Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 3rd, 2012 #1781
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Dispute over La. delegates to GOP convention goes national


BATON ROUGE — A dispute over Louisiana's delegates to this month's Republican National Convention has shifted to the national GOP level.

State Republican Party leaders lining up behind presumed nominee Mitt Romney and supporters of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul couldn't reach an agreement over delegates by the deadline to submit them to the Republican National Committee.

Dueling conventions in Shreveport by the two sides elected separate delegate slates in June, and two separate, 46-member lists were sent to the RNC.

The state GOP, led by Chairman Roger Villere, submitted a delegate list last week that filled slots won by Paul supporters with Romney backers. The RNC considers that the official list of Louisiana delegates for the Tampa, Fla., convention set for Aug. 27-30.

"We have a very conservative and enthusiastic delegation," Villere said in a statement. "The Louisiana delegation is composed of Republican leaders, supporters and activists who are committed to uniting the party and defeating Barack Obama in November."

Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered a potential Romney running mate, supports the state party's list of delegates.

Paul supporters who say they followed the proper nominating rules are left to challenge the decision with the RNC. Charlie Davis, who was state chairman of the Ron Paul campaign, said Wednesday he's filed paperwork with national party officials to contest the decision.

"A final decision won't be made until the week before convention," RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said when asked about the timeline for making a determination.

Similar arguments have broken out in other states.

The RNC would likely have little interest in supporting a delegation packed with Paul supporters for a convention designed to nominate Romney. Paul, a well-known libertarian, has stopped campaigning.

Romney backers across multiple states have said they worry that Paul supporters who attend the Republicans' national gathering will protest, detract from Romney's message and harm party unification efforts.

Woody Jenkins, chairman of the Republican Party of East Baton Rouge Parish, sent a letter this week to the RNC that accused the state party of acting improperly in picking delegates to the national convention.

"I have become deeply concerned that our state party's leadership, composed of some of my best friends and political allies, has become caught up in the efforts to 'block Ron Paul' and are making decisions adversely affecting the rights of the Republican voters here in East Baton Rouge Parish," Jenkins wrote.

Jenkins endorsed former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum for the GOP nomination but said he now supports Romney.

Davis, a former executive director of the Louisiana Republican Party, said alienating Paul supporters doesn't help the party and could harm Romney's campaign.

After the competing June state conventions, state Republican Party leaders left 13 delegate positions unfilled, saying they would work to reach a compromise with the Paul supporters.

The party's announcement of its delegate list said no compromise could be reached because Paul supporters wanted a majority of delegates, even though Paul has suspended his presidential campaign.

However, Davis said state party officials refused to meet or discuss a compromise. The Paul faction claims Villere violated party rules governing the selection of delegates.

"It's disheartening and infuriating to watch such blatant fraud be perpetuated by an organization that I've worked so closely with for so many years," Davis wrote in an e-mail.

A nine-member executive committee of the state party enacted rules in the days before the Shreveport convention that changed the selection of the state convention chairman, made it more difficult to remove him and lowered the threshold for the quorum needed to choose delegates.

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20...p=all&tc=pgall
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #1782
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

How the GOP Establishment Stole the Nomination From Ron Paul

by Jaret Glenn
OpEd News

If you follow mainstream election coverage, you might think Mitt Romney has coasted to an honest, easy, well-deserved Republican nomination. Unfortunately for Republican voters, nothing could be further from the truth. The primary process has been an all-out slugfest and many of the delegates Romney has won may be the result of dirty tricks and even election fraud. The following narrative includes links to reports, first-hand testimonials, and video evidence highlighting actions taken by the GOP to ensure a Romney victory, at the expense of fracturing the party just prior to the general election. Party leaders at the county and state level have changed or violated party rules, cancelled caucuses, changed vote counts, thrown out entire counties of votes, counted public votes privately, called-in the SWAT team, and inexplicably replaced Paul delegates with Romney delegates to block Ron Paul from winning the nomination.

Iowa: Days before the caucuses, Paul held a commanding lead in the polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by spreading rumors he would lose to Obama if nominated. Even though the Iowa GOP platform reads like a Ron Paul speech, shortly before the caucuses, Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad told Politico , "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire". The message from the Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted vote.

Huffington Post reported that Paul was ahead by one point over Romney and Rick Santorum in entrance polls conducted by Edison Media Research for the AP before the caucuses. For the first time ever, the Iowa GOP changed the final vote count to a secret location . After the caucus, results from 8 precincts (including those with colleges, in a state where Paul won 48% of the youth vote) went missing. Interestingly, these were all precincts Romney lost in 2008. In addition, GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts. Though polling in a comfortable first place, Paul finished third in this non-binding straw poll, behind Romney and Santorum.

Iowa originally reported Romney in first, Santorum in a close second, and Paul third. After the recount, Santorum was named the winner with Romney in second. No mention was given to how the recount affected Paul's vote count. Iowa GOP chairman, Matt Strawn, later resigned and was replaced by Paul supporter, A.J. Spiker and Paul went on to win the majority of delegates.

Florida: The Florida GOP broke party rules by switching to a winner-take-all state before the date allowed, which favors the candidate with the most money for advertising and attack ads. Senior Advisor to the Ron Paul campaign, Doug Wead, claims this was done specifically to favor Romney.

