Much of recent political conflict in the United States, as well as in numerous other countries, revolves around the question of refugees, borders and globalization.
Liberals advocate, in the name of compassion, open borders, massive unvetted refugee admission, and a global economy and mentality. They paint conservatives as hard-hearted and selfish when the wisdom of this liberal agenda is questioned.
Conservatives advocate a different form of compassion — compassion for our own citizens, who have to foot the bill for global charitable gestures, and who have to suffer the risks of infiltration by terrorists (who are, by definition, people who try to take what they want by violent means). Conservatives also advocate compassion for those immigrants who have patiently followed immigration laws and procedures and continue to stand in line to enter the US, but are bumped aside by people who simply walk across the border to stay. Conservatives accuse liberals of being unrealistic, and of trying to make the US hand out more than we can handle.
Rather than condemning one group or the other, liberals or conservatives, let us start with the premise that most Americans are reasonable, that neither half of America is evil, and that each group has a piece of the truth.
One truth says that we should care about and assist those in need, our country was built on immigration, and we must offer a helping hand.
The other truth is that we cannot take care of poor outsiders and strangers at the expense of neglecting our own poor, and we certainly cannot increase the population of the US to accommodate all the population of the world who would like to live here.
Framed in these terms, the question becomes not who is evil or wrong, but a much more rational and practical question of balancing two truths, of determining the degree to which we can help others, without damaging ourselves. It becomes a question of Taking Care of Americans and Taking Care of the World, and finding a fair balance somewhere between the two.
This need to balance our own nation’s stability before helping other nations is analogous to airline flight emergency instructions, which tell us to secure our own air supply mask before attempting to assist others. It is also analogous to a lifeguard’s need to develop their own strong swimming skills and lifesaving techniques before trying to assist drowning swimmers, lest two individuals drown instead of one. Any trained lifeguard or water safety instructor will tell you that if a novice approaches a panicked drowning swimmer the wrong way, even if the well-intentioned rescuer is a strong swimmer, the panicked drowning person will climb on top of the rescuer, pushing them BOTH under water and making the rescue impossible. Specific training and cautious techniques must be used to save both people.
When approached from this friendlier and more unifying perspective, the problem of how much to help the world, versus how much to help our own nation, becomes easier to consider. It is transformed from a hate-labeling tug-of-war between political factions to a cooperative effort to find a workable compromise.
Let’s start with some facts, which help to define the problem.
The Gross Global Annual World Product is $108 trillion, or $16,100 per person per year. So most of the world is pretty poor.
The American Gross National Product is $18 trillion, or $56,000 per person per year.
(Note, these are not salaries, but also include everything the government does for us, like building roads.)
So we Americans have 3.5 times more than the average individual in the rest of the world.
This is crucial information in considering the role we as Americans want to play in helping the rest of the world.
If we Americans want to share what we have to help the rest of the world, we have to decide how much we can bring ourselves to part with.
The saints among us who want to share all we have, must realize that to equalize the world, all inhabitants of the world would have to go down to the $16,000 per person per year. This just happens to coincide with our government-determined poverty level in the US. In other words, in order to help the world very significantly, we would have to part with most of what we have, and become impoverished ourselves. There is NOT a huge amount of wealth in the world, and those who want to bring the world up to our American standards not only must realize that this is impossible, but they also must realize that to equalize, we must go down to the world’s poverty level, and we might have to sacrifice more than we first realized. And the rest of the world, including China, would have to do this as well.
Many generous-hearted people who do not want to live a life of poverty themselves look for other sources of income to tap, for elevating the lifestyle of others. They somehow believe that there is some untapped wealth in the world that will make it possible for everybody to live well. They look to the Bill Gateses of the world and the corporate giants of the world to pay for the charity they wish to initiate.
Let’s try to do the pretty simple arithmetic on that. If we take the 8 richest men in the world who were recently in the news (Bill Gates et. al.), who own the same amount between the 8 of them as the poorest half of the world’s population all put together, the total net worth of these 8 men is $427 billion. If we distributed this to the poorest half of the world’s population (the poorest 3.6 billion people), we would only be able to give each person $119, only one time. Everyone working for the 8 men would then lose their jobs, and the next year, we would have no 8 men to take money from to distribute again. And the $119 would not make a huge difference to those whose annual share of the world’s wealth has been defined as an average of $16,000.
Yes, the world has so many poor and so few rich men that this technique would not help much.
Some people get so caught up in their envy of the rich that they want to punish the rich even if that would not benefit themselves in the least. Analogous to the child who rips off their sister’s doll’s head because they cannot have the doll themselves.
If we tried to tax the entire US, every single one of us, down to poverty level, if we allowed the entire US to earn only $16,000 per person, and the government took the rest, the taxes collected would only allow us to give each person in the world $1,700, bringing their $16,000 to $17,700 ONCE, after which the US would be too poor to give them anything again.
Repossessing corporate holdings would have similar results. Most corporate holdings are stocks and they represent the savings of America’s retirees and those preparing for retirement. If we take that money, we, the taxpayer, will have to support those people in their old age, when they have no retirement nest egg left. So taking corporate money or dividends is, at best, a very temporary measure. What you gain now, you will have to shell back out later, to the same people you took it from.
These and other similar calculations show us that the concerns of conservatives are not as evil or selfish as progressive leaders or the press would have us think, but are the valid concerns of responsible people, who do not want to steal from one to give to another, while weakening everyone to the point where nobody can help anybody at all.
And, correspondingly, the concerns of liberals are not evil power plays attempting to steal votes from the poor with false promises, but are the compassionate concern of a good population that has not been informed by their leadership of how little money there actually IS in our national coffers and in the world.
This might be a good place to insert an observation — that the ancient religious practice of tithing, of everyone giving 10% of what they have to their Churches to redistribute to those in need, would do a much better job of equalizing the fate of unfortunate people than any governmental system of taxation could ever do. An additional benefit would be that distribution would be local, and more easily supervised.
