me, perhaps you'll believe the next GOP standard bearer.

Then again, maybe American Christians are so far gone they will vote for this ungodly man anyway.



The only abortion that's SAFE for the BABY is NO abortion. In fact, abortion is not very safe for the mother, either.

That aside, should we support someone for President who doesn't know the difference between a court decision (Roe vs. Wade) and a law (ALL legislative powers are Constitutionally vested to Congress, not the Supreme Court).

It looks like ALL the Republican frontrunners are for abortion, sodomy, and gun control. Can any Christian or conservative justify supporting these guys?

To find someone worthy of support we have to either opt for Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo in the GOP, or the Constitution Party candidate, if Chuck Baldwin or Don Grundmann get the nod for the CP (Jim Clymer is too wishy-washy and willing to hold hands with compromisers).

Romney is trying to put on a more pro-life face as the primaries near. But he has a nearly 40 year history supporting baby killing. I don't trust him speaking from the other side of his mouth after such a long pro-death span.

Mitt is a Mormon. Perhaps that has an influence on his pro-abortion position. The LDS allows for abortion in cases of rape, incest, danger to life and HEALTH of the mother, and fetal deformity. That is a 100% PRO-abortion position in disguise, since there can be some risk to the mother's health in ANY pregnancy.

Politicians PAYING to Kill Babies With YOUR Money


Not only does the supposed conservative Republican Rudy Giuliani support the ungodly killing of innocent infants, but he supports paying for this immorality by unconstitutionally stealing YOUR tax money (and mine) to do it with.

It is quite a talent to commit theft, treason, and murder all at the same time. Apparently those are now qualities Americans desire in their candidates for President. Those also seem to be the qualities the Republican party wants to portray.

Deuteronomy 27:25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.



Everyone knows politicians like to kiss babies. It brings them good photo ops and presents a positive image.

Oh wait, I misspelled that word. Politicians no longer want to KISS babies to get support, now they want to KILL babies instead.

What other conclusion can we draw? We know most of the Democrats favor abortion-on-demand. Therefore we would expect the Republicans to be against abortion (infant murder). But instead we have the Republicans trying to keep pace with the Democrats in support of baby killing.

I believe a woman should have the right to choose. If she wants to abort herself, that's her business. But nobody has the right to choose to kill another innocent human being.

Something is tragically wrong with our society when anyone but a criminal or deviate supports killing off our offspring. Who in their right mind would want to kill a precious baby? Answer: Nobody in their right mind would.

Something is seriously wrong with "America's Mayor", when he supports executing innocent infants.



We know we can't trust Rudy Giuliani to protect our 2nd Amendment gun rights. so we have to turn to Mitt Romney, right? What are the odds of TWO "conservative Republican" candidates supporting the STEALING of our constitutional rights? Why, BOTH of them held up their right hand and took an oath to defend the Constitution. They couldn't possibly both be liars, frauds, and traitors?

I've got bad news for you. Mitt wants to infringe on your gun rights. too. Mitt doesn't understand WHY guns are designed for killing people. They are designed for killing people who want to do you harm, thieves, muggers, druggies, rapists, killers, and particularly OPPRESSIVE RULERS who violate your Constitutional rights.

No wonder so many politicians want to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights. They know they want to take away many of our Constitutional rights and they are the reason for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms in the first place. It's to protect us from THEM.

Furthermore, many of the criminals above have "assault weapons" they can use on us. If they have those kind of weapons, it's totally reasonable that we should have the same weapons to protect ourselves from them.


Rudy not only fails the SECOND Amendment test (the two previous entries), but he also fails the FIRST Amendment test. The 1st Amendment guarantees our free SPEECH (particularly religious speech).

The McCain-Feingold act is an assault on free speech (the only "assault weapon" Rudy doesn't want to ban!) It is to prohibit telling the TRUTH about candidates near an election.

It's marketed as campaign-finance reform, but it is a chilling (and UNCONSTITUTIONAL) attack on our 1st Amendment free speech liberty.

If it's ungodly, un-American, or immoral, you can count on Rudy to support it.



Rudy a conservative?

Don't bet your life on it.

Anyone claiming to be a conservative or a Republican should have to pass a test that shows they know what a conservative is supposed to stand for and that they are HONEST and responsible enough to take the same positions. They should have to pass a test showing that they know what American's Constitutional rights are, like the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms.


Like Rudy says, we require gov't oversight of driving. We require drivers to be trained and licensed. We require autos to be registered.
What does that do to prevent autos from being involved in accidents? Not much. What does it do to prevent autos from being used in crimes? NOTHING.
Why would we expect those things to work when it comes to guns when it's proven they don't work when it comes to cars?
Whether they would work or not, we still have a Second Amendment guaranteeing our right to keep and bear arms. To support any kind of infringment on that Constitutionl right is FRAUD, if not TREASON. Rudy took an OATH to protect and defend the Constitution, but HE is the one wanting to violate it. That makes him a LIAR and unfit for the office he swore to uphold.

Rudy's Gun-Control Agenda
The article at the URL exposes Rudy Giuliani as a total gun-grabber. He's trying to repackage himself to appeal to conservatives, but anyone with the brain capacity of a turnip can see through that.

He claims now to only favor violating the Second Amendment in taking away the gun rights of citizens who live in big cities. But he also complained about guns from outlying areas having an effect on cities, so he really wants to ban them too.

He has supported waiting periods, semi-auto bans, mandatory trigger locks, and outright gun bans.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007



The GOP is going to extremes to try to make one of their three stooges (Giuliani, Romney, McCain, with Fred Thompson about to replace McCain) appear palatable to conservatives and Christians. Unfortunately too many conservatives and Christians will be willingly fooled - but not us here at Wolf Watch.

