Hodges “released” by McBerry

Ray McBerry‘s campaign has “released” Jenny Hodges from her duties on his campaign:

As of today, I have made a difficult but necessary personnel decision in our campaign and have released Jenny Hodges from her duties as campaign manager. For some time now, Jenny has been preoccupied with efforts that promote life and liberty but are not, in my judgment, the best use of her time and energy in running our campaign as campaign manager. While I have consistently given Jenny a larger role in this campaign than probably any other campaign manager has had in the history of Georgia politics, she feels that she should have an equal say in setting policy for the campaign and, in some areas, should have no oversight from me at all. And, although I love her dearly, I am certain that would be an unwise decision for this or any other campaign.

I have already expressed my thanks to Jenny and her husband Jon personally today and wish to do so publicly now, too. Jenny has been one of my very closest friends; there is nothing greater that I could say about her, truly. Also, though, she has sacrificed much of her time, energy, and family life selflessly for our campaign.

As I told Jenny earlier today, I know that she will continue our fight for liberty in other ways because I know her heart; and I trust that this separation from managing the campaign will free her to fully devote her time and energies into those efforts about which she is most passionate in the Cause. She was recently appointed vice-president of one of the largest pro-life organisations in America; and I am extremely proud of her.

Our volunteer director and a good friend of Jenny’s, Jerry DeMarce, will be leaving the campaign team, too; and, I hope, will continue to work with Jenny, as well, while she moves into a different role.


  1. Ken in Eastman says:

    Wow! I don’t know Jenny Hodges, but she probably deserved better than a “she got too big for her britches so I cut her loose” press release!

  2. Back in Black says:

    You’re right. You don’t know Jenny.

    She has a propensity to attack her friends first, her real opponents later.

    • Ken in Eastman says:

      Well, THAT’S not good!

      Still, the reason for the separation didn’t necessarily belong in a press release. Besides, if she has the tendency to go “nuclear” she may write a press release herself.

    • Elin is Hot says:

      There is a difference between “friendly people” and “friends.”

      Jenny has a propensity to attack people who may act all “friendly” but turn-out to be hypocrites to their own cause.

  3. John Konop says:

    I have met Ray a few times and he is very soft spoken gentleman. I only have know of Jenny from this blog and she can be very aggressive and in your face on issues. I have grown to like Jenny because even though I disagree with her on some issues (as well as Ray) I do believe she is sincere about her views and does have a real sense of humor.

    From my limited knowledge it seemed like a strange personality combination. But I do think Ray was trying to be sincere about the situation but I do not think he was trying to put down Jenny.

    I am not supporting Ray for Governor but I do think it is unfair to paint him in an unfair light. As far Jenny I wish nothing but the best and hope she still blogs here.

    • Ken in Eastman says:


      I’m not trying to paint Ray McBerry in an unfair light but that press release is unprofessional at best.

      What about a simple, “As of today, I have made a difficult but necessary personnel decision in our campaign and have released Jenny Hodges from her duties as campaign manager. We have differing views on how best to proceed with my campaign and to be successful I need someone in that critical position who is more in line with my own approach.

      I have already expressed my thanks to Jenny and her husband Jon personally today and wish to do so publicly now, too. Jenny has been one of my very closest friends; there is nothing greater that I could say about her, truly. Also, though, she has sacrificed much of her time, energy, and family life selflessly for our campaign.”

      Same info, less dirt, mud and blood.

      For the record, I have not yet made a choice on who I’m supporting for governor.

  4. AthensRepublican says:

    He can hire Karl Rove and it still won’t save his campaign. He will be running an aggressive campaign for last place.

  5. TidePrideGA says:

    Agreed that was TMI for a press release. A simple “mutual agreement” or if Jenny wouldn’t agree to that “so she could pursue other interests” would have sufficed. One of his closest friends, indeed. We know what they say about “friends like that…”

      • Doug Deal says:

        A man who breaks into your house and threatens to harm your family but does not actually act also provokes violence on your part, but it does not make him right, honorable or worthy of being elected governor.

        Of course McBerry has gone further than just claim that he would provoke, and has actually said he would make active war against the Federal government, so your point is moot.

        • Lawful Money says:

          Although your indiscriminate verbal napalm is amusing, your analogy lacks logic and it refuses to acknowledge the reality of the candidate’s position.