And yes, Churches and other charitable institutions have had their share of unscrupulous people who mismanage and even misappropriate those funds, but can any honest person say that our government has ever done a better job of it? Or have they just feathered their own nests and the nests of their friends with our tax money, which was supposedly earmarked to provide essential services to Americans and to other nations in need?
So when we embark on the political exercises of regulating the admission of refugees, the regulation of borders, and America’s participation in globalization policy, when we discuss Taking Care of Americans and Taking Care of the World with what resources we have, let’s remember not to vilify each other, let’s remember that each side has important lessons to teach the other side, and let’s not war with each other, destroying our own stability and making it impossible to help anybody else.
Let’s also remember that some campaign promises and government issued benefits, including free health care (average $10,000 per person per year), free college ($10,000 state & $34,000 private per person per year), old age and unemployment benefits, food stamps, free cell phones, and rent subsidies, that these benefits cannot be handed out to more than the tune of $56,000 per person per year, or the US will go bankrupt. The $56,000 per person per year Gross National Product that we can afford to spend includes our salary, all our government benefits, all services including roads and police protection, maintaining the military, paying for schools, libraries, and community centers, and helping refugees and others in need. And we have not even considered the repayment of the $20 trillion national debt ($62,500 per person) America has yet to repay.
To make the pie any larger, to get any larger slices, requires growing the economy and creating prosperity, so we could have more pie to share.
And it requires putting the unemployed back to work, baking more pies.
President Trump’s economic plans and incentives during his first month in office alone have already grown the value of the stock market by $3 trillion, which certainly increases the size of our national pie.
And the Trump administration is working very hard to create jobs to put people back to work.
So one way to help the poor, both in our own country, and in other countries, is to give President Trump a fair chance.
The more liberal half of America could help the poor simply by refusing to support the recent organized resistance movement against President Trump and his administration, thus giving conservatives the same fair chance liberals just had for eight years.
Shouldn’t I reach into my own pockets when it comes to discussing charity, and shouldn’t I be a bit kinder and more understanding of those who are in charge of keeping this nation fed, defended, employed, and on an even keel?
The bottom line is that there is no magical source of income to tap, our poor are overwhelming in number, and we all have to reach into our own pockets to help as much as we can. One good start would be to tithe and to volunteer at the local Church/charity of our choice. And today, Ash Wednesday, would be a good time to start.
Last weekend’s very public dredging up of both Presidential candidates’ decades-old sins and abuses against women demands some discussion before the November 8th election.
And there are some things, in the present political climate, that only a woman can say.
Also, in the present climate, with the NSA cataloging each of our phone conversations and keyboard strokes, not only only a woman can speak, but only a woman with nothing to lose, or a woman who is willing to lose everything can speak out.
(Something to which I can personally attest- my blog sustains regular DoS attacks, and I have been harassed by my progressive Madisonian neighbors and “community leaders” via telephone and email.)
And so I continue to speak.
This election situation can be analyzed simply and logically, provided we are willing to lay the truth bare and to say what needs to be said.
We have before us two candidates.
Both have vividly shocking and progressive backgrounds.
We should not be surprised.
In a nation that encourages promiscuity in both sexes from childhood, teaches a promiscuous version of sex ed in grammar school and through the girl scouts, and labels all proponents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality as medieval relics, there should be no surprise that we have the Presidential candidates that we now have, who epitomize these sexually irresponsible values.
And the product of all this promiscuity is a disconnect between the unbridled sexual abandon which is encouraged by the culture and the resultant disregard for the value of human life, both that of unborn infants, and that of objectified women. This disconnect, this inconsistency, has led to the situation we are confronted with today.
So we have two vividly shocking and progressive candidates, who will be digging up mud and slinging it at each other in accelerated fashion during the coming month.
But there is still a fundamental difference between the two candidates.
One openly promises to further de-Christianize the United States, the Constitution, to expand the abortion of unborn children, to ridicule and marginalize religious Americans and to cut Catholic and Evangelical values out of the public forum in the United States. She advocates the elimination of religious freedom, use of the Presidency to dictate Church teaching in our country, and most recently (according to Russ Feingold) has expressed the intention to violate the Constitution by banning all guns by Executive Order. This would, incidentally, disarm all opposition to her radical agenda.
The other candidate seemed primarily motivated by the financial and security dangers that we face as a nation today. But that candidate has also cut a deal with the Republican Party, agreeing to support of the Republican Party Platform. This Party Platform supports the Constitution of the United States, supports religious freedom, opposes facilitation of abortion with federal funds, opposes the redefinition of marriage, and effectively supports the preservation of the Judeo-Christian principles that are embodied in our Constitution.
This candidate has taken further steps to indicate the sincerity of his support for the Republican Platform (which is now the only major platform supporting the Constitution of the United States). He has chosen a very capable and respected conservative as a Vice President. He has promised to appoint Supreme Court Judges like Anton Scalia, who will support the Constitution. He has even given us a list of candidates to illustrate his sincerity. He has vowed to protect Christianity in the United States, and has met with serious religious leaders after getting the Republican nomination, demonstrating his continued dedication to Judeo-Christian values. He has met with the Prime Minister of Israel, has acknowledged the dangers of Radical Islamic terrorism, and acknowledges the disconnect between the illogical concept of open borders and White House fences, Clinton compound walls, Paul Ryan walls, and all of America’s locked front doors.
I, as a woman and as a Catholic, have refrained from endorsing Donald Trump, primarily because I worry about the sincerity of his “conversion” to conservative values. After all, we have just lived through 8 years experiencing what promises from progressives mean. A progressive is, by definition, someone who believes that the ends justify the means. That’s a polite way of saying that a progressive is a liar and can never be trusted.
