Comment: If this loyalty oath thing

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Rand Paul has explained (see in situ)

If this loyalty oath thing

If this loyalty oath thing was true, then why is it Rand Paul is the only new Senator who had to come out publicly numerous times on main stream media endorsing Mitt Romney while the other new Congressmen and Senators are allowed to say nothing on main stream media about who they endorse. Why is Rand the only one. Why does Rand's endorsement get so much attention while the other new Congress members get none. Aren't the other new members loyalty oaths just as important as Rand loyalty oath. If what Rand did was a requirement of his loyalty oath why wasn't it a requirement for these other new members.

That's why your excuse doesn't hold up Granger. Or just one of many reasons. As someone else pointed out, Rand was to support the nominee, and there is no nominee yet. So Rand has no excuse for endorsing Mitt Romney when he did. Other than he is a POS traitor to his father, this revolution, and this country. Pretty much just like every other POS neocon in Congress today. Only this POS neocon wants to claim to represent the liberty movement. Just like those new POS neocons who claim to represent the tea party which Sarah Palin helped endorse in 2010. Who all ended up bringing us bigger government and less liberty.