Nevada: There is bad blood between Paul's supporters and establishment Republicans in Nevada. This dates back to 2008, when Convention Chair, Sue Lowden and her enlisted delegates got up and walked out of the convention when it became apparent Paul's supporters would claim a majority of the delegates. She claimed she would reconvene at a later time, but instead approved the McCain slate of delegates. This year, Paul supporters expected shenanigans; so his State Chairman, Carl Bunce, planned to win by outworking Romney. Just before the caucuses, he claimed to have "more IDs than Romney had votes in '08". This means through canvassing door-to-door and phoning voters, he had identified about 25,000 voters committed to show up and vote for Paul.

On caucus day, the media was denied access to most caucus sites and the few that were permitted were not allowed to take photos. Others were even ejected from sites. This CNN clip shows GOP staff preventing a Paul supporter from entering the premises to vote at a special caucus that was set up at the last minute for Newt Gingrich backer, Sheldon Adelson. Here, participants were asked to sign an affidavit (under penalty of perjury) stating they were Jewish and couldn't vote earlier in the day due to "religious reasons". CNN showed live coverage of votes being counted at this event, with Paul amassing nearly 60% of the votes. In some precincts in Clark County, the largest in Nevada, the number of ballots did not match the number of voters signed in at the caucus. Though votes were to be counted publicly, they were largely counted in private. The vote count was also inexplicably dragged out for several days, leading to a victory for Romney. Nevada State GOP Chairwoman, Amy Tarkanian resigned the day after the caucuses.

Another interesting note is that Paul's 2012 votes had doubled, tripled, and more than quadrupled his 2008 votes in every state leading up to the Nevada caucuses, yet Paul received only 88 more votes there. Of all the places for this to occur, Nevada, the country's most libertarian state; is the last in which anyone would expect this.

In spite of these irregularities , Paul won 22 of 25 state delegates and replaced state party officials with Paul supporters. Romney supporters then formed their own state party, called "Team Nevada". The RNC then bypassed the official state party in order to organize for Romney and send all funds to Team Nevada.

Colorado: Romney supporters were caught passing out fake Ron Paul slates at the state convention. The RNC has not investigated or even commented on the matter.

Minnesota: Doug Wead, claims the state party instructed members not to vote for any delegates under age fifty because most young delegates support Paul.

Missouri: WXIX Cincinnati's Ben Swann covered the fiasco in St. Charles County. Temporary Chairman, Eugene Dokes, started the meeting by banning video recording devices, a first for this event. Robert's Rules of Order require the temporary chairman to accept nominations and elect a convention chairman to run the event. Instead, he appointed a chair of his choice. The crowd immediately erupted with booing. Shortly after, Dokes adjourned the meeting without the required two-thirds majority, called the police on attendees, and left. In adherence to state rules, Paul supporter, Brent Stafford, along with one of the top parliamentarians in the state, reconvened in the parking lot and attempted to resume the event. Shortly after, the SWAT team arrived and arrested Stafford, who was following state party rules. Dokes later admitted on talk radio that he and other state party officials deliberately broke the rules to prevent Paul from winning.

Maine: Ben Swann reported on shenanigans in Maine . Even though only 84% of votes had been counted; State GOP Chairman, Charlie Webster, declared Romney the winner over Paul by less than 200 votes. Hancock and Washington Counties hadn't voted yet because Webster cancelled the caucuses due to an impending snowstorm, promising they could vote later and their votes would be counted. The snowstorm never occurred and he later reneged on his promise, telling voters in those counties their votes would not be counted after all. Washington County was Paul's strongest in the state in 2008. Though other states with close outcomes held recounts, this was never a consideration for Maine.

At least one of the counties that did vote claims the state party recorded its tallies incorrectly. Matt McDonald, pastor of a small community church in Belfast, was nominated as the chairman of his caucus. He says the state instructed the caucus chairmen not to read any of the vote totals aloud, but rather to send the results straight to Augusta without a public reading. McDonald made a motion to change this rule, and it was approved unanimously. McDonald says 22 voters showed up, resulting in 8 votes for Paul, 7 for Santorum, 5 for Romney, and 2 undecided. When he called the votes into Augusta, he was told they already had the results and the totals read 9 for Romney, 5 or Santorum, and 2 for Paul. When McDonald told her the tally had been counted publicly, he says "her voice changed and she said"we'll record this". Doug Wead claims, "On every occasion, the votes that were lost were Ron Paul votes and the person responsible for reporting them were Mitt Romney supporters"in one case the votes were actually transferred from paper to"a computer and the lady doing the transfer was a Mitt Romney person". To date, these tallies have not been corrected and Romney is still credited with the straw vote win while the media continues to report that Paul never won a state contest.

Arizona: The Examiner's Kevin Kervick reports "ballot stuffing, rule violations, and improper vote counting that occurred behind closed doors" at the convention. In addition, Paul supporters allege threats of physical violence from Romney supporters.

Michigan: Doug Wead reports, " Michigan, unlike any other state"had a special party rule forbidding any precinct delegate vacancies from being filled at county conventions until after the state delegates and alternates were chosen. In other words, countless Ron Paul supporters attending county convention were forcibly blocked"because they weren't elected precinct delegates in 2010-long before the Ron Paul 2012 campaign began". Wead also claims "documented instances in multiple counties where county party officials "edited" the state delegation lists after the county conventions adjourned".

Wyoming: A commenter on Paul supporter website, DailyPaul.com, explains how members of the Republican Executive Committee (all Romney supporters) illegally cast votes in the delegate selection vote.

Washington: At the state convention , a Ron Paul delegate claimed bubble ballot sheets were withheld in King County's district 36. He also claims the 37 th district caucus was forced to conduct the meeting outside because Chairwoman, Lori Sotelo, was irritated when a Ron Paul supporter was elected to run the caucus, instead of her choice.