Now, in the light of Donald Trump’s sexual transgressions, I again worry about his suitability for the very honorable office of President. I appreciate the chivalry of people like Paul Ryan, who are presumably trying to protect us ladies from boorish male behavior.
But these are times of war. Even though women definitely have the precious gift of nurturing gentleness which is essential to the rearing of decent future citizens, and which it is very right for our men to protect and to cherish, women can also rise to the occasion and tolerate and bear much when the occasion calls for it.
In fairness, it also must be mentioned that the moral transgressions leveled against Hillary are even more disturbing that those leveled at Donald Trump. The enabling of rape and threatening of rape victims is morally worse than using lewd language or groping the opposite sex.
Let’s remember several things.
I am not defending Trump’s behavior, but trying to evaluate it and to compare it to that of Clinton.
I am also pointing out that much of the reported behavior has not been proven, that Trump’s accusers could be progressive liars and could even be funded by Soros. We must remember that all are innocent until proven guilty.
Finally, even if all accusations against Trump and Hillary were true, groping women like an oversexed juvenile is not in the same league of sinfulness or lawlessness as aborting babies, enabling rape, stealing from Haiti, attacking Christianity, and violating the Constitution of the United States.
One candidate supports the eradication of Judeo-Christian values as we know them.
The other candidate supports the Constitution, and the protection of Christianity in the United States.
Despite the demonstrated personal sins of both candidates, the values they promote publicly represent radically different visions for America.
The urgency of participating in the election, and the choice between candidates, is morally very clear, although it will take some courage. Standing up for morality usually does demand courage and tough unpopular choices.
It is my reluctant conclusion that on November 8th we will have to vote for Trump.
It will be at very least a vote against the destruction of America by professed progressives.
And there is the small chance that the conversion of Donald is genuine, and we could get a very good President.
I will not pretend that going into that booth on November 8th will not hurt.
And so, this woman has spoken.
There are many like me who are laying low, usually keeping it close to the vest, but who will definitely show up on election day, after first storming heaven with prayers.
We must also support all the other conservative candidates on the ballot, on whose shoulders the future of America rests.
This election season has already supplied us with unprecedented numbers of Black Swan surprises. We wait to see how many more game-changing events can fit into the next four weeks.
We need to remember that battles are won, and Black Swans are tamed by prayer!
As the presidential election season progresses and candidates proceed from state to state vying for support, there is much talk about the “Battle of Wisconsin,” portraying the primaries occurring here this Tuesday as being particularly crucial in determining the Republican nominee for the presidential election of 2016.
On the one hand, every primary/caucus in every state since Iowa gets built up by the press to heighten the excitement of the race and to boost network ratings.
On the other hand, Wisconsin does feature some characteristics that may be reflective of the evolving mind of the American people at large, and thus might give us a glimpse into what is to come.
A power shift from Democrats to Republicans has recently been witnessed in Wisconsin, and has made Wisconsin a sort of national battleground for the progressive agenda on more than one occasion. This included the near-rioting union takeover of Wisconsin’s Capitol building in Madison in 2011, the Wisconsin Supreme Court Scandals on the eve of an important union ruling, and the present election to be held on Tuesday, April 5th, 2016, which represents not only the battle between Republican presidential hopefuls, but also the battle for progressive control, by hook or by crook, of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In each of these battles, progressive Alinsky tactics have been used by radical Democrats, testing frantically whether a minority can dominate in a democracy, by sheer bullying (Alinsky tactics). Incidentally, in Wisconsin, conservative values have won so far, despite the Alinsky tactics, and despite the progressivism of Wisconsin’s Capitol city, Madison.
It could easily be argued that Donald Trump’s rapid rise to popularity is a consequence of progressive bullying and Alinsky tactics of Democrats. Trump’s bold outspokenness and willingness to fight fire with fire, his unintimidated attitude, is garnering widespread support across the nation.
And so it is here in Wisconsin, where close-to-rabid progressive crowds chased a Republican senator around the Capitol building, where a progressive Mayor called off police from enforcing law and order during union demonstrations, where police were nowhere to be found and fire-fighters had to rescue a cornered senator, where conservative legislators had to be escorted out of town for safety after a Senate vote, and where Justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court used assault and slander in attempts to progressivise the Supreme Court – it is here in Wisconsin, that Governor Scott Walker combined the necessary boldness, courage and justice to win the battle against Madison’s progressives Unintimidated (the title of the inside story).
Wisconsin is where our unintimidated conservative governor was sustained by the support and gratitude of his people, where he balanced the budget and restored solvency, and where conservative values continue to return via legislative change.
Wisconsin is where Scott Walker went on to to win the progressive attempted recall by a landslide with more support than he got when first elected, and where Scott Walker went on to get re-elected yet one more time.
So it’s also in Wisconsin where the Republican nomination will also be tested. In this case, the choice will be between two candidates who share some of Scott Walker’s values.
Donald Trump certainly demonstrates the valuable quality of “unintimidation” needed to face today’s progressive agenda.
Sadly, his commitment to conservatism is newfound, and yet to be tested.
His flip-flop on important values has been highlighted just this week, with contrasting statements on abortion, which change with the media pressure that is placed on him.
Donald Trump would make an infinitely better President than any progressive opponent, like Hillary or Bernie.
But he pales by comparison with most other Republican competitors, particularly in the area of “social issues-” or, in my book, ethics – religious liberty, abortion, and marriage.
He also has me slightly nervous about the possibility of being a Trojan Horse.
Ted Cruz also demonstrates the unintimidation needed today. He gets much better marks than The Donald on ethics – on religious liberty, abortion, and marriage.
If we are limited to the three Republican candidates today, he is unquestionably the best choice.
At the risk of almost omitting poor John Kasich from the discussion, Kasich has a significantly lower probability of success than Trump or Cruz. He is too liberal for my taste, but I would vote for him any day above Hillary or Bernie. And God bless his heart, he helps both major candidates to remain short of the magic number of 1237 delegates. This fact increases the probability of a brokered convention, for which I am rooting, and which would make it possible to return some very fine candidates into consideration– including Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and many others.
