Here’s links to the videos we saw Wednesday night, during the #RNC2012 Convention. #GOP2012 @GOPconvention.
Tampa, Fla. – The Republican National Convention today released five videos that were featured during the Wednesday evening proceedings.
The videos are listed in the order of the proceedings:
‘Best of America’
‘The Bushes: 41 & 43’
‘Israel: Cherished Memories’
The Hill is reporting that there may be a compromise that “allows” State GOPs to continue to chose their delegates to the National GOP convention. There is no mention about killing the proposed rule allowing the Rebublican National Committeetoo change the rules – with a 3/4 majority vote – once we all go home.
Unfortunately, the controversy is being cast as Mitt Romney vs Ron Paul, rather than Grassroots vs PTB (Powers That Be):
Liberty depends on each of us keeping our word, following the rule of law, and honoring contracts. When men and women will not honor their promises or keep their word, the law must enforce contracts. At least nominally, this is a basic tenent of libertarians and conservatives.
A very few men and women who are supporters of Ron Paul believe that they know better than the millions who voted in their State Republican Primary and they are suing in Federal Court for the “right” to nullify the votes of people who voted in the Republican Party Primaries. This lawsuit is about members of a voluntary association, the Republican Party, who don’t want to follow the rules in existence when they campaigned to be delegates by voting in the first ballot for the person chosen at their State Primaries.
“In a revolt against Romney, at least 40 more national convention delegates asked to join 123 previous plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee, and their attorney said hundreds more may soon follow suit.
“The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican National Convention, including the first.
“The delegates claim the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign loyalty affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, though he is not yet the official nominee.
The Republican Party has rules. ‘The people who went to the Primaries to vote thought they were voting for their candidate to be placed on the Republican ballot in November. Expecting people who join our Party to follow those rules is not “intimidation” or “disenfranchisement.” The people who are now suing to change the rules volunteered to join a political party when there were other parties available and no party affiliation is mandatory.
These people actually believe that they know better than the voters in their State’s Republican Primary. Since they are so much wiser than the voters, they want to become their own elite power to trump what they believe is another elite. The honest and honorable thing is to follow the votes in the Primaries. It’s ridiculous to believe that they would sign pledges or contracts and decide to break these contracts, yet be honorable or trustworthy enough to override the election results in their States.
The Constitution (Article 1, amended by the 12th Amendment) is clear about the national election of the President and the Vice President. However, Party delegates are not covered in the Constitution, nor are the Parties themselves. At the least, the contract put in place by State Party rules should be followed. At the most, this is definitely a case of State’s rights that is not covered by the Constitution.
In Texas, our State law imposes some rules and the rest come from our delegates to the RPT convention. Before the candidates stood for nomination at our Congressional District meetings last week, the rules for and requirements of delegates and alternates were read. Anyone who didn’t want to follow our RPT rules shouldn’t have run.
This lawsuit probably won’t extend to Iowa, since the Ron Paul delegates are happy with the outcome in that State. Last January, I represented Governor Rick Perry at one precinct caucus in Des Moines and heard the chair of that caucus explain how the National Delegates would be chosen. Nevertheless, after the Caucus voted overwhelmingly for Santorum, the precinct participants then voted to send the two men who spoke for Romney and Paul to their County Conventions. In effect,whether they knew it or not, they actually voted for Paul and Romney, since those delegates later voted to send Paulers to the State Convention. Of the 28 Iowa delegates going to the National Convention, 23 are aligned with Paul. That’s the rules in Iowa and it’s the responsibility of the voters to know.
Irregularities at the State Conventions are completely separate from the requirement to agree to follow the will of the Primary voters. The news reports from Louisiana seem to be one place that a lawsuit to correct high handedness at the State Convention would be appropriate. If the plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit Court lawsuit can prove their other allegations of ballot stuffing and intimidation at Conventions, then perhaps they have a case there. But two wrongs don’t make a right and they don’t have the right to unilaterally invalidate a contract that they knowingly signed.