Ben Swann interviewed a voter in Pierce County, Washington; who claims the local Republican leadership passed out what they called a "unity slate" to voters and said it represented an equal distribution of delegates committed to Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. The plan was to organize to block Ron Paul supporters, who outnumbered the other candidates' supporters, from receiving the lion's share of the delegates. The Republican leadership prevailed.

Alaska: In spite of last-minute rule changes and violations of party rules, Paul supporters ousted longtime state chairman, Randy Ruedrich, and voted-in Paul supporter, Russ Millette. Ruedrich then tried to sabotage the state convention and transferred all of the state party's $100,000 to the local Capital City Republicans in Juneau, effectively bankrupting the party now controlled by Paul supporters.

Georgia: This video shows GOP Chairwoman, Sue Everhart, at the Athens Clarke County GOP meeting admitting "shoddy treatment of the Ron Paul people at that [2008] convention" and publicly apologizing. She presents the rule book that she helped to write and claims it won't happen again. The video then shows the actual convention and party leaders breaking those rules to force their pre-selected slate of delegates and prevent Paul's supporters from electing their own. Party leaders then adjourned the meeting illegally and ran out of the meeting.

Massachusetts: Paul won 16 of the 27 delegates selected so far in Romney's home state. In addition, he swept all 6 from Romney's home county. As a result (for the first time ever in the state), delegates were asked to sign an affidavit stating " I certify under the pain and penalty of perjury, that on the first ballot at the 2012 Republican National Convention, I will affirmatively Vote for Mitt Romney, the winner of the 2012 Massachusetts Presidential Primary." The state GOP then covered up Romney's embarrassing loss by invalidating ballots and ousting the Paul delegates.

North Dakota: Ben Swann reports the selection of delegates was unfair: the GOP handed out pre-printed ballots with a slate of delegates with 60% of them being Mitt Romney supporters in a state where he won only 26% of the vote.

Oklahoma: Kevin Kervick of The Examiner reports that the Oklahoma convention had to be moved to the parking lot because Robert's Rules were ignored, delegate credentials were not verified, a convention chair was never appointed, motions made from the floor were ignored, the Chairman illegally elected a slate of Romney delegates, and the convention was closed without a two-thirds majority vote. Consistent with Robert's Rules, Paul supporters reconvened in the parking lot to elect delegates. Paul supporters have now filed a law suit to ensure their delegates will be seated.

Virginia: Doug Wead claims "at a district convention, they coaxed the Ron Paul delegation outside and then locked the door. The pastor of the church that was hosting the event was, himself, locked out".

U.S. Virgin Islands: Ron Paul won his first caucus, only to have the GOP take down the straw vote results from their website showing Paul the victor with 29% over Romney's 26% and replaced with a note from the party claiming Romney won because he won more delegates. Paul's Official Campaign Blogger, Jack Hunter, explains how every other contest determined the victor by the straw vote, except the one straw vote Paul won.

Alabama: An inexplicable gap exists between Paul's popular vote count and his delegate vote count. This is odd because voters choose both on the same day and on the same ballot. Alabama Republican Party rules state that voters can only vote for one candidate and then must choose between his delegates. Statewide, Paul received only about one-third as many votes as his delegates. This means voters chose another candidate, but selected Paul's delegates. No other candidate's totals showed a similar pattern.

Louisiana: Ben Swann reports a clash between the old Louisiana State GOP leadership and newly-elected leaders who support Paul. Old Chairman, Roger Villere, angered attendees with last-minute rule changes the night before the convention. At the start of the convention, Villere attempted to recognize the former Chair of the Rules Committee, who had been voted out the night before. When new Chair, Alex Helwig, rose to address the delegation; Villere instructed security (comprised of off-duty Shreveport Police) to remove him . They arrested him for trespassing and broke several of his fingers. Next, an overwhelming majority elected a new Convention Chair, Paul supporter Alex Helwig. Members then turned their chairs to face Helwig, with their backs to Villere. In desperation, Villere instructed the police officers to remove the duly-elected Herford. They did so and dislocated his hip in the process, sending him to the emergency room. The reconvened group followed state party rules and went on to elect a majority of Paul delegates, which the state party later replaced with its own slate of Romney delegates. The Paul campaign has appealed to the RNC, but it is unlikely that the RNC will reinstate the Paul delegates.

Oregon: This YouTube video shows establishment Republicans in Congressional District 4 attempting to steal the ballot box and leave the premises when it became apparent the Ron Paul supporters were in the majority. A Paul supporter is chased away from the ballots and claims he was accosted by an establishment party member.

Wisconsin: MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reports Romney violated state campaign laws by bribing voters with free subs.

In other states, Paul supporters claim vote-flipping occurred with electronic voting machines. Once about 40% of votes are reported, there is typically little variation in the final numbers. However on several occasions, at about 40% Romney's trajectory "flipped" with the leader, which was often Paul. Austin Election Judge, Anne Beckett, has come forth publicly to claim she witnessed this firsthand.

Baseless allegations or a few isolated incidents may not be cause for concern, but there is enough video evidence in this report to disturb anyone who cares about fair elections. Rule changes, disregard for existing rules, cancelling elections, running off with ballots, secret vote counts, throwing out votes, threats, physical violence, and arbitrary replacement of delegates are activities unbecoming of a democratic society. Whether you're a Ron Paul supporter, or even a Republican, is irrelevant. That the Republican Party will seemingly stop at nothing to ensure their selected candidate is the nominee should be deeply troubling for all Americans.

Reprinted with permission from OpEd News.