(Stay tuned for another article coming very soon on the Brokered Convention and why that is a Godsend during this 2016 election, despite all the media hype that portray it as a looming catastrophe.)
But now back to the Wisconsin Primary of Tuesday, April 5, 2016, which is being veiwed by some as a pivotal “Battle of Wisconsin” in the Republican presidential nomination of 2016.
What are the candidates’ chances, nationally and in Wisconsin?
One indicator of the candidates’ chances is the (speculative) number of delegates each candidate has accumulated.
Despite attempts by Donald Trump’s campaign and by much media to imply that Donald Trump is entitled to being declared the Presumptive nominee of the Republican Party because he (speculatively) has accumulated 736 delegates in the primaries so far, Donal Trump is still far short of any such assumption.
The Republican nomination is not a horse race, and the winning candidate does not win by a nose. Republican nominations, as are most elections, including the general election, require the support of more than half of the Republican Party. When races are close, or candidates are numerous, runoff elections occur, designed to home in on a candidate on whom 51% of America can agree.
Looking at the (speculative) distribution of delegates won so far by various candidates below, it becomes pretty obvious that Donald Trump has no guarantee whatsoever of receiving the support of half of Republicans in the United States, and a runoff election, otherwise known as a brokered convention, is highly likely to be required.
Incidentally, the brokered convention is not an evil plot concocted by the Republican elites, as Donald Trump’s campaign and some media would have you believe. The brokered convention is the natural result of numerous candidates, close races, or a split party – all of which are occurring in 2016 – and rules specifying brokered conventions have been around since Abraham Lincoln’s election. Those rules are not stacked in favor of anybody, not “establishment” Republicans, not liberals, not conservatives, but are simply rules, like Robert’s Rules of Order (which govern the Rules of the Republican Party), which have been refined by experts and statisticians over decades to specify the fairest way to operate a runoff election.
NOTE: Looking at the pie chart above, you can see not only that neither Trump nor Cruz are the Presumptive nominee by any means, but also that Wisconsin’s contribution to the number of delegates up for grabs is not overriding, either.
The fuss is two-fold:
As goes Wisconsin, so might go the United States.
Or at least we hope so.
Our Lady of Good Help, help us!
So What Will Happen in Wisconsin?
Republican presidential candidates are polling 40% Cruz, 33% Trump, and 19% Kasich.
One might add that conservatives are sometimes reluctant to participate in polls, pariticularly in the aggressive progressive Alinsky tactic climate we are presently in. So polls often underestimate the magnitude of conservative support a conservative candidate might receive. This happened to Governor Walker in the recall election of 2012, which Governor Walker won by a landslide.
However, it is most probable that nobody, neither Trump nor Cruz, will get the (speculative) 1237 delegates nationally, and a runoff election will be needed.
Again, a welcome development, which might even return Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s governor (or anybody else) into the running if Trump or Cruz cannot get 51% of the delegates in the first vote at the convention.
Equally important is Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, where a regressive progressive, JoAnn Kloppenburg, is challenging the seat of constitutionalist Justice Rebecca Bradley, who can be relied upon to stick to the constitution instead of legislating progressivism from the bench.
To complicate the matter, the good Justice Rebecca Bradley of the Wisconsin Supreme Court has the same last name as the horrible regressive progressive Justice Ann Walsh Bradley of the Wisconsin Supreme Court who assaulted fellow Justice Prosser in 2011, then lied to the press reversing the tables to smear Justice Prosser. See photos of the two diametrically opposed Justice Bradleys below.
Let’s Get it Clear-
Vote for Ted Cruz, who supports Religious Freedom, opposes Planned Parenthood and abortion, and supports traditional marriage. He’s a patriot who supports the Constitution of the United States.
Photo via TrumpDonald
Citing Trump’s improved poll figures in the aftermath of his recent head-shaving episode, other presidential hopefuls are now cleaving their locks as well – all hoping to gain the advantage in this year’s heated race for the White House.
When Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrived with his head shaved to a campaign event in Janesville, Wis. on Tuesday, March 29th, pundits widely speculated on the bizarre incident. Was it a sign of a Britney-like meltdown, or a serious medical condition?………. continued at 2016 Presidential Candidates Slash More Than Just Budgets .
Why is it that people often skirt the obvious?
Do they not see it?
Do they not wish to acknowledge it?
When people refuse to discuss the most obvious dominating and overwhelming issue at hand, we say there’s an elephant in the room.
Regarding Election 2016, there is more than one elephant in the room, and the elephants will soon run away with the election, so we may as well acknowledge them and start discussing them.
Pundits agree that this 2016 election is already different, historic, perplexing and unpredictable. What they now need to acknowledge and to discuss are the dominant issues steering this election, or the elephants in the room.
We have previously discussed unexpected transformative historical events which steer the subsequent course of history, called Black Swans. Black Swans are unpredictable determinants of history which may or may not be possible to control. Black Swan theory is a serious political science theory documented in the political literature and quoted by the 9/11 Commission.
In the present 2016 election, we have seen the arrival of a bevy of Black Swans – led by the transformative and unexpected success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign (note: Black Swan events are simply unexpected, not necessarily either bad or good).
But now we switch to the elephant analogy, because numerous Black Swans have arrived, and media and pundits seem to be in denial, refusing to discuss them. Media was slow to acknowledge the Trump phenomenon, and they have yet to acknowledge several other important determinants in this election- hence the undiscussed dominating forces become the Elephants.
So what are all these elephants?
So let’s look at these Elephants one-by-one.
The reason for Donald Trump’s phenomenal success is not anger of the American people, as pundits often postulate in exasperation, failing to find a better explanation.
