2012 Convention Exposes Corruption of GOP, Romney Campaign

Found in the backpages of the mainstream press, a profound act of blatant tyranny in our elections occurred yesterday at the Republican National Convention. My goal is to explain the event using a simple analogy the complex corruption miring the hands of both the GOP and the Romney campaign.

Imagine if you will for a moment a NCAA football team trying to qualify for a bowl game. Let's furthermore pretend that the rules say that in order to qualify to play in a bowl game, you must have at least 5 wins. Your team works extra hard against pundits who claimed your team was so bad you wouldn't even win 1 game. Some of the games played--most notably one game played in Maine, but others as well--you were clearly the winner but the NCAA told you you lost the game because they didn't like the outcome. The NCAA's decision so outraged the Governor of Maine, he actually boycotted the games despite personal invitation to attend.

And all this notwithstanding, by some miracle grace of God your team wins SIX games! It serves as an amazing victory for the team and reason for celebration. Yet just in the act of winning the last win at the completion of the season, the NCAA votes to up the ante to EIGHT games in order to qualify. Thus has been the treatment yesterday at the convention with those within the GOP who support nominating at the convention someone other than Mitt Romney. Here is evidence of the 225 votes cast at the RNC yesterday for someone other than Romney: video tally count

The problem facing the GOP is not only is this corrupt, but illegal. While the GOP is a private organization, it received $18 Million in taxpayer funds for the purpose of holding a fair convention. Changing the rules at the final moment from 5 states to 8 states is antithetical to the democratic process and should disqualify the GOP from being considered a venue promoting fair, democratic process. Just as the birth certificate issue clouded the validity of Obama's election in the minds of many, the abrupt rule change now clouds the Romney victory. That is, how can Romney legitimately now claim to be the GOP nominee when the rules were changed at the last minute to disallow the nomination of another candidate at convention?  Would we allow a last minute change in the voting process?  What if we changed election rules at the last minute in 2000 and tell Bush that we were no longer counting electoral college but popular vote?  The nation would be in outrage.

 In an article of interest, US News quoted one of the Maine delegates as saying:

"We would have probably stood in line and voted for Romney in November, but not if he's going to do this for us," he says. "Not if he's going to disenfranchise the voters of the state of Maine. If you're going to do that, I will not stand with this party. This is ridiculous. These people were elected by the state and they're not allowed to be on the floor."

This video highlights the contention, including the shouts to seat the Maine delegation.  Does the Romney campaign and Mitt Romney himself really believe that using the tyranny of the majority to squelch dissent and disenfranchisement is the means to victory?  Can there be freedom or Constitutional government when the rights of the minority are disrupted?

Romney has been negligent in standing for freedom. Most likely through his heavy-handed campaign, he has been complicit in the disenfranchisement of the non-Romney delegates, although when questioned by Fox News' Ben Swann, he claimed ignorance. Ignorance-at-best is hardly a trait we can afford from a country quagmired in debt and a far cry from the leadership Romney professes.

Both the RNC and candidate Romney have lost the moral highground. There can be no long-term victory for them when this happens. Indeed it reminisces of the salt works scene from the movie Ghandi. The beating of those in favor of someone besides Romney has gone on and on. The bodies of the wounded have been carried off and whatever moral ascendancy the GOP held was lost today.  The tyranny at the GOP convention yesterday will be remembered always.

Iowa Caucus Takehome: Ron Paul Easily Defeats Obama

In studying the Iowa Caucus entrance polling, Ron Paul now has definitive proof of what he has been preaching all along as supported through numerous polls:  he is the candidate who could best defeat Obama.  In examining both the FoxNews and CNN entrance polling we find Dr. Paul doing well in areas where the GOP has struggled:  young voters, urban areas, among the poor, and among people who aren't influenced by ads.  (If Iowa had any measurable ethnicities we would find he does well among races, too!)