August 8, 2012

Jaret Glenn is a Central Florida native and a graduate of FSU and Nova Southeastern university. He's a freelance political writer and activist. Visit his website.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/glenn-j1.1.1.html
 
Old August 9th, 2012 #1783
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Third Party Delegate Lawsuit Dismissed; Paul Campaign Still Challenging State Delegations


Richard Gilbert Tweeted:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

“The Court requires an Amended Complaint We will both file an Amended Complaint as well as file an Appellate Writ”

“We shall at the same time to seek the guidance of both Courts. Do not be confused by the technical language of granting the motion”

“The case survives”

The Paul campaign is still challenging delegations in MA, LA, and OR through the Republican National Committee. Those challenges must be resolved by the Credentials Committee prior to the convention.

While this dismissal comes as a blow to the delegates’ hopes, the Paul campaign may still have a shot at seating delegates who have been ousted from their seats. The fat lady isn’t singing yet.

Full report: http://libertycrier.com/politics/thi...delegations-2/
 
Old August 9th, 2012 #1784
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Sonoma County Trial To Determine Legality Of Selling Marijuana Online

Ademo’s Jury Selection for Wiretapping Case 2012

Reality Check: The U.S. Government Created Al Qaeda?

Third Party Delegate Lawsuit Dismissed; Paul Campaign Still Challenging State Delegations

Former Chicago Cop Admits Role in Latin Kings Case

How a Single Oxycontin Pill Nearly Ruined One Man’s Life

School’s Policy Requires Girls to Take Pregnancy Tests



For these reports go to: http://libertycrier.com/
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #1785
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Conservatives Say This Could Have Been The Moment Mitt Romney Lost The Election

Mitt Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul appeared on Fox News' America's Newsroom this morning to hammer the controversial ad from a pro-Obama SuperPAC that blames Romney for the death of a steelworker's wife.

But in defending Romney, she veered way off message, explaining that if the steelworker, Joe Soptic, had lived in Massachusetts, he and his wife would have been able to get health insurance under Romney's health-care reform legislation.

Here's what she told Fox anchor Bill Hemmer, via Think Progress:

SAUL: To that point, you know, if people had been in Massachusetts under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care. There are a lot of people losing their jobs and their health care in President Obama’s economy.

Now conservatives are freaking out about it. Conservatives' main gripe with Romney all the way back to the primary season was his implementation of Obamacare on a state level and the thought that he would be an ineffective messenger on repealing the president's legislation.

Influential conservative blogger Erick Erickson tweeted this afternoon that Saul's slip-up may have been the moment that cost Romney the election:

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/romne...#ixzz23AZQHr7Q
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #1786
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Will the Third Time Be A Charm? Amended Complaint Filed in Ron Paul Delegate Lawsuit

SEE LINKS: http://libertycrier.com/politics/wil...egate-lawsuit/

“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”

Samuel Adams

A third complaint has been filed on behalf of delegates for Ron Paul to the Republican National Convention. This comes after a federal judge dismissed the earlier complaint without prejudice, claiming that the case lacked plausibility.

In his motion to dismiss, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, claimed that the case was “unintelligible and vague”. However, he did allow for “a third and final opportunity” to amend the complaint. You can read that decision here:

Motion to Dismiss

Richard Gilbert, of Gilbert and Marlowe, filed the amended complaint on Wednesday. You can read the (second) amended complaint here:

Amended Complaint, Central District of California, Southern Division

In this amended complaint, Gilbert asks the court again for a declaratory judgement and injunctive relief on behalf of delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, set to start on August 27th. From the complaint

“This Second Amended Complaint presents a Federal Question for the Court’s consideration.

The Federal Question presented is whether the Voting Rights Act (hereafter “VRA”) applies to the National Convention of the Defendants to be held in Tampa commencing August 27, 2012.

There is no other issue presented.”

The Defendants in this case are the Republican National Committee and every State Republican party and party Chairman within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.

Gilbert and his team have dropped the fraud charges that were set forth in the earlier complaints, instead deciding to focus on the question of whether delegates are free to vote their conscience “on any and all ballots” at the convention in Tampa. The complaint, once again, focuses on The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1971, which protected minorities from discrimination or intimidation while exercising the right to vote.

The complaint alleges that the Republican National Committee are disregarding the laws of the United States by applying their own party rules to the National Convention. The correspondence from 2008 between then Republican National Committeewoman of Utah, Nancy Lord, and Jennifer Sheehan, assistant counsel to the RNC, is once again included in the exhibits.

(That correspondence dealt with a situation in Utah as to whether a delegate would have to vote for McCain, because Utah wanted to bind their delegates to him after Mitt Romney dropped out of the race.)

The Plaintiffs (delegates) support the idea that The Voting Rights Act applies to ALL citizens of The United States, not just minorities, citing the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 and prohibits discrimination based on race. The Act also requires certain jurisdictions to provide bilingual assistance to minority voters.

Section 2 of the Act, which bars the use of voting practices or procedures that discriminate against minority voters, has been used to attack discrimination in voting, including restrictive voter registration requirements, re-districting plans that weaken minority voter turnout , discriminatory annexations, and the location of polling places at sites inaccessible to minority voters.

The Act also provides the Department of Justice with the authority to appoint federal examiners to monitor elections to make sure that they are conducted fairly. Initial enforcement efforts targeted, among other things, literacy tests, poll taxes, and discriminatory registration practices.

You can read more about the Voting Rights Act here:

Voting Rights Act of 1965

The lawsuit uses section 1971(b) as one of the key points. Section 1971(b) states:

“No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President.”