The real reason for Donald Trump’s phenomenal success is the fact that the American people realize that sometimes it takes a bully to subdue a bully. But that’s not a politically correct suggestion, so nobody mentions it.
It was very amusing to watch the progressive CNN commentators looking quite panicked on Super Tuesday while discussing Donald’s proposed autocratic tactics and contrasting them with Ted Cruz’s promotion and adherence to Constitutional guidelines. Who would have thought that progressives could ever welcome the idea of Ted Cruz, even if by contrast to Donald Trump?!
In view of the Democrat party’s escalating Alinsky tactics in recent decades, our confidence in the ability of a controlled Christian gentleman diplomat like, say, Ben Carson, to win the culture war can be shaken.
Americans love the way Donald Trump takes no nonsense from the left and fights back. His counterpunches almost seem appropriate when dealing with practiced Alinskyites like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump not only hits back, but hits back harder– as he did going after Bill Clinton’s sexual history when Hillary accused Trump of sexism. In Donald Trump’s own words, both Clintons “had a very bad weekend” after Donald was through with them on that issue.
That is not to say that Donald’s techniques are the best ones in the long run, particularly on the world stage, but we can all appreciate how satisfying it is to see a bully creamed.
Aside: we do need to ask ourselves whether we want to replace one bully with another, and whether a David could slay a Goliath more easily than a second Goliath could do the job, particularly with the assistance of a nation at prayer. We should remember that there is a contrast between the behavior of a Christian and that of a Progressive.
Why 17 Candidates?
.Because there were 17 extremely talented, qualified, and patriotic men and women who were so dismayed at the destructive Progressive agenda of the Obama Administration that they were willing to run for office, to volunteer to captain a sinking ship.
Just as Americans flocked to the polls in 2014 and are flocking to the polls now in 2016 to reverse the progressive dictates of the present Obama administration, so too candidates are flocking to run for President as if to throw themselves sacrificially on the progressive hand grenade.
Note that the vast majority of these candidates are very conservative, and if one counts primary votes for conservatives versus liberals rather than counting votes for individuals, Donald Trump’s supporters are far outnumbered by Americans supporting conservative candidates.
Note also that the Rules of the Republican Party allow for such eventualities, and provide for a brokered convention when one candidate is not able to collect the support of the Party majority. The brokered convention then does the job of eliminating candidates through a series of votes until one candidate finally achieves a majority.
Another important Elephant that never seems to be discussed by media is the “Big Rule Switch” that occurred surreptitiously at the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa, and is now controlling and complicating this 2016 election.
This is important: so pay attention!
The Republican Party has always regarded Primaries in an advisory capacity, particularly since some states have allowed anyone, not just Republicans to vote in a Republican primary. In recent decades, there have been numerous illegitimate attempts by progressives to hijack the Republican Party via rule changes.
The most recent attempt involved Mitt Romney’s supporters in 2012 succeeding in introducing changes into the Rules of the Republican Party to exclude Ron Paul from participation in the Republican Convention and leaving Mitt Romney as the Presumptive Nominee.
Under the previous rules a candidate needed a plurality (most votes) in 5 State Primaries to go to the Convention. Two men cleared this hurdle in 2012 – Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
Mitt Romney supporters managed in 2012 to get the bar to be set higher- suddenly, on the eve of the Republican Convention in Tampa in 2012, the rules were changed so that a candidate needed to get a majority (51% of votes) in 8 State Primaries to go on to the Convention. This “Big Rule Switch” in Rule 40(b) excluded Ron Paul from consideration, and handed the nomination to Mitt Romney.
Today, this same “Big Rule Switch” that helped liberal Mitt Romney to get nominated is getting in the way of liberal Donald Trump. Despite his obvious popularty and clear ability to get the plurality in 5 States, he has not been able to get the majority in 8 States (or in ANY State). It is looking like NO CANDIDATE will clear the new “Big Rule Switch” bar, and presumably all remaining candidates will go to the convention. Then, after the first vote, it will be possible to add additional names into the running, including those who suspended their campaigns like Scott Walker, and those who never declared candidacy, like Sarah Palin.
So Mitt Romney’s supporters in 2012 created a rule change which might force us into a “brokered convention” in 2016. This can actually be a good thing– when Republicans cannot agree on a nominee, having a run-off at the election where candidates compete again and additional candidates can be proposed is a good idea. This eliminates the danger of nominating a candidate who is backed by less than half the Party – as seems to be the case right now with Donald Trump.
Despite his obvious popularity, Donald Trump has not received a majority, over 50% in ANY state so far, and certainly not in 8 States, so he cannot be considered the Presumptive Nominee by any measure under the “Big Rule Switch” of 2012.
Confirming at the convention that a majority of Republicans are on board with nominating Donald would be a prudent precaution. Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan were products of a brokered convention, so this is not something to fear.
Should the approximately 2500 Republican Delegates who are elected to represent their States at the Republican Convention be bound to vote according to Primary and Caucus results obtained six months prior to the Convention?
According to Curly Haugland, National Committeeman from the North Dakota Republican State Committee, and member of the RNC Rules Committee, for the past 90 years RNC rules have prohibited the binding of Republican delegates. RNC rules continue to protect the right of each delegate to The Republican National Convention to vote their personal choice on issues coming before the convention, and for the candidate of their choice to receive the party’s nomination. Senators and Congress members have this right to use judgement, and so do Republican Party delegates.
In recent times, progressives who would like to hijack the Republican Party and the media which supports them have been pressuring Republicans to rely more and more on Primary results, rather than allowing the Convention to be the final determining factor in nomination as it has been in the past. Some States have even passed laws requiring delegates to be bound by Primary results. But the Rules of the Republican Party clearly indicate that no State can supersede the Rules of the Republican Party or the freedom of their delegates.