But most notably in the polling is the support among Independents for Rep. Paul:  An outstanding 43% of independent voters--more than double any other candidate--voted for the good Congressman!  One can only imagine what would happen in a general election when Dr. Paul wins the GOP nomination:  not only would Obama be defeated but with this kind of support from Independents, it would be no contest.  States typically off hands for any GOP candidate would come into play.  I'm talking big time like Ronald Reagan time here:  California, New York, Oregon, even Hawaii would have HUGE possibilities of turning Ron Paul Red. States Romney or Santorum can't even begin to waste a dime on.  Ron Paul WON the California GOP straw poll. Paulians are everywhere.  This isn't the Romney United States of New Hampshire and Utah.  Ron Paul has NATIONAL support; he's a people's candidate loved by those who are defending us in the military and sacrifice their lives over our insipid provocations, symptomatic of a domineering American Empire consumed by a Military Industrial Complex.

I don't know whether the Party will see this or not.  We don't study out issues but go with whatever our favorite FoxNews commentator is.  We don't read the Constitution we embrace; we don't think for ourselves. We pick one mass media and trust it like the Bible.  We're busy and don't have time to truly study out and do our own homework.  I know I've been there.  We are changing.  Slowly.  We're getting that just because Romney spends the most money doesn't mean he's the best or most electable candidate.

And what is the Party going to do with people like me who won't vote for Romney because we have watched him and know his business experience isn't running a business and creating jobs or producing cars like his father: it's mergers and acquisitions.  That's not the business skillset we need to run the country, we don't need to merge with Mexico or acquire Iraq!  Remember being a "businessman" is NOT by itself any better than any other profession.  Indeed, Romney can't even come up with a proposal to balance the budget his first year!  Sounds to me like he needs to go back to Harvard and learn some business budgeting!  And if Romney can't get our own party together, let alone appeal to independents, we're looking like another four years of Obama.  Is not then a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama?  Is that what we are trying to do as a Party to get Obama another 4 years by nominating Romney???  If indeed a vote for Romney helps Obama, then is it not only the right but the duty of every Republican to find someone else to whom to give their sacred vote and Romney's duty to bow out of the race and endorse someone who does have a plan to balance the budget their first year?

From a purely electability standpoint, Ron Paul is a GOP dream candidate and the only GOP candidate who could produce a landslide victory over Obama in 2012.

++++

Update 1/7:  More interesting analysis http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/

Update 1/9:  I'm telling you folks, if Republicans would just rally behind Ron Paul not only would we save the country, but Paul would be above 50% vs Obama and this election would be in the bag.  Take a look as Paul scores 47% Percent of all Independents  (CBS Poll) and yet thanks to the mass media is barely known and even less understood.  If Republicans want a winner in 2012, the only hope is Ron Paul.  Look, I understand some of you are going to have to hold your nose when you vote for Paul because you worry too much about the bomb in Iran, but read this: I love George Washington Except for his Foreign Policy by Michael Maharrey at the 10th Amendment Center and perhaps like myself and Michael you too will begin to see why Dr. Paul is much more right than wrong on foreign policy.

Why a Conservative Mormon Cannot Support Romney

With the Iowa caucus just hours away, I thought I would elaborate on some of my feelings as to why as a Conservative, Utah Mormon I reject Romney as a candidate for POTUS.

(1) Romney equals Bush.  During Bush's administration, Bush began some of our country's longest wars to deal with a situation in Afghanistan which should have only taken months.  Credit Bush for the so-called "Bush Doctrine" in which we are supposed to preemptively strike on any nation we consider a threat.  Bush imposed the unconstitutional federal mandate of No Child Left Behind, expanded Medicare through implementation of Part D, created a federal police force called the TSA, passed the Patriot Act in violation of our civil rights, and bailed out powerful wall street banks through TARP.  Bush was a disaster to Conservatism and the Constitution.  Looking back with the knowledge I have gained on political matters, I am ashamed I voted for the man.

Romney equals Bush as Romney has hired tons of old Bush staffers for his campaign.  I hear Romney bashing Obama, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul but he never seems to criticize Bush.  Perhaps he finds no fault with the Big-Government Bush agenda as his policies seem to mirror Bush's.  He's even got Bush Sr's endorsement.  Wow.  I am SO thrilled. (NOT!)

(2) Romney has endorsed both Orrin Hatch's current bid to extend his senatorial dynasty and ex-Sen Bob Bennett in his failed quest at a fourth term.  Here in Utah, it is clear Romney has courted the powerbroking establishment at the expense of Constitutional freedom.