          In the context of this discussion regarding this candidate, wouldn’t your metaphorical “man who breaks into your house” be the Federal government or federal agent acting under colour of law to deprive a sovereign citizen of a God-given, constitutionally protected natural right?

          And, wouldn’t the candidate be the one provoked to DEFEND himself/his state from such lawlessness?

          Perhaps it is too much to ask to recognize these truths and the proper relationship between a sovereign citizen and his representative servants in government….. inconvenient as they may be to one’s argument…..But remember, there could actually be impressionable children viewing, yearning to breathe free. 😉

          We wouldn’t want them to get the idea that ignorance is strength….would we? 🙂

          BTW, wouldn’t the man/government that “broke into your house” have already committed an act of unlawful violence?

          • Doug Deal says:

            So “seizing” Federal assets, like the reservoir behind Buford Dam is not violent? It was your Loony-Leader™ that has repeatedly suggested that insane idea.

            Anyone who looks to an armed conflict with the United States is guilty of treason by the very definition of the word. Anyone who would follow such a complete raging nut is a fool.

            The normal folks think of themselves as Americans first, not Georgians, Ohioans, New Yorkers or any other subdivision. It is quaint that you people want to live in 1859, but the fact is no one respectable wants to join you loons.

            Personally, I would love to see a Federal grand jury indict the man and his followers and the various secessionist organizations he has founded with his 5-6 followers for conspiracy to commit treason.

            I am sorry for actually loving this country, its faults as well as its greatness, its liberals as well as its conservatives and moderates. Too bad you only see hatred of others, whether blacks, northerners, or fellow southerners who vehemently disagree with you. Why not move to the Balkans and live the lifestyle you seem to crave.

          • Lawful Money says:

            DD, Follow Alinsky much?

            No, it doesn’t show at all. But, I do appreciate you conceding every point with gratuitous idiocy.

            This one’s for you, courtesy of Samuel Adams:

            “If ye love wealth better than liberty,
            the tranquility of servitude
            better than the animating contest of freedom,
            go home from us in peace.
            We ask not your counsels or your arms.
            Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
            May your chains set lightly upon you,
            and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

          • Elin is Hot says:

            Indicting people for having treasonous thoughts? What’s next? Mental hate crimes prosecuted by a federal grand jury?

          • Red Phillips says:

            Doug I think it is unfortunate that you have decided to drop the t word. We should not criminalize the political debate. As a non-interventionist conservative before non-interventionism was cool, my fellow non-interventionists and I were accused of treason and sedition by the pro-war yahoos for opposing the invasion of Iraq and in hind-sight we were right. Good thing we didn’t get hanged before the evidence was in.

            Perhaps instead of flinging invectives you should make your historical and legal case against nullification/interposition/secession etc. Make an argument using quotes from the Founding Fathers, notes from the Constitutional Convention, notes from the State Ratifying Conventions, the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist Papers, etc. supporting your case against the above. Then someone could present evidence using similar sources for the States’ Rights side. I would be more than happy to pile the evidence for your position up next to the evidence for my position. The fact of the matter is that the evidence overwhelmingly favors our side, but it might help you to discover that for yourself.

            DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln, Wood’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, and Gutzman’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution all have succinct but solid defenses of the States’ Rights position.

            Surely as a conservative you would not argue that Lincoln’s (illegal) invasion of the South fundamentally altered the nature of the Union. So people who want to restore the nature of the Union as ORIGINALLY INTENDED are guilty of treason and those who want to continue on in the post 1865 new and revolutionary alteration are the patriots? At the least you should drop the t word. It is intemperate.

        • Saxman42979 says:

          McBerry has stated that the hole that the Army Corps of Engineers dug DOES belong to the federal government. However, all the water that is contained in them belongs to the state of Georgia. He has also stated that he understands water rights and is willing to negotiate with Florida and Alabama. But you probably don’t care about any of that.

          I, like many others, do consider ourselves to be Georgians first. This is what the Founding Fathers intended. But again, you probably don’t care about that or that old document the Constitution.

          By the way, if there are only 5 or 6 of us, why do you even care?

          • Doug Deal says:

            By the way, if there are only 5 or 6 of us, why do you even care?

            Good point, I do not care about the chances of this weirdo extremist getting elected governor. I do care about that you guys have decided to take off the white hoods and operate under a new name, but other than that, good luck.