The media pressure and spin has been so great in recent decades that many Americans do not even realize that Primary votes are only advisory in nature, are not binding, that Democrats and Independents participate in Republican Primaries, and that Republican delegates also carry the responsibility to keep candidates accountable to the principles outlined in the Republican Party Platform.
Relying on Primary results might sound democratic, but giving undue weight to the Primaries actually permits outsiders to hijack the Party more easily and allows in candidates (like Mitt Romney) who do not support the entire Republican Party platform.
Relying heavily on Primary results for nomination also gives more power to money interests, by preserving the results obtained during the Primary season, and taking away the right of elected delegates to use their judgement at the Conventions, as our Senators and Congressmen do when they vote in Washington D.C.
The idea of “binding” delegates to the results of the Primaries also prevents delegates from considering events that occur between the Primaries to the Convention in the nomination process. What if a Republican candidate was subject to prosecution by the FBI as Democrat Hillary Clinton may be, would delegates still feel bound to vote for that candidate at the Convention?
The idea of holding Primaries and Caucuses to advise Republican delegates of their Party member’s interests was a good idea in the past. But in this progressive world which legislates allowing Democrats to vote in Republican Primaries, and in which political hijackings occur frequently, the idea of binding has become preposterous, and even the concept of holding Primaries and Caucuses should be reevaluated.
This 2016 Super Tuesday’s Numbers show three remarkable things:
Other conclusions can be drawn from the Super Tuesday numbers as well-
So here is another Elephant in the room which is never pointed out – that the other four candidates, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson, are all “social conservatives” (like me).
What does this mean?
Being “social conservatives” means that they uphold certain moral values – opposing abortion, preserving traditional marriage, and defending religious liberty in the United States. These are, incidentally, fundamental Christian values, or “moral” values.
This means that 65% of voters in Republican Primaries, and that includes some Independents and Democrats, vote “social conservative,” and include morality in their conservatism, not just fiscal conservatism.
It is not surprising that Republican voters and most Republican candidates support “social conservative values” since the Republican Party Platform supports “social conservative” values.
This observation should make for some interesting sorting of votes and delegates at the Republican Convention, and Donald Trump could struggle to reach his desired 51% for nomination. As candidates drop out, social conservative voters will probably go to another social conservative, and not to Donald Trump.
So if you tabulate the Super Tuesday numbers as Trump (“economy rules!”) versus Social Conservatives (“morality rules!”), we could be in for a very interesting convention. We really could end up electing a poorly known morally upstanding person like Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan– not only from the original 17 candidates, but from other sources as well. Some have even suggested that Sarah Palin is not out of the question.
The previous 5 issues affecting this 2016 Election indicate that we are breaking new ground here.
We can speculate on who may try what, and what the outcome will ultimately be.
But as mentioned initially, Black Swans are never predictable, and rarely controllable, except through prayer.
Both sides, Republican Progressives and Republican Conservatives, as well as those Democrats who are trying to hijack the Republican Party (from whose ranks Donald Trump has not been entirely out ruled!) may try many of the above approaches to steer things their own way-
What should we do?
I plan to sit back, watch, pray, participate in some conservative activism, and vote.
You should too.
See my election guide from 2014- the same rules still apply- vote for the most moral candidate, pro-life topping the list, and pray.
I truly believe that we are watching the moral reawakening of America, which is guided by an interaction between Church and State – from the bottom up, not religion imposed from above. I am very excited about Christians having the chance to reclaim our Judeo-Christian roots and our Constitution, and believe that we are now watching this process, emboldened by our delightful Mr. Trump. The morality that will result will be a synthesis of what we all believe and what we agree on. Like the Constitution, it will be encompassed democratically, grass roots up, in our laws.
Should we expect more surprises along the way?
Who knows, with the surprising nature of Black Swans, Donald Trump could even be our St. Paul!
(Although I am not holding my breath.)
God Bless America, and God Bless Our Candidates!
Any one of the Republican contenders will be an improvement over the Progressive Agenda of the last eight years.
Dr. Ben Carson.
Yes, I know he just announced that he “sees no political path forward” after Super Tuesday’s results.
But re-entry through a brokered convention would not be a political path forward.
Could the good doctor be avoiding the political, high-spending, favor-exchanging world of the Primaries, and be planning to step into the Convention directly and apolitically, where the market of ideas is tested by delegates who uphold the Republican Party Platform?
Time will tell.
That would be one elegant and unexpected possible result.
When you interconnect Church and State, many new options become possible for the American people, with God in their corner.
God is a best example of the elephants in the room of American politics- a very large, important and crucial issue that everyone is acutely aware of, but nobody wants to talk about.
The Freedom of Religion Foundation has tried to ensure that.
But we won’t count God as an Elephant; too disrespectful.
However, if you count God in, you will have a smoother ride.
In politics, and everywhere else.
Note: This article was inspired by the work of Curly Haugland on Republican Presidential Candidate selection at Will Republicans Have a Primary Or A Convention, And Who Gets To Decide?
There has been much controversy in recent years over the question of “binding” Republican delegates in presidential primaries and conventions.
What is a delegate? A delegate is a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.
Binding is a policy that does not allow delegates at a presidential convention to follow their own judgment or to insist on the party platform when voting for a candidate at the convention, but obliges them to vote only for the candidates who were selected in the primary or caucus selection of candidates in their state months previous to the Republican Convention.
So the question becomes how can a delegate best act for or represent others in the Republican convention? Does a delegate represent other Republicans better when the delegate is “bound” to vote for a particular individual, or does the delegate represent other Republicans better when he/she is free to use their own judgement, as other elected officials, like Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress do?
In the Republican Party, binding was forbidden by RNC rules since 1923, and delegates have had the freedom to use personal judgment.
But attempts have been made in recent years to introduce binding into RNC rules, with a great deal of confusion resulting.
Those who advocate binding say binding is democratic, represents the will of the people, and should not be overturned at the convention by delegates who do not wish to be bound by the popular vote.