(3) Romney appears comfortable at applying the Bush Doctrine in Iran.  It seems illogical in a financially broke, war-weary nation that one would want to do a preemptive strike against Iran under the justification of stopping them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  I grew up under the constant and real threat of thousands of warheads pointed at my nation and yet none of those in the original "evil empire" ever took preemptive strike. If we are so concerned about a nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable country, does this mean we also have to go to war against Pakistan and Syria?

These Muslim countries are fighting against us in large part because we are in the midst of a 21st Century "crusade" against their lands.  We occupy their countries and support dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak and in some cases like Iran overthrow democratically elected leaders to establish tyrants like the Shah.  If we would leave them alone to worship as they please, there would be much abatement to the hostility towards us.  Jews and Christians which have respected Muslim worship have lived at peace for centuries in both Shi'a and Sunni countries.

As a Mormon, we believe that we have the duty to spread the message of Jesus Christ to every nation and people of the world.  We know through experience that in wartime the spreading of the message is inhibited to the point of impracticality.  Why then does Romney insist on stirring up the Persians to wrath against us through the implied threat of preemptive strike?  Surely peace is the message of Mormonism and of the Book of Mormon from which the name derives.

I cannot support Romney in his foreign warmongering policies against the Persian people.

In all I view Romney as a Rattlesnake versus Obama as an Inland Taipan; although the Taipan is much more toxic, you want to avoid being bitten by either and both require serious treatment afterwards.  The want of Conservatism is for drastically smaller government, adherence to the Constitution, decreasing the laws of the land, relief from taxation, and paying down the debt.  I am fully aware and convinced that, like Bush, at the end of his term a Romney presidency will have more pages of law, more taxation, more war, and less adherence to the Constitution.  I cannot foresee any circumstance of me being able to vote in good conscience for Romney or Obama even when I am told by people who claim intellectual superiority that I must choose between these vipers.

Great Men Pray: Is The LDS Church Advocating POTUS Candidates?

Imagine as a Mormon going to church this week and finding the image on the right, poster-sized on the framed, ward display case bulletin board.  George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Barack Obama--all US Presidents--are seen with their heads bowed, eyes closed, hovering angel-esque above a LDS ward congregation also intent on prayer.  To the immediate right of the presidential portraits proclaims the caption:  "Great Men Pray."  In the youth classes, each youth is given a wallet-sized "Pass-along Card" with the same depiction as well.

Would such a poster cause you pause to think about the neutrality of the political position of the church?  Would you wonder why a poster of a sitting President who was actively campaigning for re-election decorated the same hallways as Jesus kneeling in Gethsemane or healing a leaper?  Would you ponder the singularity of such an event when no such other depictions of US Presidents adorned the hallowed passageways?

Although the LDS church created no such poster and the image is a photoshop of my own hand, it is however based on a similar 1956 poster depicted then with President Eisenhower instead of President Obama.  As in the case today with Obama, Eisenhower was running for re-election in 1956.

Elder Ezra T. Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve who was concurrently serving as Secretary of the Agriculture under President Eisenhower had this to say about the actual "Great Men Pray" poster (below) in the Sunday Morning (largest audience) Session of the October 1956 General Conference:

I was pleased, my brethren and sisters, as I read the report of the April conference and the remarks by Elder Mark E. Petersen, speaking as directed by the First Presidency, in announcing the series of new Church posters and cards for the benefit particularly of our young people, to note that one of them was going to be devoted to prayer. I wish there were time this morning to read the account of this particular card and poster on prayer. One will show the picture of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and President Eisenhower in the background, and then in the foreground a family group. At the top we will read: "Great Men Pray," and again at the bottom: "Be Honest with Yourself." (scriptures.byu.edu)

Mormon-themed Blogger Keepapitchinin puts into perspective the distribution and church emphasis on distribution of the original posters and wallet sized cards from the series of BHWY advertising directed at the youth: "Be Honest With Yourself: The Background."  In fairness, at least the wallet cards attempted on the reverse side to explain the Presidential depiction of then current President Eisenhower by alluding to his time as a General in WWII:

