Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bob Barr’s national field director attacks Ron Paul on MySpace blog

Bob Barr 2008 National Field Director Mike Ferguson says Ron Paul showed a “complete lack of leadership” today, and “has, again, blown a tremendous opportunity to lead and advance the agenda of the Constitution, and individual liberty.”

Ferguson insinuates that Ron Paul’s campaign was ego-driven and not really about the issues. He also says that in not endorsing Barr, the thrice-married ex-CIA man who paid for his second wife’s abortion, Paul showed he lacked courage.

Worst of all, Ferugson says Paul refused to endorse Barr because supporting all four third-party candidates maximizes Paul’s book-sale potential. “Ron Paul is in the Ron Paul business,” he says.

Below is his entire blog post.

From Bob Barr 2008 National Field Director Mike Ferguson:

Earlier today, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) held a press conference in Washington, D.C. where he said…well, nothing…

He invited Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Bob Barr and independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader along with the nominees of two small, minor political parties to stand behind him as he encouraged Americans to vote for anyone other than Sens. Barak Obama and John McCain.

Ron Paul wasted the press corps’ time with this press conference. It accomplished nothing and displayed a complete lack of leadership on Paul’s part.

Of the four invitees, only Bob Barr had the sense to skip the event. He held his own press conference, also in Washington, D.C., later in the day.

Among the things in Ron Paul’s statement was a reference to the “principled non-voter”, claiming they are sending a message and should start a “League of Non Voters” to impact the nation and government.

So, in other words, Paul stated that people should not vote for Obama or McCain and should vote for a third party nominee…unless they really don’t want to.

Allow me to set the good Doctor straight: “principled non voters” count the same, and have the same impact on America, as lazy, apathetic citizens who simply do not care enough to get involved and vote. There is no difference between the wannabe political philosopher who refuses to cast a vote “out of principle” and the lazy citizen who chooses to remain ignorant of the issues, the candidates and his or her government.

Keep in mind that some of Paul’s followers have placed his name on the Presidential ballot in two states (Louisiana and Montana). Paul could have kept his name off the ballot in those states by simply requesting that he not be listed as a candidate in the general election, but in an effort in ego, he chose to allow his name to go on the ballot in direct competition with the other candidates he claims to encourage people to consider voting for.

Ron Paul has, again, blown a tremendous opportunity to lead and advance the agenda of the Constitution, and individual liberty. Since he launched his Presidential Exploratory Committee almost two years ago, Ron Paul has repeatedly said this campaign is not about the man (him) but about the message (liberty and the Constitution).

Really, Dr. Paul? Your actions belie your words.

If he were truly serious about this being “about the message” and not the man, he would be making sure that the message is resonating far and wide through and during the Presidential campaign.

The Libertarian Party begged him to accept its nomination and continue his campaign through Election Day. He declined.

The Libertarian Party then nominated the only credible pro-freedom candidate in the Presidential race, former Congressman Bob Barr, but Paul refused to support him, saying he is working for freedom within the Republican Party.

Backing Barr would have taken courage on Paul’s part. Instead, today he took a cop-out course of action by encouraging a nondescript “vote third party” message that would water down the impact of the freedom vote. If Americans are serious about sending a message that demands the restoration of our civil liberties, an end to the war in Iraq, a foreign policy that makes sense and solid, realistic economic policies then there is only one option to vote for on November 4th – Bob Barr.

Ron Paul knows that. Instead, he encouraged watering down the vote while maximizing his marketing base for the Campaign for Liberty, his book sales, etc.

After Rep. Paul collected millions in donations from Libertarians, independents and Republicans during his campaign, he has since:

1)Â Â Â Â Â Sold his followers a book

2)Â Â Â Â Â Had people travel to (or donate to) a march on Washington D.C. that ultimately proved to be too small to even get noticed, much less have any sort of impact

3)Â Â Â Â Â Launched the “Campaign for Liberty” and hit up his followers, again, for donations to this organization that has made no noticeable effort to support liberty-minded candidates

4)Â Â Â Â Â Sold thousands of tickets to the “Rally for the Republic” in Minnesota, where he then sold t-shirts, more books, vendor booth space, advertising in the programs and a host of other things.

Ron Paul is now in the Ron Paul business – and business is lucrative.