Does this section apply in this situation? Carter argued in his Motion to Dismiss that Gilbert’s team “make literally no argument and cite no case-law to explain what government interest in their interpretation of Section 1971(b) serves.” He further explained that Paul supporters, “misinterpreted the phrase “‘intimidate, threaten, or coerce’” in a section of the Voting Rights Act “to include a political party’s conditioning of delegate status on a promise to vote for a particular nominee.”

On the other hand, Carter did say in his Motion to Dismiss that it was possible for the Plaintiffs to provide for more of a governmental interest if they were able to provide a clearer briefing..leaving the amended complaint open to do just that.

The motion uses the Lopez Torres case as an example of how “the State can require” and courts have previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.”

He added that the Republican Party has certain rights under the 1st Amendment, but that. “Outside the context of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has held that, where the burden on the party’s First Amendment right is trivial, a rational relationship between a legitimate governmental interest and the law’s effect will render the law constitutional.”

See Lopez Torres 552 U.S. 196, 205 (2005)

In the past, groups have proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would allow for a Constitutional Right to Vote. U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr, (D-Ill.) proposed this resolution in March 2005. You can read about House Joint Resolution 28 here:

House Joint Resolution 28

Gilbert has said that he has also filed a Motion to Expedite, as he wants the case to be heard before the convention. His prior Motion to Expedite was denied.

With this third complaint, the delegates would like to solidify their position in being able to vote for whom they want to vote for at the GOP National Convention. With the start of the convention just a couple of weeks away, the race to get a decision is on. Will this, indeed, prove to be the lucky third?
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #1788
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Romney backers leery of Ron Paul effort to audit the Fed

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke calls it his "nightmare scenario." One of Mitt Romney’s top economic advisers called it "trouble."

Yet as they look to their national convention starting in Tampa on Aug. 27, Republicans are considering including a plank in their party platform calling for a full audit of the central bank.

Prodded by the failed primary bid of longtime Fed critic Ron Paul - and the grassroots enthusiasm the Texas congressman’s cause inspired among bail-out weary tea party activists and small government advocates - Republicans are entertaining a prospect that has long made them and some of their financial supporters cringe.

Paul, in an interview, warned that if Romney’s backers resist the effort, it could result in a politically distracting and messy fight in front of the national media. "It’s good economics and it’s good legislation, but it’s also good politics, because 80 percent of the American people agree with it," Paul said. If Republican leaders "exclude it, I would think some of my supporters would be annoyed and feel strongly enough to take it to the floor under the rules."

Romney’s position on the issue is murky. While he says he backs a Fed audit, he has not formally endorsed Paul’s legislation - which mandates a Government Accountability Office audit of the Fed that includes deliberations on changes to the benchmark interest rate - nor the effort to include it in the party’s messaging document to be hammered out before its formal adoption at the Republican National Convention.

"My own view is that we should audit the Fed and that the actions of the Fed should be open for the review of Congress and the understanding of the American people," the presumed Republican nominee told reporters Friday.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul declined repeated requests to divulge Romney’s stance on a Fed audit that would include monetary policy.

On July 25, on a 327-98 vote - with just one Republican dissenting - the House passed the legislation. While it’s not likely to become law, supporters of Paul and his son Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who will speak at the convention, say they’re ready to instigate a potentially divisive floor fight if they are snubbed by Republican leaders crafting the platform.

"I can’t imagine, politically speaking, that the Romney campaign, which is pushing the direction of the platform, would want to risk any type of debate or contention on the floor of the convention on this," said Christopher Stearns, 25, a delegate from Portsmouth, Va., who is leading the Paul forces’ platform efforts. "I would be more than happy to lead a debate on the floor to make sure this is brought up."

It’s unclear how successful the effort will be, and party officials are reluctant to discuss the matter publicly.

"I have absolutely no idea what’s going on with the platform," former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, R, a Romney surrogate who heads the convention’s powerful Rules Committee, said, declining to discuss the matter further.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a vice presidential prospect for Romney who is heading the Platform Committee, told the Washington Times last week that the Fed audit was part of ongoing discussions, adding that Paul and his son have "a lot of great ideas."

The Platform Committee is scheduled to meet Aug. 19-21 in Tampa, Fla., to come up with a proposal to present to the convention the following week.

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour said while there’s nothing wrong with auditing the Fed’s transactions and accounts, it would be "objectionable" for the party to go on record in support of giving Congress access to statements and deliberations in the bank’s meetings.

"I don’t want Congress controlling the money supply or usurping the authority of the Fed - I can’t think of a group that I would less rather have do that, just because they’re politicians and this is not about politics," Barbour said in an interview. "I do not think any group would put purity on issues like this in front of victory."

The very fact that the prospect of including a Fed audit plank in the platform is on the table illustrates the degree to which Romney’s allies are trying to harness, rather than openly defy, grassroots support for Paul at the convention.

On the platform committee website that the Republican Party launched last month, proposals to audit the Federal Reserve are among the most popular. Paul supporters say they’ve gotten little resistance as they pitch the idea to fellow delegates around the country. Several state Republican parties, including those in Idaho, Iowa, Nevada, Texas and Wisconsin, have platforms calling for an audit or elimination of the Fed.

Romney has chosen his words on the issue carefully, stopping short of siding with Paul even as he cozies up to the retiring congressman and his supporters.

When the House passed the measure last month, Romney posted on the social media site Twitter: "Ron Paul’s ’Audit The Fed’ bill is a reminder of his tireless efforts to promote sound money and a more transparent Federal Reserve."