  6. Game Fan says:

    So what’s the big deal? Frankly I liked the “Just Jenny” deal which ties in perfectly with the whole “individualism” concept. In other words, I never saw her as a sock puppet. So unless she was getting a hefty salary from the McBerry team (which I doubt) then maybe this ain’t such a big deal.

  7. Ramblinwreck says:

    I saw both Ray and Jenny Thursday night in Dalton at the TEA Party meeting. Jenny introduced Ray and her introduction and warm up message of freedom and liberty was well received. Ray’s speech was extremely popular with the nearly 200 people who attended from Whitfield and surrounding counties. If you held the electtion in that crowd it wouldn’t even be close. And before anyone dismisses these groups as a bunch of “tea bagging idiots” as one of our GOP elected officials has done you might take a look at recent polling data showing that if the TEA Party ran separate candidates the GOP woudl finish in 3rd place behind the D’s and TEA Party.

    I don’t know what prompted this move. But if you’ve never been to an event to hear Ray speak and see the crowd reaction from people who are looking for a candidate that isn’t business as usual from the GOP you might want to go take a look. Are some of his ideas controversial? Absolutely. But only because they’re based on Constitutional principles which have been dismissed long ago by both parties as Democrats and Republicans have both proven that political power is more important than doing what government was instituted to do which is to protect life, liberty and property.

    I think the measure of an elected official is how good a job he or she will do at protecting your God-given rights. Take a look at the other candidates for Governor and ask youself if those career, middle of the road, “moderate” Republicans will stand up for what you believe in, hopefully the Constitution (take a drink Icarus), as well as Ray McBerry. If the answer is no then maybe you should consider voting for a candidate who doesn’t mince words and who is promising to aggressively protect the freedom you have left and hopefully restore some that you’ve lost.

    I believe in the saying that you can’t fix a problem with the same thinking that caused the problem. When I look at the other candidates I dont’ see one of them who will significantly deviate from the status quo.

    If you keep doing what you’ve been doing you’ll keep getting what you’ve been getting. Consider doing something different that’s been proven to work in the past instead of supporting the same old “I’m a conservative (whatever that means any more) Republican, vote for me” rhetoric. Take a look at Ray McBerry.

    • Jeff says:


      When Ray completely repudiates war as a viable solution, I’ll consider him.

      Until then, he’s still simply a nutcase – though this move with Jenny is certainly a VERY positive move in the right direction.

      • Ramblinwreck says:

        I’ve heard him speak 4 or 5 times and I’ve never heard him say anything close to that. I have heard him say that he will stand up to the federal government using lawful means.

        If you can be a nutcase standing up for the Constitution then there are a lot of us. Can I assume from your comment that the LP no longer believes in the Constitution because that’s exactly what he’s doing.

        • Jeff says:

          As a former history professor, he should know all too well that the number one cause of war throughout history has been money and economics.

          Yet what is one of the “States Rights” bills he – and apparently you – are so proud of?

          Trying to keep the Federal government’s money away from it.

          Furthermore, we’ve seen even within the last decade that governments don’t take too kindly to their agents being detained by other governments.

          Yet what are TWO other bills that he – and apparently you – are so proud of?

          Detaining Federal agents – indeed, making FELONS of them! – because they did their job.

          Ray McBerry is a leader of a secessionist group, and if he is Governor he will push the State of Georgia to war with the US government.

          We didn’t fare so well the last time, remember? In fact, we probably suffered more last time than any other single State, and we STILL bear its scars 150 years later!

          There is simply FAR too much that can be done WITHIN the system WITHOUT risking war. Therefore, I will not risk war, nor will I support ANYONE who does.

          Oh, and as always, I speak for myself and myself alone – not the Libertarian Party in any way.

          • Ramblinwreck says:

            “Detaining Federal agents – indeed, making FELONS of them! – because they did their job.”

            So, let me make sure I understand this. We have laws in place, The Constitution, that says the federal government CAN”T do most of the things that it is now doing but you’re not willing to take a stand for anyone who is willing to say “I will enforce the law.”

            If federal agents are violating the Constitution then they ARE FELONS. Ray is just stating that he, unlike everyone else who wants to be Governor, will actually enforce the law. Isn’t that a good idea or are we to just throw up our hands and give up and concede that the federal govenment is just too big to resist. What are you going to do when they come for YOUR guns? Please give me an answer to this other than “violence is not the answer.”