Political donors promote binding because their investments in candidates at the primary level could be wiped out by unexpected votes at the convention if delegates were not bound after the primary.
Those who oppose binding and advocate freedom of conscience for delegates say that outsiders, who are permitted to vote in Republican primaries in 24 States now, have no right to hijack the party at the primaries for an agenda that may even be at odds with the party platform.
These issues become particularly important as we approach the 2016 Presidential Election, which has been labeled the most unique, yet pivotal, nomination process in the entire history of the Republican Party.
Who is right?
Pro-binding or anti-binding advocates?
What are the rules?
If we start with the question “What are the rules governing nominations for President in the United States?” it helps to understanding the modern dilemma on “binding” of delegates.
Ballotpedia, a respected impartial political news source, explains the ballot access process for presidential candidates:
It is pretty clear that the first option, getting a party to nominate you for president, is easier than the other two options. In the first option, the party does much of the work for the candidate. The party offers the unique ability to effectively organize and mobilize voters. The party also contributes a history, a reputation and loyal members who will vote for the candidate.
Two such major parties have dominated the political landscape in the United States for over a hundred years- Democratic and Republican parties. These parties not only help candidates, but they also help voters. Once voters have identified a party whose platform they approve, they do not have to repeat the hard work of gauging each presidential candidate individually on each issue and deciding which one to back for each election. The party they support and trust does this evaluation for them.
In the past, it seemed honest common sense that only individuals who support a party platform would consider running under the umbrella of that party.
The idea that someone who disagrees with the party platform would try to use that party to get elected would clearly represent a form of dishonesty, even of hijacking.
However today, attempts to hijack political parties occur.
Someone may want to hijack a political party for a number of reasons.
The reasons include circumventing the tedious application process to numerous individual States, avoiding the collection of nearly a million signatures, and the attractive nature of jumping on a wagon that is already well under way and is well stocked. A deceitful person could even see hijacking of the opposition party as an opportunity to weaken the opposition party from the inside.
The Republican Party’s major opponent, the Democrat Party, has unfortunately demonstrated numerous times their willingness to use an unethical set of tactics called Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky’s philosophy and was offered a job to work with him in 1968. Barak Obama taught Alinksy Tactics while he was a professor. Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals is dedicated to Lucifer (Satan, the Father of Lies) and promotes the use of any immoral tactics to achieve one’s goals. The behavior of both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton during the past 8 years has illustrated time and again the devious unethical tactics used routinely by the Democrat Party.
Democrats seem to be riddled with unscrupulous agendas much more so than other groups of Americans or than Republicans. As an aside, you could read about the circus that went on in Madison, Wisconsin when Democrats decided to recall Republican Governor Walker because they did not like legislation that Republicans were enacting in Wisconsin. I had a front-row seat at that circus, and reported on many unscrupulous behind-the scenes events, including shocking events involving State Supreme Court Judges at the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Events such as these make President Nixon’s Watergate seem like naughty child’s play, but the media does not even attempt to hold Democrats accountable for their unethical behavior in 2016, and amateur bloggers like me have to do the work of the media.
So reality dictates today that we have to deal with individuals who present themselves to a political party for nomination, while disagreeing with a major portion of that party’s political platform or agenda. The party has to watch out for hijackers, or Trojan horses, or wolves in sheep’s clothing- both among the candidates, and among primary voters.
This is where the supervision of trusted, elected party delegates who have earned the trust of the party through demonstrated volunteer service comes in, helping to identify and eliminate impostors and hijackers. Delegates have been entrusted the job of being the guardian angels of the party’s ethics and of the party’s platform.
Hijacking can occur not only at the candidate level, but at the primary voter level as well. Twenty-four states now allow the general public to vote in primaries for nominees of other parties. So when Democrats and Independents and undeclared voters are permitted to choose the Republican Party’s nominee, clearly the Republican Party no longer has control over its own organization. There is even the potential for organized busloads of opponents, sometimes without proper identification, to vote numerous times in primaries in order to sabotage their opponents’ candidate selection.
Unfortunately, the scenarios described above are not imagined, but have already surfaced at the Iowa caucuses in this 2016 election.
Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders has accused his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton of infiltrating the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state paid staffers. A pretty serious accusation, considering that Hillary won the Iowa Caucuses by only 0.29%.
Equivalently shocking, there is video documentary published February 10, 2016, of Out of State Voters and Non-Residents Offered Ballots in New Hampshire Presidential Primary. So apparently, attempts to hijack the Primaries are in full force today.
So the binding of delegates is not a simple democratic procedure as many media sources represent it. In fact, binding of delegates can work against democracy in numerous ways:
The above points illustrate that it can very reasonably be argued that the binding of delegates is NOT democratic, but subverts the democratic process and facilitates the hijacking of half of America’s votes.
If a person does not agree with a particular party’s platform, they should not be allowed to represent that party, or to change that party by such devious means.
An outsider cannot join your off-road jeep club and insist that you switch your club’s agenda to knitting.
Your neighbors, no matter how many of them get together and agree, cannot hijack your car from your garage because they do not own it.
So why are so many under the impression that binding was introduced into RNC rules by amendment, and that binding is now obligatory?
The problem is that recent political warfare has included numerous attempts by progressives to alter the political agenda of the Republican Party with amendments and to divert its candidates.
These attempts have been fraudulent, and they cause internal contradictions in the RNC rules, which by definition (governed by Robert’s Rules of Order) nullify the contradictory progressive amendments.
Yes, there actually are progressives in the Republican Party.
Let’s clarify something about progressives at this point. Etymologically speaking, one would think that progressives were people who represented progress in society.
Yet today’s progressive has wishfully and somewhat narcissistically labeled his or her own fast-paced, radical social and economic experimentation, which most often ends in economic failure and social disaster, as progressive. Not only have they prematurely declared their experiments to represent progress, but they have also tried to dictate that all others follow their foolhardy misguided example.