As painful as it is to state the obvious: this campaign by the man is no longer about the message, it is about the money – lots of it. Other than in his pocket and in the pocket of his paid staff, where is all the money going?

No one seems to know for sure.

In a time of economic recession, Paul has found a way to keep going back to the financial well of his followers, creating yet another challenge for candidates who are still running for office at all levels and are unable to raise the funds needed to effectively spread the message of liberty and the Constitution.

I was among the first to donate to Dr. Paul’s Exploratory committee and I also donated to his Presidential campaign. Once he dropped out of the race, though, I did the responsible thing and got behind the only remaining credible candidate, Bob Barr, who is capable of injecting the message Ron Paul claims to want to spread through Election Day and beyond.

America still needs to hear that message and only Bob Barr is capable of taking the message further down the field. Unfortunately, it is obvious that Ron Paul is more interested in making money off the message than helping spread it through someone else. Maybe he is worried that Bob Barr will publish a book and compete for customers.

Thousands of Americans rushed to join Ron Paul’s campaign, myself included. For us, it has always been about the message. We were thrilled to have someone serve as spokesman for the cause of liberty and back a candidate who could leverage his position as a major-party candidate to spread our message to millions through the campaign.

That is why we donated millions of dollars collectively.

Since ending his Presidential campaign, though, Ron Paul has gone from being the hope for America to being a major obstacle to the message of freedom and the Constitution.

By contrast, Bob Barr showed that he is not just talking about and rallying for the message of freedom, he is doing something about the need to put liberty and Constitutional issues front and center in the Presidential campaign.

The Barr campaign continues to pick up steam in the national media and in the polls. People are listening and we cannot miss this opportunity to maximize our reach. The message is still getting out – because of Bob Barr.

Dr. Paul, where is the leadership from you? We certainly did not see any today in Washington, D.C.

Do Paul’s loyal followers, I ask one simple question: Are you serious about continuing to spread the message of Liberty for America?

If so, prove it. Go to and sign up for our email updates. Then, look for a MeetUp group in your area – if there isn’t one already, start one. Also, make a donation to the campaign. In any event, get involved in the Barr campaign because this campaign is actually about the message.


  1. George Phillies George Phillies October 24, 2009

    Observe that Mr. Ferguson, like Barr supporter Mr. Gordon, appears to have gone over to the Republicans.

  2. carmen electra gallery carmen electra gallery October 24, 2009

    Sign: tpmnp Hello!!! xfrwu and 4941gqaufdzuvx and 3803 : Thanks. We look forward to hearing from you again and for your opinions on the world of work.

  3. Doob Doob September 12, 2008

    “Allow me to set the good Doctor straight”

    No, you’re not allowed, you ass. You can all rot in hell for putting down the man who has worked his whole freaking life for LIBERTY.

    Bob Barr is a NEO-CON, and his staff are NEO-CON LOVERS.

  4. sunshinebatman sunshinebatman September 11, 2008

    VTV – the first possibility is that your knowledge is incomplete.

    The second possibility is that the organizers deliberately ignored Dr Paul’s wishes and didn’t invite Barr.

    That wouldn’t be too surprising. I’ve been getting reports for a couple months that Barr was having trouble getting through Paul’s staff to speak with Paul directly. And yesterday, we had the debacle of Paul’s staff apparently not even telling the good Dr what they had heard from BARR08 (actually Verney) until after the press conference was over.

  5. Porcupine Porcupine September 11, 2008

    WOW… just wow!
    I guess I gathered signatures for the wrong man.
    I was even just promoting Barr this week.
    I guess the sign comes off the lawn as well.
    The National LP is just going to show that all the more reason why the Free State Project is all the more important.

    Barr went from possibly the highest vote total for the LP to …. well who knows how low?

  6. amyb31416 amyb31416 September 11, 2008

    In my RP circles, 90% of us now loathe Barr. Of the more than 60% of us who were going to vote for Barr are now either voting Baldwin or write-in.

    I was excited to be voting libertarian for the first time, not because I loved Barr, but because I could be part of getting the LP future ballot access. Barr dug the hole for the coffin and Fergusen put the final nail in. I will now be voting against Barr, McCain and Obama. Ironically, if Ruwart had the nomination I’d be a dues paying LP member campaigning for her.

    So, because of the destruction Barr has wrought upon the future of the LP, we started this petition to have him removed:

    Please sign and promote if you’re in agreement and try to help the future of the party!