            If the law isn’t going to be obeyed by the people we send to DC who are charged with making and enforcing it, guaranteeing life, liberty and property then what do you suggest we do? What exactly can be done within the system that’s working. Continuing to elect candidates who claim to be “conservative” but then rush to DC to get “stimulus” money is not going to work.

            Tell me a GOP candidate who you believe would do a better job of moving us back to our Constitutional roots.

            Tell me what the LP candiate for Governor would do to accomplish the same goal.

          • Jeff says:


            Again, I speak for NO ONE other than myself. Let’s clear up that point right here, right now. I carry a certain amount of weight as far as SWGAPolitics.com goes as its founder and co-owner, and yes, I happen to have a couple of official titles within the LP. (Though note that I carry *NO* titles with ANY campaign.) Unless you see me outright claiming to be speaking as one of those official titles, I speak for MYSELF, and NO ONE else. Painting me as you are is equivalent to me painting the entire GOP as warmongering fools because certain GOP Executive Committee members support a man who has openly called for war against the US Government. Do you really want to start that particular battle? Guess who loses in the PR war there?

            I absolutely LOATHE the fact that you McBerry acolytes keep making me bring this up, but John Oxendine really did have the best States Rights message I’ve heard from any candidate so far:

            “You can stand up and you can preach a beautiful sermon about States’ Rights, but that’s not going to get anything done. … Standing up and ranting and raving might make you feel good, but its not government, it doesn’t get things done, it doesn’t accomplish things. … You don’t tell the Supreme Court to go jump in the lake, you beat them at their own game.” -John Oxendine

            As to what I would do if someone came for my guns? The same thing I do right now when they infringe on any of my other liberties – or anyone elses’. I work the system to correct the wrong – it can be done, I’ve DONE it. I happen to be a writer, so I write on my blog, and I have a semi-weekly column in the Albany Journal (Albany’s weekly newspaper) that is typically one of my blog posts. If I happen to know some of the elected officials – or even bureaucrats – in charge of the issue, I make some calls and write some emails urging whatever action I think needed to correct the action. Indeed, I’ll be writing a post over the next couple of days about a victory I won yesterday without even knowing about it. (The subject of my “Lee County Censors Political Speech” post was corrected in a secret called meeting of the Lee County Board of Commissioners yesterday.)

            If I need to take legal action, I will find a lawyer willing to take my case, and I’ll take it as far as needed to get my desired outcome. Again, if the Judicial fails, there are still people to call in both the Executive and Legislative about getting the law changed so that the injustice I suffered doesn’t happen again. It is called “checks and balances”, and it is the very system that has served this country so beautifully for nearly 225 years.

            You would scrap that system in favor of what? Mob tyranny? Because you didn’t get your way on something?

          • Ramblinwreck says:

            What a great plan. “legal action” and “checks and balances”. That’s worked so well that we now have a fed government that doesn’t give a crap aout “legal action” and there are no “checks and balances” but I’m sure it will work for you.

            I’ll be watching.

          • Life and Liberty says:

            sure, *they* believe it.
            I suppose you are trying to say “render unto Caeser…”, but let me ask you:
            How much of our existence should we allow these multitudes of federal offices to eat out?
            How much serfdom would you be willing to tolerate before you would say “no”?

          • appachtrail70 says:

            And I agree with Jeff soliloquy about how we as individuals can change the system. Ben, most Americans are not as Conservative as you are. 53% of them voted for Obama, and they didn’t vote for Obama because McCain was too liberal. They just flat out voted for Obama. Barely anyone voted for Baldwin or Barr.

            So while you think it is a crime that our elected officials in Georgia are not nullifying all federal mandates, other people in Georgia think it is a crime that they don’t have free healthcare. The system balances out.

            Our job is to way public opinion back to the right and support candidates on the right. Although your views are backed up by the Constitution, they’re still on the fringe of the political spectrum.

          • Elin is Hot says:

            I carry a certain amount of weight as far as SWGAPolitics.com goes as its founder and co-owner, and yes, I happen to have a couple of official titles within the LP.

            Great. I have a few “official titles” in my household too: chief money-maker, chief shopper, chief diaper-changer, and chief movie renter.

            “Titles” mean absolutely nothing to those of us who are more concerned with producing than claiming they have a “title.”

          • Jeff says:


            Ben was trying to use the fact that I even have those titles to make me appear to be speaking for people I make no claims of speaking for. That is the only reason I mentioned them – to state emphatically that I speak ONLY for MYSELF unless explicitly noted otherwise.