One example of misguided progessivism is Michelle Obama’s suggestion last year that discarded school lunches be used to fuel cars. The idea sounds great on the surface- let’s not let anything go to waste!- but when you do the calculations of what it would cost to transform school lunches into fuel for cars, the fuel would end up costing $280 per gallon.
Today’s impulsive and unwise progressive is more aptly named a regressive.
So let’s get to some of the regressive, fraudulent and invalid amendments they tried to introduce into the RNC rules.
According to Curly Haugland, National Committeeman from the North Dakota Republican State Committee, and member of the RNC Rules Committee, for the past 90 years RNC rules have prohibited the binding of Republican delegates. RNC rules continue to protect the right of each delegate to The Republican National Convention to vote their personal choice on issues coming before the convention, and for the candidate of their choice to receive the party’s nomination.
The Rules of the Republican Party can be changed via prescribed procedures, but changes can occur only once every four years, on the eve of the Republican Convention. Once the rules are established, the convention proceeds according to those rules, and no further changes can be made until the eve of the next convention four years later.
There have been attempts by regressives to change the rules in recent years, and today, the RNC rules actually do state that binding of delegates can occur (Rule 16). But Curly Haugland points out that the binding language was introduced illegitimately by deceit and by trickery, by staff who did not have the authority to change the rules, and furthermore, that the attempted binding rule is actually contradicted by other RNC rules which are still on the books (e.g. Rules 37 and 38). Contradictions are governed by Roberts Rules of Order, which state that any motion that conflicts with other existing rules is null and void.
The struggle between proponents of binding and those defending their rights to vote their conscience led to a serious clash in 2012.
Over 400 Republican delegates filed a Federal lawsuit against the Republican National Committee and Reince Priebus the Chairman, alleging that violence and intimidation were used against delegates in an effort to control how they voted. These delegates refused to be bound and insisted on their right to vote their conscience.
Despite the fact that the court ordered the dispute to be settled via Alternative Dispute Resolution, the exhibits included in the complaint included a copy of a legal opinion offered by Jennifer Sheehan, Associate Counsel to the Republican National Committee, which clearly states that Delegates are allowed to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether that person is officially placed into nomination.
We’ve already mentioned the boomerang path some “progressive” ideas take, like Michelle Obama’s attempt to force children to eat food they don’t like, then to turn their discarded lunches into $280 per gallon fuel for cars.
The thing is, most
progressive regressive ideas fail, and come back to bite the people who initiated them. Any good scientist will tell you that most experiments fail, and it is the failed experiments that ultimately lead you toward figuring out what really does work.
And regressive rule changes in the RNC rules are no exception- they boomerang and come back to bite you.
Presidential candidates (like Mitt Romney) who are powerful enough to influence the appointment of delegates in the Republican Party, can get their delegates to introduce changes into the RNC rules on the eve of the convention once every 4 years. And guess what they try to introduce? Rules which favor that candidate. And so, on the eve of the 2012 Tampa Republican convention, more rules were changed.
Previous to 2012, in order to go on to the convention, a candidate had to win a plurality of votes in the primaries of 5 states; that is, to receive more votes in 5 states than any of his/her competitors did. But on the eve of the 2012 Tampa Convention, this rule (Rule 40) was changed, in order to make Mitt Romney the Presumptive Nominee and to prevent Ron Paul, who had received a plurality of votes in 5 states, from challenging Mitt Romney. The bar was raised to require a majority of votes (more than 50% instead of just the highest number) in 8 states (instead of in 5 states). This rule change made on the eve of the 2012 Convention succeeded in excluding Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney went on to become the Republican nominee.
The 2016 Republican field is much larger and more competitive than 2012, so the majority (50%) that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul got in 2012 is much harder to get.
We have a veritable flock of great candidates coming up on stage. So much so that they cannot even fit onto one stage, and Republican debates are split into two sessions.
At the rate things are going, even the front runners do not seem capable of getting 50% of the vote, because the vote is spread over so many candidates.
What will happen?
The very rules that helped Mitt Romney are now getting in the way of many candidates.
So, there will be no “Presumptive Nominee.”
Many candidates may get to the convention, and rule changes are being planned for the eve of the July 1016 Convention.
As a result, this year, the candidate selection process may occur at the convention, and not at the primaries.
Candidates who do not have a majority of delegates are being encouraged to “go the distance” to Cleveland and not to drop out.
Delegates are being encouraged to vote their conscience, and to select a nominee who represents the Party Platform.
When delegates do not feel “bound,” the handlers and influence peddlers will lose control over the convention. The convention will be in the hands of the delegates of the Republican party.
So what worked for progressives in 2012 in getting a much more liberal candidate (Mitt Romney) ushered into the Republican Party, may work against the present most liberal candidate, Donald Trump.
Donald Trumps’s hopes of being the Presumptive Nominee may have been sabotaged by the rule change in 2012 that was designed to help liberal candidates like Mitt Romney, and presumably Donald Trump.
The boomerang has returned.
So who’s placing bets on the mad dash to change the rules again on the eve of this 2016 Cleveland Republican Convention?
Will the rules be changed?
Will there be a repetition of delegate intimidation?
Will Reince Priebus and the National Republican Committee behave and let democracy work, particularly since they were forced to recognize the delegates’ right to conscience after the lawsuit in 2012?
Some have even speculated that this convention could yield wild surprises, such as the nomination of people who had not even declared themselves as candidates for nomination, like Sarah Palin.
What we need at this point is patriotism, courage, strength of character and prayer.
This is an opportunity for Americans to take back the Republican Party, to behave in a way that is faithful to the Constitution and to the Republican Party Platform, which supports the Constitution.
We need power to be returned to the delegates as it was originally designed and intended.
And that power will not return by itself. It has to be taken by courageous men and women.
At the 2016 Republican Convention in Cleveland.