  7. VTV VTV September 11, 2008

    sunshinebatman being someone who helped organize the Revolution March, I can tell you that Bob Barr was never invited to my knowledge.

  8. tbrambo tbrambo September 11, 2008

    Mike is a good for nothing A-hole…

    Bob Barr is TOAST!

  9. Trent Hill Trent Hill September 10, 2008

    Id bet Paul will write-in Baldwin.

  10. Trent Hill Trent Hill September 10, 2008


    The organizers asked Paul for input on guests.

  11. Hugh Jass Hugh Jass September 10, 2008

    Will Ron Paul be writing-in Ron Paul?

  12. sunshinebatman sunshinebatman September 10, 2008

    Trent – having spoken personally with organizers of the Revolution March – “grassroots organizers” is not mutually exclusive of past and present Paul campaign and Congressional staff — . . . Dr. Paul was involved to the point of setting the guest list (ie invited both Barr and Baldwin, etc).

  13. José C José C September 10, 2008

    What was the point of this Ron Paul event? I do not get it. Was it to tell us we should vote for a third party candidate? If so he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and expense and sent an E-mail letting us know we should vote for a third party candidate. We need a press conference for this?

    This creates a controversy where there should be none.

  14. Fred Church Ortiz Fred Church Ortiz September 10, 2008

    Baffling as it may be, there are Ron Paul supporters that took “I work in the GOP” to mean “Vote McCain”, and others that took “I can’t endorse McCain” to mean “Vote Obama.” This will be good for them. The rest of us are into this kooky third party thing anyway, so to us it’s a dud, but I’ll gladly take “vote 3rd Party” over the vagueness that stood before.

    As for splintering, well, RP’s said before he’s undecided between Barr & Baldwin, him and Nader have spoken positively of eachother in the past and maybe he remembers McKinney fondly from her time in the House. I absolutely agree that it would have made more impact to get behind one candidate – but with these conflicts, I can see why he personally wouldn’t want to.

    But I think I can guess at the answer next time someone asks him who he’s voting for 😀

  15. darren darren September 10, 2008

    As a Paul supporter, I’m dumbfounded.

    No one doubts the Barr campaign is sabotaging itself by alienating Paul supporters.

    But that doesn’t excuse Ron Paul. He’s had 8 months since he was eclipsed in Iowa and New Hampshire to think about his next move to advance the cause of liberty. What is it? To remind us that he doesn’t like McCain and Obama.

    If he’s committed to the GOP, he should ignore the presidential race and campaign for pro-liberty House candidates. If he’s open to third parties, he should use his influence to unite the liberty movement behind one ticket and make an impact on the election. Instead he both burned his GOP bridges and encouraged the liberty movement to splinter.

    So why aren’t Paul supporters everywhere saying “What the hell, Dr. Paul?”

  16. Hugh Jass Hugh Jass September 10, 2008

    Throughout the campaign, it seems like Barr and company have simply been making me feel better and better about voting for Baldwin.

  17. Trent Hill Trent Hill September 10, 2008

    “RP’s people defintely did organize the march in July. There was another march on the Capitol on April 15 which he did not organize”

    Paul did not organize either–both were grassroots efforts.

  18. RedPhillips RedPhillips September 10, 2008

    The offending post has apparently been removed. But the evidence is saved here for all to see.

  19. dave dave September 10, 2008

    well, now Barr will have to come out tomorrow and fire mike ferguson. what a silly man. he might as well have shot Barr in the foot. I really don’t like Barr now, but a feel sorry for him. this should give Baldwin a little boost.

  20. sunshinebatman sunshinebatman September 10, 2008

    RP’s people defintely did organize the march in July. There was another march on the Capitol on April 15 which he did not organize.

  21. Arthur Torrey Arthur Torrey September 10, 2008

    We will have to see what the courts do, but after today, you should not count on Barr’s name appearing on a ballot in MA if *I* have anything to say about it…

    I’m no RP fan, but I’m not going to think that going out of my way to attack him, when his supporters are LOOKING for somebody to vote for is a smart move…

    I am not only reluctant to support non-libertarians, I’m even more reluctant to support STUPID PEOPLE…

    LPMA RENEGADE Presidential Elector – Speaking ex-officio…

  22. inDglass inDglass September 10, 2008

    svf said:

    Ferguson’s blog post may be asshole-ish, but you gotta admit he makes a lot of valid points…

    … in between false accusations. Here are two that stood out to me:

    1. Ron Paul did not organize the march in D.C. It was organized by grassroots supporters who invited him to attend. He also never encouraged supporters to donate to the effort.