Romney’s rhetoric on the issue has shifted considerably from two years ago, when the former Massachusetts governor noted that the Fed is already subject to audit by an independent firm - and rejected any move that could lead to Congress dictating to the central bank.

"Well, the Federal Reserve is audited, I presume, by independent auditors," Romney told a questioner who stopped him on the street in Manchester, N.H., in August 2010 and asked his position on Paul’s legislation, according to a video clip of the exchange circulating on the Internet. "The question is really, should the Congress oversee the Federal Reserve, and it does to a certain extent, but I do not want to have the Congress calling the shots for the Federal Reserve."

That’s the "nightmare scenario" Bernanke sketched out for Congress at a July 18 hearing, when he said he was concerned about the prospect that a lawmaker who disagreed with a Fed chairman’s decision to raise interest rates could call for an audit in order to second-guess the decision.

"I think that would have a chilling effect, and would prevent the Fed from operating on the apolitical, independent basis that is so important, in which experience shows is likely to lead to a low-inflation healthy currency kind of economy," Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee.

Glenn Hubbard, the dean of the Columbia Business School who is one of Romney’s lead economic advisers, expressed similar concerns in a July 2009 opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, in which he called Paul’s measure a "bad bill," and said of Congress’s efforts to wield more oversight of the Fed: "This is trouble."

"The Fed must above all maintain its political independence in conducting monetary policy," Hubbard wrote in his article, co-authored by Harvard University finance professor Hal Scott, a former American Stock Exchange governor, and Brookings Institution Chairman John Thornton, a former Goldman Sachs executive.

Some of Romney’s biggest financial backers share the view. Sander Gerber of Hudson Bay Capital, who attended a June 28 fundraiser for Romney at New York’s Pierre Hotel as well as one in Jerusalem July 30, and has given more than $30,000 over the past year to his campaign and the Republican Party, said some of the central bank’s operations should not be open to audit.

"I believe the Fed’s effectiveness hinges on its ability to be apolitical," Gerber said, adding that he had not studied the issue thoroughly. At the same time, it must "represent the interests of the people. Some things should be audited, other things not."

Other Romney allies say they expect the platform committee to finesse the issue in a way that satisfies Paul and avoids a public feud without ceding the power to dictate the party’s message to a candidate who didn’t earn enough delegates to contend for the nomination.

"They will find a way that accommodates some of his concerns and recognizes that he worked hard and ran a good campaign that struck a chord with people," said Steve Duprey, a New Hampshire Republican National Committee man. "But if you lose, you don’t get to write the platform - that’s the way this works."

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012...fort-audit-fed
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #1789
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
Default

__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old August 11th, 2012 #1790
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution


Time after time, Obama's lawyers defending the NDAA's section 1021 affirm our worst fears about its threat to our liberty


I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.

In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.

In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week's hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.

To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.

I have mixed feelings about suing my government, and in particular, my president, over the National Defense Authorization Act. I voted for Obama.

But the US public often ignores how, when it comes to the "war on terror", the US government as a whole has been deceitful, reckless, even murderous. We lost nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. Then we allowed the Bush administration to lie and force us into war with a country that had nothing to do with that terrible day. Presidents Bush and Obama, and the US Congress, appear more interested in enacting misguided "war on terror" policies that distract citizens from investigating the truth about what we've done, and what we've become, since 9/11.

I, like many in this fight, am now afraid of my government. We have good reason to be. Due to the NDAA, Chris Hedges, Kai Wargalla, the other plaintiffs and I are squarely in the crosshairs of a "war on terror" that has been an excuse to undermine liberties, trample the US constitution, destroy mechanisms of accountability and transparency, and cause irreparable harm to millions. Several of my co-plaintiffs know well the harassment and harm they have incurred from having dared openly to defy the US government: court testimony has included government subpoenas of private bank records of Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir; Wargalla's account of having been listed as a "terrorist group"; and Hedges' concern that he would be included as a "belligerent" in the NDAA's definition of the term – because he interviews members of outlawed groups as a reporter – a concern that the US attorneys refused on the record to allay.

Other advocates have had email accounts repeatedly hacked, and often find their electronic communications corrupted in transmission (some emails vanish altogether). This is an increasing form of pressure that supporters of state surveillance and intervention in the internet often fail to consider.

I've been surprised to find that most people, when I mention that I am suing my president, Leon Panetta, and six members of Congress (four Democrats and four Republicans), thank me – even before I explain what I'm suing them over! And when I do explain the fact that I and my seven co-plaintiffs are suing over a law that suspends due process, threatens first amendment rights and takes away the basic right of every citizen on this planet not to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial, their exuberance shifts, and a deeper gratitude shines through newly somber demeanors. But this fight has taken a personal toll on many of us, including myself.

My government, meanwhile, seems to have lost the ability to discern the truth about the US constitution any more; I and many others have not. We are fighting for due process and for the first amendment – for a country we still believe in and for a government still legally bound by its constitution.

If that makes us their "enemies", then so be it. As long as they cannot call us "belligerents", lock us up and throw away the key – a power that, incredibly, this past week US government lawyers still asserted is their right. Against such abuses, we will keep fighting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-constitution
 
Old August 11th, 2012 #1791
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
Default Important post Fred, thanks.

The Desertion of White Children

by Erst LaFlor

European children are the most sensitive creatures of all humanity. The woods have a special meaning for them, and the gurgling of the brook, and the murmuring of the pines, and the smell of the hay. European children are thrilled by such things and it is even a greater thrill to have shared that experience with another child. And the sharing of the experience is done silently. It is done through spiritual rapport and union, and it cannot be done if the children are not racially similar.