          • Lawful Money says:

            Cats sleeping with dogs

            Obama doing the McRomlianisarabee shuffle

            Libertarians invoking the Nuremberg defense

            The end must be near.

          • Red Phillips says:

            So you believe in might makes right? The fact that Georgia “didn’t fare so well” in the last illegal invasion make the other side right? Hmmm … might makes right is a very unusual position for a l/Libertarian.

          • Jeff says:


            Do YOU want to take on the best, most capable fighting force on the planet?

            I’m not saying might makes right. I’m saying any action we take must respect the fact that in a shooting war, the best we have are IEDs and handguns. Now don’t get me wrong, the Iraqis have shown that these can be effective in a guerrilla war – but who still rules their country?

            A shooting war is futile. It signals that we have given up hope in the American Experiment.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            I don’t think that’s much to worry about, Jeff.

            The best fighting force in the world is currently occupied with fighting in the Middle East. And everyone knows that they’re never leaving the Middle East. Hell, we even used the “proper channels” as you suggested and voted for an anti-war candidate (well, I didn’t, I voted for someone other than McBama—one who was truly anti-war), but apparently, the system is broken/corrupt.

          • Red Phillips says:

            Jeff, what you point out, that the Feds have all the big guns, is exactly why some of the Founders, including Madison, opposed a standing army. We should have listened to Madison.

        • appachtrail70 says:

          I heard him say that he would jail any federal agent that came into Georgia….. He is a nutcase.

          And our Constitution gave the Supreme Court to declare what is and what is not Constitutional. I believe that they have ruled wrongly on many issues, but it would be un-Constitutional to go against their rulings of the Constitution. Quite a dilemma.

          • fastball says:

            appachtrail70 – Where does the “Constitution g[i]ve the Supreme Court [the power] to declare what is and what is not Constitutional”? I don’t believe that’s in the Constitution.

          • anewday says:

            I don’t believe our constitution gave them that right. Marbury vs. Madison gave them that right. Politicians, and John Marshall was definately a politician, have been warping the Constitution since the beginning. In reality the Constitution gave the Supreme Court very little power.

          • Red Phillips says:

            “And our Constitution gave the Supreme Court to declare what is and what is not Constitutional.”

            NO IT DID NOT! Please point me to the Article and section that says that.

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            Article III – The Judicial Branch
            Section 1 – Judicial powers

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

          • fastball says:

            GOPGeorgia FAIL: you have failed to point out where it says anything about “judicial review” “constitutional” “unconstitutional” or anything that suggests that the S.Ct. has the power to declare laws passed by the Congress or the states unconstitutional. But keep looking.

          • GOPGeorgia says:


            What do you think “Judicial Power” means? I take it as the power to rule, to decide, to arbitrate, and when necessary, to interpret all things pertaining to law, including the interpretation of the constitution.

            Seriously, between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of government at least one should be charged with the duty of interpreting of the constitution. Which branch do you think that should be and why?

          • anewday says:

            Still though judicial review was unheard of before Marbury vs Madison. For 15 years the Constitution did not make provisions for the Supreme Court to determine was is Constitutional and what isn’t. Not saying that judicial review is not good, but the founding fathers intended for an extremely weak Supreme Court. They thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the men in the legislation would be smart enough to interpret the Constitution and to stay with in the guidelines that they presented for them. And then if they could not do it they hoped that one executive would be able to “check and balance” them.

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            I think it took 15 years for the right case to come along to clarify the situation. Congress routinely passes questionably unconstitutional legislation. They are not overturned enough, IMO.

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            Reminder, the executive branch enforces legislation, the legislative branch writes it, and the judicial branch interprets it. The executive branch could check or balance on bad legislation, but if it didn’t, that’s the S.C.’s job.

          • Ken in Eastman says:


            The other remedy to an out-of-control judiciary, and I think you will agree that it is out of control, is the impeachment of federal judges.

            Including the admittedly corrupt Alcee Hastings, there have only been six federal judges impeached in the history of this country. The impeachment of about ten times that number might get the attention of judges who twist the US Constitution to what they want the law to be instead of what the law actually states.

          • ByteMe says:

            Can we impeach Scalia for being a strict Catholic while trying to claim that the cross is a non-religious symbol and no one should be offended by it?

          • fastball says:


            I believe that at the time the Constitution was written not one of the signers thought they were giving the Judiciary the power to pass on the constitutionality of legislation. At the time the term “judicial power” did not mean the power to overturn legislation on any basis.