    2. I am on all of Dr. Paul’s email lists for the Presidential Campaign, Campaign for Liberty, etc. I have never seen them ask for donations to the CFL. They have asked us to help build membership. They have asked people to attend the Rally for the Republic or two donate if they can not attend. But Ferguson makes it sound like Dr. Paul hit up his supporters for more cash to start it. There wasn’t even a donate button on the site for at least a month after the launch.

    I really don’t think Ron’s focus is on making money. I think it is on the message and on taking back the GOP.

  23. svf svf September 10, 2008

    and yet THEY still give him 70% of the primary vote against a neocon opponent accusing him of being a “libertarian instead of a real republican.”

    THEY don’t care!

  24. johncjackson johncjackson September 10, 2008

    THEY have done everything they could to keep him from winning as a Republican including backing Democrats and neocons in his district.

  25. svf svf September 10, 2008

    He took 12 years off during that time, svf

    And…? He was in Congress for 8 years as a Republican. 3 years later he quit the party and ran for President as a Libertarian. Then 9 years later he was re-elected to Congress as a Republican.

    Therefore — THEY apparently don’t really care if he switches parties for the purpose of running for President.

  26. G.E. G.E. Post author | September 10, 2008

    He took 12 years off during that time, svf

  27. svf svf September 10, 2008

    Very likely that THEY care!

    Did they care when he quit the GOP and ran for pres as a Libertarian in 1988? Apparently not.

  28. Steve LaBianca Steve LaBianca September 10, 2008

    svf says So he pisses off the GOP by running LP… they hate him anyway so who cares?

    Very shortsighted svf . . . how about his constituents in the 14th congressional district? Very likely that THEY care!

  29. Steve LaBianca Steve LaBianca September 10, 2008

    svf, I said “likely”, and that includes the likelihood that even if he technically WAS allowed to run for two different seats (congress and president, and I don’t think Richard Winger’s “sore loser” article applies to congress and president at the same time), under two party banners, it is very possible that he would have lost a primary challenge for the 14th congressional seat in Texas. We know that he was challenged, and he won, but the circumstances could have been very different if he decided to abandon his GOP run for an LP one.

    I certainly don’t second guess Ron Paul’s estimation of the riskiness of losing the seat, by running for prez as a Libertartian.

  30. RedPhillips RedPhillips September 10, 2008

    “along with the nominees of two small, minor political parties”

    Real nice.

  31. svf svf September 10, 2008

    My understanding is that Paul would likely have to give up his seat in congress if he ran for president under anther party’s banner.

    Incorrect. See:

    Since he’s going to lose the Pres/VP election anyway, he still retains his Congress seat no matter what.

    So he pisses off the GOP by running LP… they hate him anyway so who cares?

    Win – Win.

    Fact is, he just isn’t interested in running for president any more. Wasn’t very interested in the first place.

  32. yankeefox yankeefox September 10, 2008

    mattc: Barr, the LP and the ACLU are suing to get Phillies replaced with Barr on the MA ballot — so stay tuned on that.

  33. G.E. G.E. Post author | September 10, 2008

    Actually, Paul realizes that in order to advance liberty, every vehicle must be used — including the Democratic Party!

  34. Steve LaBianca Steve LaBianca September 10, 2008

    svf seems to forget that Ron Paul still has a Republican seat in the congress. I was disappointed when he refused the invite to vie for the LP nomination, but I am in no way in a position to second guess his intentions to stay on as a congressman.

    Note: My understanding is that Paul would likely have to give up his seat in congress if he ran for president under anther party’s banner.

  35. VTV VTV September 10, 2008

    Ron Paul’s intentions are to rebuild the GOP from the ground up. Honestly the way the LP has been behaving internally I don’t blame him for stepping away from the LP.

  36. darolew darolew September 10, 2008

    Why the hell should Paul back someone who wasn’t even willing to keep his promise to show up at Paul’s press conference? Maybe Paul had a little insight into Barr’s character.