In an integrated school I have witnessed myself a little negro boy squeezing a little White girl in a bear hug. The parent of the little girl had been forced to desert her in an integrated school because of the laws of the government. She was left alone to try to protect herself without any help from anybody. And this little girl in the school yard that I witnessed was in tears from fright and bewilderment. But we are told that it is the height of morality to desert our children in such circumstances. This is what we are asked to subject our children to.

That a full grown adult woman should be made to bear the embrace of a negro man is a crime. But that a little White girl innocent of the ways of the world should be made to bear the immediate pressing contact of a negro is the highest crime imaginable. It is the duty of White men to protect their young, and that scene could never have happened in a White school.

I can imagine that when the little girl went home crying to her daddy, telling him that she did not want to go to that school anymore, he had to tell her that our leaders required her to go to that school because the Negroes wanted their children to have the opportunity to associate with White children. He would have to tell her that all the schools had Negroes because the government required it. He would have to tell her that for the sake of the psychological well being of the Negroes that our leaders had passed a law requiring White children to associate with negro children. He would have to tell her that for the sake of the elevation of the negro our leaders have made it absolutely mandatory that she associate with them.

How many White people would like to have the government divide up an entire negro community into groups of thirty and then force the White adults to spend seven hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years of their lives with those negroes? How many adults would like that?

But this is exactly what is being forced on innocent children. But in the case of the children it is a hundred times worse, for the innocent young children do not have the defense mechanisms of adults. The innocent young children have every right to expect that their adults will be solicitous of their welfare. They have every right to expect that they will not be deserted like a child abandoned in the woods.

http://greatwhitedesert.org/dir/inde...White_Children
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old August 14th, 2012 #1792
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Paul Ryan is A Fraud This is what he supports


1. Continual budget deficits
2. NDAA
3. Patriot Act
4. Gun Control
5. Government Run Healthcare
6. TSA Warrantless spying on Americans
7. TARP, Bailouts, and Stimulus

Obama — Amnesty (Dream Act)
Romney — Amnesty (Dream Act)
Ryan — Amnesty (Comprehensive Amnesty)
Dr. Paul — NO AMNESTY

Obama — TARP
Romney — TARP
Ryan — TARP
Dr. Paul — Warned and warned AGAINST TARP

Obama — Signed NDAA
Romney — Would sign NDAA
Ryan — Voted for NDAA
Dr. Paul — REPEAL NDAA

Obama — PRIVATE Federal Reserve
Romney — PRIVATE Federal Reserve
Ryan — PRIVATE Federal Reserve
Dr. Paul — END THE FED.

Obama — Nation-building
Romney — Nation-building
Ryan — Nation-building
Dr. Paul — Nonintervention

Obama — “Patriot” Act
Romney — “Patriot” Act
Ryan — “Patriot” Act
Dr. Paul — Fourth Amendment

Obama — Gungrabber (Endorsed handgun ban and limiting gun purchases)
Romney — Gungrabber (Gun Control flip-flopper who SUPPORTED Brady)
Ryan — Gungrabber (Voted to close the “gunshow loophole”)
Dr. Paul — Second Amendment — Introduced legislation to repeal the “Brady Bill” and “Assault Weapons Ban.”

Obama — Collectivist healthcare. (Obamacare)
Romney — Collectivist healthcare (Romneycare)
Ryan — Collectivist healthcare (Medicare Part D)
Dr. Paul — Free-market healthcare

Obama — REJECTS the Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment
Romney — REJECTS the Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment
Ryan — REJECTS the Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment
Dr. Paul — Strict Constitutionalist

 
Old August 14th, 2012 #1793
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The only question left is whether Ron Paul's organization has legs, meaning, can it take over the Republican Party over time? It appears Romney's forces were able to dominate it using all kinds of dirty tricks this time. Will that change next time? Will there be a next time? If Paul doesn't run again, what happens to his organization and the youth he fired up?
 
Old August 14th, 2012 #1794
Shockley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The only question left is whether Ron Paul's organization has legs, meaning, can it take over the Republican Party over time? It appears Romney's forces were able to dominate it using all kinds of dirty tricks this time. Will that change next time? Will there be a next time? If Paul doesn't run again, what happens to his organization and the youth he fired up?
Paul is too old to run again and his son is practically a neocon.
 
Old August 14th, 2012 #1795
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockley View Post
Paul is too old to run again and his son is practically a neocon.
Well, if the party is entirely dependent on Pauls then there's no future. Obviously they need new and younger people to carry on, and should be developing a crop of them.
 
Old August 14th, 2012 #1796
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockley View Post
Paul is too old to run again and his son is practically a neocon.

Yeah. Just one year ago , the jury was still out on Rand , but it looked hopeful that he might be one of the figures that could help carry the movement and momentum his father leaves behind. Not that he was ever thought of as real leader material, he is clearly not that intelligent and capable, but one would have at least expected a somewhat principled guy with sound values. Not so. He's a total disappointment -a hypocritical, opportunistic, standard neocon brown-noser. The lack of backbone never seizes to amaze you. I wonder what Ron thinks of his son self-serving maneuvering, given that he, and Rand too, know full well that the Kwa is heading- no, has already since long jumped off- the fiscal cliff, with uncertain times to come.
 
Old August 14th, 2012 #1797
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

The Liberty Movement is alive and well. There are liberty candidates in many districts who are poised to take control of the party apparatus in the near term and will control the GOP for decades to come. Ron Paul will be a leader for another 10 years, promoting the causer of liberty. He's done it so long now, that it is the focus of his life.