Washington at Valley Forge — Lincoln before Gettysburg — Eisenhower on D Day — Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove — Jesus at Gethsemane and at Golgotha — all these have prayed (full text available h/t tinypineapple.com)

By announcing the poster before the body of the church just a month before elections, could the poster have served as an over-zealous attempt by the church to influence its membership while staying technically neutral?  Furthermore, the governorship for the state of Utah was in chaos in a tight three-way race with incumbent Gov. Lee running as a Republican-turned-independent against strong Democrat and Republican contenders.  Both Lee and Republican Clyde both sought Eisenhower's endorsement, with Clyde (who would win) receiving a more current endorsement than Lee.  The issue of Eisenhower appearing in the LDS "Great Men Pray" distributions was addressed in Chapter 17 of Gov. Lee's biography "Let Em Holler" (Digital version avail at Utah State History) where the author was apparently unawares of the October announcement, instead crediting a post-election December date.  This raises the further question of did the "Great Men Pray" poster influence the outcome of a Utah gubernatorial election?

Bringing us to 2011, the issue of the involvement of the LDS into the political arena remains a poignant one for dedicated members such as myself.  We are currently dealing with a church who wants to influence immigration bills and to even formally lobby and praise the state legislature when it passes bills it likes.

Now the question before us is how much will the church want to promote or influence its two Mormon Presidential candidates:  Romney and Huntsman.  Although I don't worry about the church overtly supporting either candidate, as it has recently and repeatedly reiterated its neutrality stance (The Blaze, June 29, 2011), I do worry about the more subtle--yet potentially equally as powerful "Great Men Pray" types of support or advocacy the church may want to exert both pre- and post-election.

Mormons as a group are in the tank for Romney and to a lesser extent Huntsman.  Just today the Daily Herald revealed that Romney had secured support from 57 out of 80 Utah legislators, including 13 from Utah County.  Mormons will support the Mormon POTUS candidates just like blacks supported Obama in 2010, if for no other reason than their perceived political advancement of their minority.  For me I have a hard time supporting Romney who backed now ex-Sen. Bob Bennett in our grassroots push to replace him; and Huntsman is hard to swallow because he lied to his Democrat contender three years ago about his commitment to serve as Governor for his full 4-year term (Nacilbupera, May 2009).  While I'd take either Mormon over Obama in a wink and am glad they are both in the race, I am more appreciative of the multiple better-principled contenders for the Republican nomination I have to choose from.

P.S.:  For the die-hard Obama haters that can't imagine President Obama being a man of prayer, I derived the photoshop of Obama praying from this actual photo (White House Blog, Feb 2011) of Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast.  I don't hate Obama; I just hate his policies, lies, and lack of leadership.

2010: Starting the New Year Right with Senator Scott Brown

Had Enough Corruption Yet, Bay Staters?
How much corruption does it take for the good citizens of Massachusetts to say enough is enough? In 2009 the third consecutive Democratic Speaker of the House, Salvatore DiMasi, resigned and is currently on trial for a myriad of Federal corruption charges. Over in the State Senate it was even better with Senator Galluccio who can't stay sober and does the hit-and-run thing with a toothpaste excuse handy when he fails the breathalyzer, and 2008 former bribes-into-bra Senator Wilkerson who got handed a bunch more corruption charges.

Add to that it took his own death for Senator Ted Kennedy to release his dishonorable, dynastic stranglehold on the US Senate seat he seized for 46 awful years despite the wrongful death of his companion Mary Jo Kopechne.

Senate-appointee corruption
The culminating tragedy for the rest of America was the horrific way the corrupt legislature--the Massachusetts General Court--changed the rules on the appointment of US Senators to vacant seats to promote specific nominations to the seat. In 2004 when it appeared Republican Gov. Romney might replace Senator Kerry, at the specific urging of Senator Kennedy the General Court changed the rules to prohibit a Romney appointee. Yet when Kennedy suddenly died last August, the selfsame General Court rushed through restoration of the Governor-appointee process to give Democrat Governor Patrick the ability to appoint a crony, Paul Kirk. Even a 90-day request for the law to take effect by the GOP was denied. Nacilbupera vehemently denounces these actions by the Democrats as nothing short of evil, corrupt, political gerrymandering. Laws are designed to benefit the whole, not just Paul Kirk.