The 2-25-07 NY Times reported that the conservative Council on National Policy met in Florida to try and whitewash one of those candidates. James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Grover Norquist all attended with paint brushes in hand.

Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform, said he "remained open" to supporting one of the stooges, despite the fact that they are al longtime liberals. He argued if they made "the right PROMISES", the stooges "could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records ... it's called SECONDARY VIRGINITY (taken from abstinence pledges made by students whether they are virgins or not)."

Oh, we don't have to worry about the 20-30 year track records of these guys, we only have to listen to what they SAY - what they PROMISE, today. Read my lips: Politicians have never backed off their promises before, have they? But that only applies to Republicans apparently. I'm sure if Hillary or Obama claimed this political secondary virginity, we wouldn't have to take their word for it - but if one of the GOP stooges makes that claim, we're just supposed to believe him, despite the evidence proving otherwise.

Wow, if only Saddam knew how to play this game, he could've claimed a secondary virginity and been accepted as a conservative Republican instead of being executed.

People, including conservatives and even Christians, no longer want the TRUTH. They don't want somebody who will WALK their talk. They just want somebody who will TALK a good game and scratch their itchy ears.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;


Christopher Ruddy is responsible for NewsMax.com, a supposed conservative news and commentary source (they also offer a print magazine). He has shown himself to be just another CON instead of a conservative, as shown in the 3-19-07 New American (p.11).

When it was politically advantageous for a pseudo-con to attack the Clintons, Ruddy wrote several anti-Clinton books like, "The Strange Death of Vince Foster", which implicated the Clintons (and rightly so). But now Ruddy is singing a different tune.

"Clinton wasn't such a bad president. In fact he was a PRETTY GOOD president in a LOT of ways, and Dick (Richard Mellon Scaife, Ruddy's financier) feels that way today."

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Saturday, March 10, 2007



Rudy has become the GOP frontrunner, largely on the claim that, despite his pro-homo and pro-abortion positions, he will appoint "constructionist" judges to Federal courts.

Of course "constructionist" does not necessarily mean "Constitutional", "literal", "traditional", or even "conservative".

That might be why Giuliani has a track record of appointing very liberal judges.


Conservatives balk over Giuliani's judges

His picks as New York mayor raise doubts over whether he'd put 'strict constructionists' on the high court.

WASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani, in an effort to temper his support for abortion rights and his other socially liberal stances, has been assuring conservatives that as president he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the federal bench, in the tradition of Supreme Court jurists Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and John G. Roberts Jr.

But now, some prominent conservatives are saying that Giuliani's record as mayor undermines that promise. In his eight years leading New York City, they say, Giuliani appointed a number of judges who did not appear to fit the conservative mold.

"Rudy's judges were mostly liberal," said Connie Mackey, a former New Yorker who now serves as vice president of FRC Action, the legislative and political arm of the conservative Family Research Council. "Any pro-lifer who believes they are going to get the kind of judge out of Rudy Giuliani that we see in either Roberts or Alito is probably going to be disappointed."

Kelli Conlin, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, said "I didn't notice a pattern of conservatives, and I certainly didn't notice a pattern of appointing strict constructionists." The Politico noted that most of the appointees were Democrats.

Here are some of the judges appointed by Rudy:

Rosalyn Richter, had been executive director of a gay rights organization. Richter changed the questions asked of potential jurors to be more welcoming to gay and lesbian couples. She was later reappointed by Giuliani.

Dora Irizarry, has called herself pro-choice ...

Sheldon Rand ruled that city funds be used to pay for a sex-change operation for an indigent New York resident.

Paula J. Hepner issued a ruling that allowed a lesbian to adopt her partner's child. Hepner was subsequently married to another woman in a ceremony in Canada.

... ultimately I believe that a woman has a right to choose," Giuliani said last week.

A right to choose what, Rudy? To choose to KILL her baby? Since when does anybody get the choic to commint PREMEDITATED MURDER of a helpless, innocent infant?

No conservative has any business voting for Rudy the Wolf.

Massachusetts Double-Minded Mormon MITT ROMNEY


Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is one of the favored candidates to win the 2008 GOP nomination. However, simply coming from Massachusetts casts much doubt upon him. His political heritage consists of Barney Frank (had a homo-whorehouse running in his apartment), Gerry Studds (convicted of having sex with male page), Ted Kennedy (almost looks conservative compared to those sodomites), and John Kerry.

Here's an excellent article telling how Romney literally bought a pro-life endorsement even though he's never been truly pro-life (even the Mormon church allows abortion in several instances). http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54298

... this is the same man who once boasted in 1994, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since … 1970. … You will not see me wavering on that."

The possibility that Bopp may be receiving payment for his advisory services would readily explain his gushing endorsement, which both defies fact and logic, but it does not excuse it.


The DNC exposes Romney's flip-flops on the abortion issue:

Romney’s Position On A Woman’s Right To Choose Is:

A. Abortion Should Be Safe And Legal. “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country… I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” [Romney Kennedy Debate Transcript, 10/1994]

B. Not Pro-Choice Or Pro Life. “I've never used either title, pro-life or pro-choice, in the past. I said I don't favor abortion.” [Fox News, 2/26/06]

C. Firmly Pro-Life. “I recognized that we had so cheapened the value of human life, through the Roe v. Wade mentality, that I could no longer stand on the sidelines, if you will. I had to take sides. And I call myself firmly pro-life.” [CNN, 10/17/06]

D. All of the above.

He was just as definitive in his position(s) on homosexual marriage. He is unacceptable to anyone who is not a weather vane or a revolving door.