            It is not accurate to state that Marbury v. Madison “gave” the judiciary this power. It is accurate to state that the judiciary “took” this power in the case of MvM.

            I don’t wish for judicial review to go away, but let’s recognize it for what it is – it is not a Constitutional imperative. It is the result of “politics.”

          • Red Phillips says:

            The SCOTUS arguably has the power to decide constitutionality. Nothing in the Constitution says they don’t. But their ruling is arguably only binding on the parties at hand. They do not have the power to “strike down” State and Federal laws.

            But that isn’t really the major issue at hand. The major issue is that the SCOTUS does not have the EXCLUSIVE power or responsibility to decide constitutionality. Congress decides constitutionality when they vote on something. The President decides on constitutionality when he signs or vetoes legislation or refuses to enforce it. And the States have an equal right and responsibility to determine constitutionality and have nullification, interposition, and ultimately secession as weapons. And contrary to the wild eyes fears of some on this thread this is an inherently peaceful process. It would only degenerate to become non-peaceful if the Feds decided to make it so. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not result in war. More recently several states balked at the Real ID program and effectively scuttled it. California has bucked federal marijuana legislation and the Feds relented. Fob James bucked the Feds during the first go round with Roy Moore unlike that spineless coward Riley who caved to the Feds like a whipped dog.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            If the Supreme Court has the power to “interpret” the laws Congress writes and the president signs into law, and the president must nominate Supreme Court Justices and the lawmakers must approve them—well, that just seems like a piss-poor system of checks and balances.

            I’ll sell you a used car in ‘excellent’ condition, but if you want it checked out, we’re going to use my mechanic. 😉

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            Who’s mechanic should we use? The world court? The EU? The League of Nations? The United Nations? Canada? I think we have it right. The US answers to the US.

            I agree the judges misinterpret the constitution all the time. However, we can’t have them making decisions like they are running for reelection. Congress does enough of that. This means we should be very careful when selecting a President. The SCOTUS members should be there for life, the rest are debatable. They can strike down federal and state laws when they have cases brought before them, but I can’t recall a case that they did so until then.

            I found this to show that judicial review was at least discussed at the constitutional convention. “Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison’s notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review. Of those that did so, nine generally supported the idea and two opposed. One delegate, James Wilson, argued that the courts should have the even broader power to strike down any unjust federal or state legislation. It may also be worth noting that over half of the thirteen original states gave their own judges some power of judicial review. ”


            And before anyone considers this a thread jack, both Jenny and Ray would appreciate a discussion of constitutional powers.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            No, GeorgiaGOP, I advocate the exact opposite. I never said that we should look even higher on the pyramid of power to solve the constitutionality questions. You are correct in that we should keep things internal.

            I advocate that the states have an authority to determine when Congress has overstepped its bounds—which many here seem to have a huge problem with. The states are the fourth ‘check and balance.’ If we’re going to rely on the Federal government to keep a check on the Federal government, we’re screwed.

          • Doug Deal says:


            You can also look to Federalist 78, written by Alexander Hamilton. Judicial review was a very ingrained part of the understanding of the judiciary at the time. These modern day revisionists do nothing more than spit on the founding father’s grave.

          • GOPGeorgia says:


            Thanks for the clarification. The states do have a roll to play, but it is smaller unless there is a new constitutional convention; which I consider a nuclear option. States ratify amendments, but I can’t quickly think of a case other than Alabama and the ten commandments where a state told the federal government it was wrong and the federal government backed off. And that changed with a new Gov. of Alabama. We need a system that works regardless of which party or person is in power.

          • Red Phillips says:

            “Who’s mechanic should we use? The world court? The EU? The League of Nations? The United Nations? Canada?”

            GOPGeorgia, this is why we need divided sovereignty. This is what the voluntary union the Founders left us provided. So the sovereigns check each other. The Union that Lincoln left us by force of arms established a unitary sovereign.

          • Red Phillips says:

            For the record, I never spoke against judicial review per se. The concept was at least discussed at the time of our founding. Different people whose opinions I respect argue opposing sides. Gutzman, for example, speaks favorably of the concept in the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. That is why I said “arguably” twice in my post. The issue is whether the SCOTUS is the “sole” or even the primary arbiter of what is constitutional. Nothing in the Constitution says that and that was by no means its intended role.