  37. svf svf September 10, 2008

    Backing Barr would have taken courage on Paul’s part. Instead, today he took a cop-out course of action by encouraging a nondescript “vote third party” message that would water down the impact of the freedom vote.

    That’s a valid point. Along with — if Ron Paul was really serious about advancing the liberty agenda, he would have taken the LP nomination he could have had on a silver platter and kept the momentum rolling until election day, perhaps achieving access to the debates and a vote total approaching Perot’s.

    Instead, Ron Paul chooses passive “spokesmanship” instead of leadership and action.

    All due respect to the good Dr., but he should have been prepared to ride the crazy train all the way to the finish line before getting on board. Even if it went over a cliff I’d sure feel better about all the money I sent to him.

  38. Steve LaBianca Steve LaBianca September 10, 2008

    svf // Sep 10, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Ferguson’s blog post may be asshole-ish, but you gotta admit he makes a lot of valid points…

    Valid points . . . like what? I see nothing valid there. As a mater of fact, I’d started believing that when Ferguson either didn’t do an interview with Mary Ruwart (or refused to post it) during the Heartland Libertarian Conference, I knew I smelled a rat. Now I just smell an as*hole . . .yukkk, Ferguson SMELLS!

  39. Heather Heather September 10, 2008

    let’s insult, and attack the good doctor.
    yes, this campaign is DEFINITELY about spreading the message.
    all i can say is, this man seriously has issues, and needs to really check himself. if i were bob barr i would definitely disown this whole statement. it will end up hurting his campaign.

    chuck baldwin for president 2008

  40. CowboyTech CowboyTech September 10, 2008

    This election is important to me! And all things should be talked about! The two corrupt parties do not represent the people anymore, So, its the other parties that have my interest! And whats available in those canidates; Barr, seems to be a politition by actions, he changes depending on what seems popular, the good part of that is representing majority, the negative side is laws that bend in the wind. This at best is an attempt for news, and at worst is an attach on Ron Paul! Lets stand records on Ron Paul and Bob Barr, and see who is what! PS, after this, there is No way I could vote barr

  41. johncjackson johncjackson September 10, 2008

    Wow. The Hits keep coming. I am a Libertarian, but I do not have the arrogance to consider the LP some huge party and the Green and Constitution as “minor” insignificant candidates.

    I am also considering the route of “principled non-voter” and think the argument against this is lame. Mike Ferguson might as well be Diddy saying ” Vote or Die.”

    Bob Barr and his people are fucking delusional.

  42. svf svf September 10, 2008

    Ferguson’s blog post may be asshole-ish, but you gotta admit he makes a lot of valid points…

    Ah, fuck it. The Ron Paul people were never going to line up behind Barr (or any other LP candidate) anyway.

    Good for Barr — damn the torpedoes!

  43. Old Whig Old Whig September 10, 2008

    That sucking sound you hear is all the Ron Paul Meetup groups going for Baldwin. Most of mine was already there anyway.


  44. Steve LaBianca Steve LaBianca September 10, 2008

    Again, there is no surprise here . . . Barr has to “make nice” with the rank and file conservative and neoconservative Republicans, as he will be trying to get back into elected office as a Republican. Look for Barr to run for Governor or Senate in Georgia in 2010 with the GOP, and run potentially then run for president again in 2012, in the Republican primaries.

  45. Steve LaBianca Steve LaBianca September 10, 2008

    If Steve Gordon’s polls from back in Dec through March are to be believed, then Barr, through his recent actions (or inactions) and words has dissed not only 70% of LP member, but 70% of libertarians in general.

    I’ve long believed that Barr is just a mainstream

    conservative Republican, and he has no place in the LP, nor in the larger libertarian movement.

    When Barr finally up and leaves, I say “good riddance”. W.A.R., the same goes for you. And please do let the proverbial door hit you in the A*S!

    I’ve also long believed, but bit my tongue on this . . . with Mary Ruwart losing out on the 6th ballot in Denver, and Steve Kubby losing out to W.A.R. for V.P. candidate on the 2nd ballot, this presidential election cycle for the LP is not only an embarrassment, but is a complete washout. We, activists in the LP will have to just write this presidential ticket off, and work on local campaigns, and work toward future elections.