As for Rand, don't forget who raised him. He seems to be playing footsie with the kikes, because he doesn't want to get beat before he begins. When the chips are down, he will be there. He single handedly beat some neocon agenda items already, but he can't afford to be put on the defensive prior to coming to power, and he will come to power one day. I think he'll be elected in 2020, if Romney doesn't fuck everything up like Bush did. Rand will be president in 2016 if Romney loses to Obama this time out.

Don't lose heart, bros, it's gonna happen, sooner or later. This system is done for.
 
Old August 15th, 2012 #1798
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

What Did Rand Paul Gain?

Tuesday, August 14, 2012 – by Anthony Wile

Anthony Wile

Mitt Romney has picked the youthful warmonger Paul Ryan to be his running mate.

From my point of view, this leaves the junior senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, standing near the altar like a jilted bridesmaid. Not a very pretty picture.

And now what has Rand Paul got?

I'll tell you in four words at the end of this article.

No peeking.

First, the bigger picture ... So far Rand's gamble – endorsing Romney – doesn't seem to be paying off. And there may be a salutary lesson in this.

It is late in the day.

The power elite that wants to run the world is more ruthless than ever. Panicked by the Internet and the exposure of the globalist conspiracy, they have launched half a dozen wars and kicked off a worldwide economic depression.

If they cannot run the world, they seem to be saying, no one else shall have it either. Like children, they clutch the Earth's big blue ball to their collective chest.

Only they are not children. They control the world's central banks, the world's nuclear arsenal and are collectively worth trillions. And they are furious.

They don't like to be challenged, apparently, not fundamentally, as the Internet has done.

What we call the Internet Reformation has exposed their plans and shown quite clearly the length and breadth of the directed history they've practiced while snickering behind their long, gilded sleeve.

Rand Paul can promise to serve them. But it is, as I said, late in the game. Their arrogance is rising along with their fear. And thus, they treat their servants more carelessly than ever. They are discarding the useless ones feverishly.

They are preparing to jettison a whole shelf-load of bankers, for instance – accusing them of corruption in order to pass more laws that will further tighten their grip over the world's financial commerce. These elites RUN government. When laws are passed, they inevitably benefit.

Their servants, former masters of the universe, are just now starting to understand what it means to work for Money Power ... and how quickly the dynastic families worth trillions will slough off mere billionaires if it suits their purposes.

Rand Paul is getting that treatment now. Perhaps he insufficiently understood their ruthlessness and desperation.

Did he really believe at this late date that he – a mere mortal – could horse-trade with the gods? Once they saw how angry he'd made his base with the Romney endorsement, they no doubt cast him aside.

Perhaps Rand Paul didn't know ... or doesn't understand. Their promises are worthless. He is less than human to them, a two-bit player in the carny act of regulatory democracy.

What does Rand have now?

There is the nebulous promise of speech-ifying at the GOP Convention, but no specifics announced yet.

And, really, at this point, who will be watching the convention?

Nobody much likes Mitt Romney that I can tell, even his supporters. They say things like, "I will gladly pull the lever for Mitt Romney to get rid of the socialist Obama."

They're not excited about Romney, you see ... just excited about ridding themselves of someone else.

"Savvy" observers counseled that Rand Paul had made his endorsement to "play the game" – with the idea that you have to show the powers-that-be that you are willing to accept the current reality before you are allowed to change it.

These observers speculated that Rand Paul was in the running for the vice presidential nomination. They also surmised that Rand Paul's endorsement might have won him a center-stage speech slot at the upcoming convention. Maybe even his dad might be given a slot as a result.

But so far, it doesn't look like it.

US News recently pointed out that Ron Paul "suffered a setback in his effort to have a major impact on the Republican National Convention" when the Republican National Committee declined to recognize a slate of Paul delegates from Louisiana.

Much thoughtfulness there, eh? Meanwhile, there is no news about Ron Paul addressing the convention. The leading constitutionalist politician of his era will not even speak at his "last hurrah."

And if Rand does, I doubt he'll get center stage. I doubt in the long run it will mean anything at all.

He can't bring the young people with him to vote for Romney because the young people have delved deep into the Internet and discovered the con. The wars are a con, the economy is a con ... even their future is a kind of con.

Are they supposed to vote for this media airbrushed personality, this second-rate financial thug whose supporters literally beat Ron Paul supporters like a collective drum in order to satisfy ... what? Rand Paul's measured, calculated massaging of the GOP ego?

It is late in the day for Ron Paul supporters as well. And there are tens of millions of them. They could have been Rand's.

And ironically, if he hadn't decided to be a little too smart, he could have "taken them with him." If he hadn't compromised, if he'd stood up to the pressure and the powers-that-be, he'd actually have come closer to achieving his goal.

What's clear is that Rand Paul DOESN'T control his father's base. One only needs to read the Internet to see that. If they perceived of him as they do his Daddy, then they WOULD be his.

And he would be stronger rather than weaker.

Because ALL they respect is strength. Rand Paul may have thought by portraying himself as a more reasonable man than his father, he'd ingratiate himself and receive cooperation and kudos. (And eventually more power.)

But ironically, he HAD the power ... millions, young and old, who were willing to donate for him, campaign for him, literally bleed for him.

All he had to do was say "no" to the established interests.

But he thought he was just a bit smarter than those around him. He apparently figured he'd play the game and keep his base, anyway. Instead, they're casting him off.

So again, I ask, what has he got?

A taste like ashes.

http://www.thedailybell.com/4184/Ant...Rand-Paul-Gain
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.
Page generated in 3.59440 seconds.