Check out the ongoing comments on my post at TexasGOPVote.org, if you’ve wondered about the philosophy of the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to win control of the Republican Party. They reaffirm my conclusion after years of flirting with (capital L)ibertarian philosophy: the Libertarian Party is not compatible with conservatism. Conservatism advocates small government, with a few rules, while utilitarianism, and especially objectivism, celebrate license rather than liberty and all too often de-volve into nihilism.
I can sympathize with the proponents of Libertarianism, having spent years participating on the Libertarians for Life list-serve in the ’90’s and early 2000’s. I even tried out to justify “Christian Libertarianism,” which I’ve concluded is an oxymoron. (Check out the blog, Vox Popoli, which, unlike most Libertarian groups, supports traditional marriage.)
The comments at TexasGOPVote.org by one man on marriage were probably the most enlightening:
If two men or women want to get into a contract we see as morally wrong, who are you or me to tell them no?? They don’t have to accept our definition of marriage, and we don’t have to accept their definition of marriage, but neither one of us have the right to use government force to make the other accept our values. That would be Statism. Additionally, faith is a gift, and not all are blessed with it. You, nor I have the right to claim we know that which is unknowable. We can speculate, and we can have faith, but we cannot judge others who may have different beliefs.
These aren’t the first time we’ve heard/read/countered these arguments. Remember the calls for “open marriage” and “do your own thing” in the ’60’s? Demands for restructuring marriage and the family are pervasive in virtually every historic “revolution” EXCEPT the American Revolution, which was based on Judeo-Christian principles: from the enclave that gave us the Enlightenment, to the French Revolution, to the Soviet Revolution and the various social experiments of the 20th Century.
I believe that Governor Sarah Palin had the potential and many opportunities over the last 3 years to unite us in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did when he built his coalition between 1976 and 1980. The fact that she did not isn’t because Governor Palin herself is divisive, but because we Conservatives are a cantankerous and factious bunch who tend to eat our own and fight over degrees of commitment to the principles we hold dear.
“We’ll keep our God, we’ll keep our guns, we’ll keep our Constitution.”
Palin gave what should be a unifying, landmark speech at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC). She warned against turning on our candidates,
“We know that the far left and their media allies can’t beat us on the issues, so instead, they distort our records,” she said. “They’ll even attack our families. Let’s not do the job for them. OK, Republicans? OK, independents?”
The news contains report after report about Palin’s passionate speech to an overflow crowd who cheered her with even more passion. Human Event’s Tony Lee is not the only one who asked, “. . . how many who were listening to the speech were coming to the realization that Palin should be the GOP nominee for president?”
The problem is that Palin refused to be the candidate. Worse, she still has not supported any of the candidates, and her words at CPAC are being used to “do the job.”
Palin delayed her announcement about whether she would run for too long, adding to – or at least enabling – the very division and conflict within the Conservative movement that she told us to avoid in her CPAC speech.
While Mitt Romney,Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum were visiting Iowa and New Hampshire long before announcing their candidacies, Palin coyly deferred any commitment to running. The very loyal and enthusiastic Palin supporters went on the attack against anyone who looked like a possible candidate in their hope that she would run. The rhetoric continued even after the announcement that she would not run, with those same supporters interpreting Palin’s comments to justify building up or tearing down through many re-shufflings of the front-runners.
And now, rather than calling for unity among Conservative voters, Palin seems to be supporting a brokered convention. Well, just as I called for her to make a decision about running for President, I’m asking her to use her power and skills to bring us together behind one of the Conservatives, whether an announced candidate or not.
I have a little crush on Big Government’s Andrew Breitbart. In “The Undefeated” documentary on Sarah Palin that was released last year by Steve Bannon, Mr. Breitbart chastised the rest of the Republican men for their failure to defend and protect Governor Palin. And Mr. Breitbart delivered my favorite line of the entire week in his speech on the “silver pony tail gang,” that morphed from the anti-war movement to the Occupiers : “Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate!”(full video here)
Governor Palin, please join Mr. Breitbart and me in our march against the Occupiers and Barack Obama.
Please, pay attention, people!
Sensing a possible victory, Paul hosted a party in Portland on Saturday evening. After the results were announced, he told supporters that Romney’s margin of victory was so small, “it’s almost like we could call it a tie.”