Yes Massachusetts, it is your Commonwealth, but we are watching. And when it comes to a Federal office, suffering. Were it not for this evil political gerrymandering we would not have had our Christmas ruined by needless debate and voting on unconstitutional healthcare scheme legislation.

Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley

In December, Massachusetts held their primaries and the two parties came up with two contrasting candidates. On the Democratic side they put forth Martha Coakley who embodies the Democratic spirit of corruption by having kept in jail Gerald Amirault to advance her political prowess (credit to Right Klik who is all over this.) The GOP put forth principled conservative state Senator Scott Brown who the worst he's done is way back when as a college student posed semi-nude in Cosmo. In our research of Senator Brown, a decorated Lt. Colonel in the MA National Guard, we find him and his Brown Brigade campaign worthy of our trust, endorsement, and a financial contribution. That he announced his candidacy for US Senate on 9/12 and spoken at tea party rallies (pictured above) further reveals his principles.

This race is a chance for Bay Staters to decide on Tuesday, January 19th, whether to for a principled conservative in Brown or a known corrupted in Coakley. Nacilbupera has had enough corruption and wants our country back to principles; citizens of the Commonwealth, do you? Minutemen of Massachusetts: arise and throw off the chains of despotic, dynastic tyranny which enslave you into taxation, regulation, and socialism! Vote for Brown!!

California's Special Election & Economic Disaster

Politics in California has particular meaning to Nacilbupera as we lived there before our present abode. Indeed, we abashedly reveal our vote for Schwarzenegger back in the days of the 2003 Special Election (regrettably, we wish we had voted for Tom McClintock!!) to rid ourselves of Gray Davis.

California for the past few decades has been and is a blue state. The Democrats control everything, especially the legislature where they have 60/40 majorities. Occasionally a Republican will pop into a statewide elected office. Schwarzenegger is a liberal Republican.

Californians have been voting themselves into debt for years. It seems as though nearly every proposed bond or spending bill that was proposed to the voters was passed. Spend, spend, spend. Raise taxes and spend. Pay for healthcare and schooling of illegal aliens so more will cross the border! Of course, most of the Propositions were put on the ballot by the Democratically-controlled legislature. Of all the blame to be doled out, the Democrats in the legislature need to be held most accountable--who else is there to blame?? It becomes the goal of every astute voter in California to throw out as many Democrats as possible and replace them with McClintock-like Republicans who actually care about spending wisely.

The budget deficit is so bad now in California they are voting tomorrow whether to raise taxes to pay for all the spending mess they are in. The Propositions are a shame except for the "slap on the wrist" 1F which forbids raises on government officials during budget shortfalls. Yet Californians are beginning to wise up. A recent poll showed all the Propositions failing except 1F (graphic, Sacbee.com). Californians realize that giving more money to a Democratically controlled legislature will NOT solve the problem; cutting social programs will.

The Special Election Californians REALLY need is a 2003-style Special Election, but instead of the Governor, throw out the liberals in the legislature. Call it a "California Tea Party" if you will. And there is seemingly widespread support to do so. In a recent Field Poll study a mere 14% of California voters approved of their state legislature while a massive 74% disapprove--the lowest in Field Poll recorded history. That's even lower ratings than the 24% approval rating Gray Davis had before we voters threw him out in our 2003 Special Election.

What Nacilbupera vigorously opposes is a so-called "California Bailout." Such a bailout would be better-termed an "Illegal Alien Bailout" in honor of such "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco (though SF is just the tip of the blame game as the whole state is guilty). Nacilbupera is strongly opposed to any bailout as we way, way, way overdid the bailout thing and are getting our whole country messed up. Mitt Romney was right: we should have never bailed out the automakers, but rather let them file Chapter 11 and emerge leaner and stronger. Nacilbupera rejects the notion we should have to pay for unwise social program spending of others--besides, frankly, we don't even have the money for a California Bailout should we even desire one.

California won't fail because at this 11th hour the voters are beginning to take back their state.