            And Doug I am sad to see that you played the “white hood” card. The first refuge of an “anti-extremist” (for lack of a better term) is to go PC and accuse the opposition of wrong think.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Ok Revisionist Red, defend this.

            The current leadership of the League of the South include:

            Michael Hill, Jack Kershaw, Ray McBerry, Franklin Sanders, Rev. Eugene Cas, Mark Thomey, and Mike Tuggle.

            Here is a link to a story about Michael Hill where he is quoted as saying:

            “Moreover, it is time we demand that respectable members of the ‘minority community’ control their debased ‘brothers and sisters.’ If they refuse, then we can only believe that they secretly condone such behavior. Let us not flinch when our enemies call us ‘racists’; rather, just reply with, ‘So, what’s your point?'”

            Read the full article, it’s a laugh riot.

            Further, look up some of the quotes that these notorious men has plastered about the internet, and tell me that this is not the Klan rebranding itself. Further, look at the League of the South website. Unfortunately, the PP in with too many links, so I will let the reader do his own research.

            If you support this crap, Red, any respect that I have for you is long gone, and you need to expand the size of the eyehole in your sheet and take a look at what is really going on around you.

            Men full of hatred for those around them have no place in my world.

  8. Buzzfan says:

    Maybe Ray’s strong anti-abortion views didn’t go far enough for Jenny. While he touts himself as the “most pro-life candidate in the race for Governor”, even he might not take it far enough for her. From what I’ve seen/read, her views on abortion make the Pope look like a Planned Parenthood spokesman.

    Maybe Ray’s advocacy of ending legal abortions in Georgia didn’t include banning IUD’s and birth control pills (Hodges speaks out against these as ‘abortifacient’ methods). Did she want to push McBerry’s anti-abortion agenda TOO far? She does come across as the ‘single-issue’ type…..which is one of the things that has dragged the GOP to the point it’s at now.

    Or, maybe she’s simply nuttier than squirrel farts? 😉

  9. Game Fan says:

    But seriously, IMHO talking up the outsider tends to broaden the debate. And since McBerry probably isn’t on the “corporate plantation” I thought Jenny’s anti-Monsanto views are important and smart too. In fact, as a “Paulista” I never understood why more Paul supporters were so hesitant to criticize large multinational corporations. I really don’t see the downside since Paul wasn’t/isn’t corporate sponsored.

  10. Life and Liberty says:

    I’ve got it:
    Ray observes Festivus and this is the ‘Airing of Grievances’ portion of the celebration!!!
    When shall we begin the Feats of Strength?
    Personally, I favor leg wrestling over washer tossing, but that’s just me!

  11. Jason Pye says:

    Ray McBerry just sent this along to me:

    Hi, Jason… someone emailed me to let me know about the Jenny thread on Peachpundit. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that I did not send out a press release at all. Only those who had signed up as supporters of the campaign or signed up requesting to receive our email updates received it. I intentionally did not send it out as a press release and do not intend to do so at this time. It was kept as much “in the family” as was possible and was dealt with directly and honestly. There was certainly no desire to hurt Jenny whatsoever.

    So far, I have received just over 80 messages of support from our volunteers since the announcement last night. The only person who wished to leave the campaign because of my decision to let Jenny go was her (and my) friend Jerry DeMarce who was helping as our volunteer director. All of our statewide and county directors are still onboard; and a number of supporters who had previously left the campaign because of disagreements with Jenny have now signed back up as volunteers. We have actually had a record number of new volunteers also sign up in the last 24 hours; so I can only assume that we are doing the right thing.

    • Doug Deal says:

      What a freaking slug. Of course it was a press release. Sending an email broadside is releasing a public statement. Even is this response he sticks another dagger in.

      He is a classless idiot who should have kept his dispute with Jenny professional. Just another thing to throw onto the pile of why this juvenile treasonous maniac needs to be held as far away from the reins of power as possible, and probably in Federal prison before he gets someone hurt.

  12. Elin is Hot says:

    I just want to make sure that everyone understands that I did not send out a press release at all.

    So, since that really wasn’t a press release, perhaps he’s not really running for Governor either?

    There was certainly no desire to hurt Jenny whatsoever.

    We have actually had a record number of new volunteers also sign up in the last 24 hours; so I can only assume that we are doing the right thing.

    No, no, noooo…no “desire” to hurt Jenny whatsoever. Nooo…none here. Absolutely not. Nope!