    Hopefully, this latest dis by Barr will cause those who supported him, to rethink just what are the priorities for nominating the LP presidential candidate. Now, maybe some of you will see why I wholeheartedly supported Mary Ruwart, and totally rejected Barr and W.A.R. (let’s not forget W.A.R.’s rants in the Reason interview last week!)

  46. sunshinebatman sunshinebatman September 10, 2008

    Don’t forget to write in an electoral slate. Good luck with that.

  47. libertyforone libertyforone September 10, 2008

    Well, I can’t imagine a better way to get the Ron Paul supporters to hate your candidate more. I have been a lifelong libertarian. I am always proud to vote for the party. This year however, Bob Barr has proven in many many ways that to vote for him would again be a lesser of three evils kind of vote.

    I have thought about this and read and have come to the decision that I must vote for Ron Paul as a write in. I have to send a message to the LP that you can’t put any monkey in the suit and get me to vote for him.

    Over and over Bob Barr has shown that he is out for himself. He has been consistently willing to give up our liberty for politics. And now, they want to dump all over Ron Paul? Who do you think gave the LP the little tiny chance it has right now?

    You couldn’t have turned me into a Bob Barr detractor any more severely than you did with this brilliant post. Well done.

    Perhaps we need a whole new party. One that really believes in liberty because the libertarians sure don’t seem to be there these days. How many of you beltway libs are going to attack Ron Paul? The last time he was alive, the brilliant folks in the LP refused to let Harry Browne on the ticket in my state, I had to write him in. I will do the same for Ron Paul.

    To the idiot who wrote this article I ask: Are you seriously going to attack the one man we all worked tirelessly to support? The man who received more donations in one quarter than all the other Republican candidates put together? The man who has the whole country talking about liberty?

    No, instead, you attack that man and ask us to vote for a man who has to apologize for most of his voting record. You ask us to support a VP candidate who states that you guys can win because you are willing to play ball with the big boys and give up liberty for power.

    Wow, have you got it backwards!

  48. Fred Church Ortiz Fred Church Ortiz September 10, 2008


    Update to:

    I spoke to Don Rasmussen personally just a moment ago and he confirms everything that’s been reported so far. He has never seen Dr. Paul so angry and is saddened by the possible repercussions of Barr’s actions on the freedom movement. Shane Cory did indeed tell Don to go f*ck himself when he asked Shane why he did this, though he admits that Shane also recited a list of perceived grievences, ie; lack of invitations to events, etc., that led to the decision to eschew Ron’s press conference and stage his own. Don also clarified that Barr did agree to attend the press conference and that Russ Verney’s claims otherwise are lies.

  49. darolew darolew September 10, 2008

    This is a disgrace. I just can’t believe Barr’s campaign is stupid enough to pull stuff like this–where in the hell are they expecting their votes to come from? Purist libertarians? They’re alienated. Conservatives? They’re McCain shills. Ron Paul supporters? Now they’re alienated, because the campaign is insulting Ron Paul.

    This is an absolute disgrace. The stupidity alone is an absolute disgrace.

  50. G.E. G.E. Post author | September 10, 2008

    Traffic report:

    IPR: 9,005 page views

    Bob Barr pravda (TPW): 3,653

    After the election, will Viguerie discard TPW in the dumpster like Bob Barr’s aborted child?

  51. Fred Church Ortiz Fred Church Ortiz September 10, 2008

    Of course, if any of these issues were valid, they would have been as valid when Barr asked RP to be his running mate.

  52. mattc mattc September 10, 2008

    I’ve been willing to put up with all the shenanigans in the barr campaign up until now, but after this it looks like I’m going to be voting Baldwin now. Although I suppose its all kind of moot for me anyway, since it looks like a lock that Phillies will be on the ballot in Mass now, right?

  53. Trent Hill Trent Hill September 10, 2008

    Wow. 5000 hits today,GE–your coverage is doing wonders.

  54. Curt Boyd Curt Boyd September 10, 2008

    I hear that big vaccuum of support going away for Barr and going to Baldwin, Nader & McKinney!

  55. Sean Scallon Sean Scallon September 10, 2008

    On top of insulting Ron Paul, we’re going attack him too! Yup, the Barr campaign is on a roll today!

  56. G.E. G.E. Post author | September 10, 2008

    The agenda of the Constitution is NOT individual liberty, you statist idiot.

Comments are closed.