By Roger F. Gay
This article is being offered to a group think process. Help finish it by adding your suggestions.
Last year, when the Republican candidates were trotted out, it took less than two seconds for all the talking heads to agree that Mitt Romney is “the establishment choice.” The other “mainstream” candidates were there to put on a show, make it look like a horse race to help with their ratings, and to give the impression that Romney is a winner at the end. Ron Paul, the only serious politically conservative candidate, quickly became “the 13th floor of a hotel.” (Jon Stewart)
The other candidates also helped the media keep attention from the only genuine political contest; the establishment verses Constitutional rule; the establishment's choice verses a steadfast warrior for legitimate, limited government and the rule of law. Even more concretely, they have captured “not Romney” votes, many from people whose primary concern is that Romney not get the nomination. There are people who express their feelings about Romney by saying things like they wouldn't walk across the street to have a free breakfast with him, or more crudely, to relive themselves if he was on fire. Their votes now constitute delegates that may be turned over to Romney at the convention.
By all factors that I've been able to observe and test, the “not Romney” sentiment is much stronger than Romney support. In fact, the only “Romney supporters” I've run into lately in regular online political discussions have been paid operatives acting like thugs trying to bully and intimidate a much larger number of Paul supporters.
At this point, if you don't know that “establishment” thugs have been rigging the election, you're just not paying attention. At one caucus location where an operative tried to ram through a list of Romney delegates, and caucus goers objected, the meeting was summarily ended, and the police were ultimately called in to remove the caucus participants, whose only goal had been to see that the caucus process played out honestly according to the rules. The video evidence was so strong that they got a “do over.” One of the people who had been arrested the first time was elected to lead the caucus process. It was carried out calmly and coolly according to the rules. All of the delegates chosen “by the people” were for Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney.
That may be the most famous case at this point, but it's by far not the only case. “The news” has even covered a few; railroading through whole lists of delegates, changing the rules to add delegates for Romney, vote and delegate counts emerging from behind closed doors that don't match the counts that were officially turned in. (Click here for "Reality Check" videos.) Similar problems have been reported by every caucus goer I've been in contact with, regardless of location. Their guy can't win legitimately, so yes, “the establishment” is cheating. (It's what they do.)
(to be continued …)
.


I don't know the answer. I only know it is in God's Hands and if he thinks we deserve another chance, He'll grant it to us but we have to pray and ask His help. I read that Obama has hired a company in Spain (?) to count the 2012 election votes. How can that be possible or allowed? Stalin said it doesn't mater who votes - what mattes is who counts the votes. If we don't make sure good people count the votes, we lose. They determine the out- come they want. It has been so for at least the last 100 years.
ReplyDeleteHere's a suggestion: If the Libertarians nominate Ron Paul in their summer convention,
ReplyDeletethe Republicans would get to choose (1) nominate Romney and lose or (2)nominate Paul, let
him run on both lines on the ballot - and win! I'm guessing they'd rather lose, but still
it would be a hard choice for them.
Jim
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anonymous, you're post is a keeper. I'll follow where ever Ron Paul wants to go.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't tell me where to send my certified letter withdrawing my signature authorization or if should wait until the 3rd Court of Appeals rules.
"Answer is to find self reliant white males born in states willing to separate from all County/State/U.S.citizen/resident documentation by withdrawing signature authorization nunc pro tunc ad infinitum."
Bond v. United States (564 U.S. __ (2011)) is a Tenth Amendment case for the Supreme Court of the United States decided in late June 2011.
The husband of Carol A. Bond of Lansdale, Pennsylvania impregnated Myrlinda Haynes and Bond told Haynes "I am going to make your life a living hell." Federal postal inspectors videotaped Bond stealing mail and putting poison in the muffler of Haynes's car. Bond was indicted for stealing mail and for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Her appeal argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment.[1] The Court of Appeals found Bond lacked standing to make a Tenth Amendment claim.[2]
[edit]Decision
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that Bond had standing to argue that a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention in this instance intruded on areas of police power reserved to the states. Justice Kennedy reasoned that actions exceeding the federal government's enumerated powers undermine the sovereign interests of the states. Individuals seeking to challenge such actions are subject to Article III and prudential standing rules, but if the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, that litigant is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our government. The Court expressed no view on the merits of Bond's challenge to the federal statute and remanded the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.[3]
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteA wild ride through obscure legal theory gentlemen, but I don't see how it's related to the question at hand.
ReplyDeleteWork in progress. Not computer savvy. Sorry.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSeems like enforcement would require civil war; but it wouldn't be characterized as such. They would be classified as non-domestic terrorist combatants. Not sure what difference it would make except they would likely more easily be denied any right of trial, etc.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am getting to the point that I think you're spamming, "Anonymous." It might be different if your comments had anything to do, in any credible way, with the topic of the article.
ReplyDeleteThere was a question in NY how RP gets on the general ballot, now that he has no deligates (proportionally awarded in NY) even though he came in second place. You cannot even get proportional delegates here unless you get 20+ in the primary. So, the answer is the Libertarian Party (LP) nominates Ron, and Johnson as VP. This puts RP on 26 state general election ballots, and provides a path (via signatures) to the other 24. If RP gets the LP nomination, he can except it without violating RNC rules. The RNC rules state a Republican cannot 'seek' the nomination of another party, but the allow a republican to except it if he did not seek it. Its not a trick, its logical they would want their candidate on multiplt lines. LP must nominate Ron, then Tampa is not so very important, and everybody can still see Ron's name on the general ballot, and has an option to select him. James Kitner Buffalo NY
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is on his way to winning the Republican nomination.
Delete