  13. StephenLocustGrove says:

    Ray sending out emails to his volunteers isn’t a press release. Doug Deal you don’t know what you are talking about. Ray McBerry is very honest, caring, and christian man. He is the ONLY real conservative in this race.

  14. Red Phillips says:

    Still waiting for Doug’s historical analysis to support his case that nullification, interposition, and secession are not Constitutional options that the Founders understood.

    • Red Phillips says:

      Was that comment aimed at me? Conservatives want to conserve things. Go figure. So for a conservative what the Founding Fathers intended is a question of utmost importance. Do you disagree?

        • Red Phillips says:

          What was the point of the smart aleck re-enactment comment? Not that I have anything against them, but for the record I have never been to or taken part in a re-enactment. Too busy trying to restore the Republic I guess. If Doug is going to rant that the mere discussion of nullification, interposition and secession is treason then at the least he should make a historical case that that is so.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Red, if they want to be the British, let them. There aren’t enough redcoat re-enactors out there, in my opinion.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Of course Red, if you want to taunt someone into a response, it would not waste so much of your time if the person you were taunting was still actually reading the train wreck that this thread has become.

            I did not say that the discussion of nullification or any other topic was treason. I was saying that the discussion of secession and then taking action to achieve that goal (running for governor) is conspiracy to commit treason.

            The actually act of making war against the US is the treasonable act. Siezing Federal property by force is such an act, and if the Christ figure you follow goes that route, I hope he rots in a Federal prison with the rest of his supporters.

            Luckily for him, and doubly lucky for his supports, the people of Georgia recognize crazy and 2% in a crowded primary, maybe 5% in a less crowded one is about the best this smiling zealot can hope for.

          • Red Phillips says:

            seenbetrdayz, I don’t think he was suggesting I am a War for Independence re-enactor. He was suggesting I am a War for Southern Independence re-enactor. But I am told they do always need Union re-enactors as no one wants to be a Damn Yankee. Maybe Doug would volunteer though since he is taking the Union position.

            Doug, treason is a CAPITAL offense. Perhaps before you accuse someone of it you should back up your case with historical evidence. Make the historical case that nullification, interposition and secession were not options left open to the States by the Founders or else you are just ranting.

          • Icarus says:

            O.K., you two are getting close to crossing the line. Tone it down.

            And, as a favor, jump to the bottom for any additional comments. This arguing 50 comments apart from top to bottom is getting more annoying than the subject matter.

      • Doug Deal says:

        This is why those terms have completely lost their meaning. Does this mean you now want to preserve the bailouts, heath care reform (after it passes) and no child left behind? Using your definition of conservative, you better lest you be a hypocrite.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      I figured Back in Black’s early on “Both supporters are leaving?” comment was going to be the funniest comment on this thread, but your re-actment comment topped it. LOL.

  15. Red Phillips says:

    So Doug, you get your info from the Southern Poverty Law Center? That’s about all we need to know. As I told you before, I am a proud member of the League of the South and no it is not “the Klan rebranding itself.” I have met all the men you listed except one, Jack Kershaw. In fact, Mike Tuggle is a fellow blogger at the blog linked under my name. The League supports the Constitution as intended by the Founders although many, I suspect, think the anti-Federalist were closer to right. As I have said over and over, supporting the Old Constitutional Republic as intended by the Founders is what conservatives do. Icarus can attest that I was taught American History well. You obviously accept the revisionist history written by the victors, but remain strangely unwilling to defend it.

  16. Red Phillips says:

    “Further, look at the League of the South website.”

    What is supposedly so scandalous about the League website? (www.dixienet.org) I am well aware of the site. We blogroll to it at my blog. I blogged about my attendance at the annual League National Convention earlier this year.


    I more than welcome people to check out the site.

    • GOPGeorgia says:


      I took you up on your invitation to look at the website. Ray is the state chairman for Georgia.

      Please explain how this comparison to anyone who is black, not a Christian, or a supporter of the league of the south is not a member “government sponsored victim group?” It’s very poorly written if that is not it’s intent. I would have wrote something like, “laws should be based on individual responsibility and consequences of actions. We do not see any citizen in terms of race, regardless of if they are black, white, or other.” But then again, I wouldn’t join a group that has a primary purpose of seceding from the USA.

      “Q: What is the LS position regarding blacks in the South?
      A: The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South. We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups. “

Comments are closed.