Paul also forecast that when Maine’s delegates were finally assigned, “we will control the Maine caucus when we go to Tampa” for the Republican convention in August.
Or 97%. This may be the year the “97%” – Republican Primary voters – force a brokered convention that makes our choices known. A very small percentage of voters were allowed to choose the candidates for the rest of us will have to consider, based on the allocation of less than 5% of the total 2244 delegates that could vote at the Republican National Convention next August.
In fact, only about 3% of the Republican Primary delegates have been voted on. All of the Primaries so far were conducted under penalty of the Republican National Committee’s “Sanctions,” meaning that those States lost half of their possible delegates. In addition, Iowa’s caucus results are not binding on the State Republicans, who will determine the actual allocation of delegates in June. (Santorum won the vote at the Caucus I attended in West Des Moines, Iowa, but they elected the representatives of Paul and Romney as delegates to the County convention, where the final delegates to the State convention will be chosen.)
Take a look at the breakdown of the “2012 Chronological Cumulative Allocation of Delegates” and the actual dedication of those delegates, here.
Paging Libertarian Ron Paul: What do you think. Is this a major step? The Obama Admin plans to let people apply for mini-amnesty from this side of the border.
This waiver won’t fit all 11 million (typo in the article says 11.2 total), but 24,000 made this sort of application from their home country last year. Any bets on how quickly fraud will rear up on this scheme?
Current law mandates that illegal immigrants applying for legal status must return to their home country to do so. Once there, they are barred from re-entering the United States for either three or 10 years, depending on the length of their unauthorized stay.
But immigrants can apply for a waiver that allows them re-entry during the process if they can prove that their separation is causing extreme hardship for spouses or parents who are U.S. citizens. The new proposal would allow the applicant to apply for the waiver before leaving the country; if granted, the applicant could return to the U.S. during the visa application process.
BTW, read the odd comments about “nuts with machine guts.”
I spoke as a surrogate speaker for Governor Rick Perry at a small precinct caucus in West Des Moines, Iowa, tonight. The 72 voters who came to the little elementary school gym weren’t representative of the “undecided” that I’d been hearing about all week. The neighborhood caucus goers had come ready to vote. Unfortunately, the tally came down to Romney/Santorum/Paul/Gingrich and then one little old vote for Governor Rick Perry. To give me credit, the lady who said she voted for Perry wouldn’t have if I hadn’t been there.
As of 9 o’clock, it looks like Iowa has decided not to decide, with the top 3 slots getting just under 25% each and Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry vying for 4th slot. I’m disappointed in the outcome, but only surprised that the Ron Paul crowd is so strong and the Iowa voters seem so fickle.
(I was treated to classic Ron Paul voter behavior: half the signs I’d put up were knocked down and the surrogate speaker was told to behave when he snorted at me when my candidate got few votes.)
I decided in ‘08 that Paul was more dangerous than Clinton. Paul refuses to acknowledge that jet planes and missiles make the world a different place than the one that George Washington knew. I agree with Mr. Barber’s latest essay on TownHall.com and laughed at his description of “Uncle Ronny:”
“He’s that affable – if not a little “zany” – uncle who has the whole family on edge at Thanksgiving. “Oh boy; what’s Uncle Ronny gonna say next?”
“Still, you wouldn’t give Uncle Ronny the carving knife for the turkey, much less less the keys to the Oval Office.”
Ron Paul is not a Conservative. He has run as – and is, still – a (Capital L)ibertarian, with skewed ideas about the world based on tunnel vision. By claiming that he is only following the intent of the Constitution, he seems unaware that the Founders did not have to contend with international travel or laws permitting abortion due to Supreme Court rulings that have the effect of a Constitutional Amendment.
Although he has a great personal testimony about the sanctity of life and did finally vote to ban partial birth abortion, for years he refused to vote against Federal limits on abortion as performed in military hospitals or when minors are transported across State lines without their parents consent. And it seems that he doesn’t understand that defense is so much better when you can take it to the aggressor’s back yard and keep him as far away from our home as possible.
I’m hoping that, beginning with the Iowa Caucus, voters will remember that Governor Rick Perry has always been consistent about securing our Borders, defending our Nation from external attack, and protecting the most defenseless among us.