Presidential Nominees -Who Gets to Choose Them?

or

What’s a Delegate to Do?

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?

The Problem- “Binding” of Votes

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.

Pros and Cons

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.

Some Crucial Background on Ballot Access

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:

According to Ballotpedia, there are three ways that a person can get on the ballot for President:

• The individual can seek the nomination of a political party. Political parties are private organizations in which like-minded individuals with similar goals have banded together to sponsor a nominee for president who upholds their organization’s priorities and agenda or platform.

• They can get on the ballot for President independently. This involves petitioning each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot. Each petition involves complex procedures designed by State lawmakers to prevent non-serious candidates from appearing on the ballot. In 2016, it would also involve the collection of more than 900,000 signatures in support of that candidate.

• The person can run as a write-in candidate. In most states, this involves filing some paperwork in advance of the election. And, of course, it involves persuading millions of people to write the candidate’s name in on the ballot during the general election.

What’s the Easiest Way for a Person to Run for President?

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.

Political Warfare

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.

Why Would Anyone Want to Hijack a Party?

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.

Click Image to Enlarge

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.

Dealing With Reality

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.

Isn’t That a Bit Paranoid?

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.

Back to Binding Delegates- Democratic or Not?

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:

• Binding of delegates allows outsiders to help choose the Republican nominee at the Primaries.
• Binding of delegates allows candidates who oppose the Party platform to be nominated.
• Binding of delegates misleads voters into thinking a candidate represents something other than they really represent.
• Binding of delegates does not allow delegates to take into account all the events that transpire in the half year between the primaries and the convention.
• Binding of delegates is unfair to those who have built the Republican Party, which is, after all, a private association with freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to associate with politically like-minded individuals.
• Binding of delegates allows the infiltration of political party by opponents.
• Binding encourages money-driven nominations rather than idea-driven or character-driven nominations.
• Binding of delegates has never been permitted by the Rules of the Republican Party.

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.

Hijacking Not Allowed

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.

But Didn’t the RNC Introduced Binding, and Isn’t Binding Binding?

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.

Did You Just Say Progressives in the Republican Party?

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.

 Regressive Attempts to Amend 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.

So despite the fact that binding has been introduced into the RNC Rules, binding is actually null and void.
Binding is not binding.

All-Out War

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.

Regressive Rules Can Boomerang

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.

Changing MORE Rules

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.

Here Comes the Boomerang!

Well, here we are now in 2016.

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.

Anybody Placing Bets?

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

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.

So What’s a Delegate to Do?

• A Delegate is to act like a patriot.
• A delegate is to help take back America, so that this Judeo-Christian democratic republic can continue to thrive and succeed and does not turn into a regressive experimental Godless socialist state which is the trajectory that Obama and the Democrat Party are following.
• A delegate is to choose candidates of upstanding moral character who are pledged to upholding the platform of the Republican Party.
• A delegate really should read the new guide being prepared for Republican Party delegates which is being spearheaded by North Dakota Republican National Committeeman Curly Haugland, intended to make all delegates aware of the duties and responsibilities they assume as they fulfill their important role in the governance of the Republican Party. The working title of the guide is “Owner’s Manual for 2016 Republican National Convention Delegates. See RNC Delegates Top Priority:Recruiting Conservatives Into Party’s Precinct Committeemen Ranks.

READ THE GUIDE THAT’s COMING!

The Missing Link–

Redefining How We Approach Politics

People are Flocking to Old Articles

This website, originally established to present a Catholic/conservative perspective to those who might be interested, seems to have recently become popular as an historical/political information resource.
Not my choice, but that of visitors, who are targeting very specific articles.

Visitors are flocking to articles written as long as two years ago, on topics such as the 2011 Madison Capitol Teacher’s protests, the 2012 Presidential election, the old Catholic Church abuse scandals, and articles on the subject of freedom OF religion versus freedom FROM religion. (Most visited articles listed below.)

Traffic continues to visit my website even during my attempted vacation (now), despite the noticeable reduction in new articles posted.

The website is also getting significant negative attention in the form of hacking attempts.  We just survived a sophisticated Denial of Service (DoS) attack launched from computers in Europe.
(DoS attacks are usually reserved for much bigger potatoes than me, and they usually target large corporations and businesses.  They are highly illegal,  carry penalties of 10 years imprisonment, and are strictly forbidden by most nations.)  So somebody seems to be pretty motivated to take this website down.

The Question

So the question becomes– in a world with no shortage of political pundits or religion experts, why are people reading articles written by me, Mrs. small potato, with no political or religious credentials, for information on politics and on religion?  And why are those who disagree with me prepared to risk 10 years imprisonment to take me down?

Common Denominator

The common denominator among the most visited articles seems to be analysis of current political and cultural events from a religious and ethical perspective.

Yes, this blog violates the modern mandate of Separation of Church  and State.

Here, the interconnection between God and the events of this modern world are analyzed and examined in a matter-of-fact and straightforward way.  Our focus includes some common sense and some outside-the-box thinking– not surprising, because God always makes sense and God is always outside the box.

Apparently some readers are hungry for this approach.
Other readers want to shut the approach down.

In fact, the world makes much more sense when you add its Creator into the analysis.
And if including the Creator in political analysis makes sense, it makes even more sense to include the Creator in formulating political strategy.

How To Redefine Conservative Political Strategy after the November 2012 Fiasco?

There is little doubt that in 2013 conservative political strategy needs redefining; the Republican party seems on the verge of splitting, a split which could prove lethal to Republicans in the next election, and a split which did contribute to the Republican defeat in November 2012.

The Republican split is between the Party establishment, which has drifted increasingly over time toward compromise with the left and toward courting the “moderate” vote, and true conservatives, who adhere to conservative Judeo-Christian principles and to conservative fiscal strategy.  True conservatives are pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-balanced budget, and pro-lots of common sense.  The Establishment fears that such “extreme” (i.e., common sense) views may cause the party to lose votes.

Which way to go?  How can we avoid a split?  These are the questions being asked and this is why some seem to be returning to my brand of political analysis, which predicted, before November 2012, the chaos that would result from too much compromise with the left.

The Missing Link in Political Analysis and Strategy

Political strategists who steer local, national and global power games typically vie for support from every possible source.  They court money, fame, popular culture, the support of organizations, churches, business and media, Hollywood, and the favor of groups, of women, of minorities, and of immigrants.

Rarely does it occur to politicians, and even to some religious politicians, to court the support of the Almighty.

Politicians Courting the Almighty

Therein lies the key to political success- courting assistance from the Almighty.  Dubious as some may be about God’s involvement in human history, His involvement is quite apparent to those who remain open-minded.

When history is viewed from a perspective  that does not automatically exclude the existence of God, God’s action in human history becomes obvious.  The hand of God in human events is most obvious in those events which defy the laws of probability, in those events which accomplish far-reaching, perhaps even global results, where human effort seems to play little or small part in accomplishing the result, and in those events where politicians and battles play no significant role.  Nobody anticipates the result, everyone is surprised by the result, the result is truly remarkable, and no fingerprints are left behind.
That is God’s style and His trademark.

Examples of such significant events which have shaped the course of human history, yet were not orchestrated by politicians, armies, or missionaries, include the Christianization (actually Catholicization) of  Europe at the time of Constantine, the dismantling of the Soviet Union without battle at the time of President Regan and Pope John Paul the Great, and most recently, the commencement of the the self-destruction of what has sometimes been called the Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama.  In recent months, in the absence of any action on the part of Barack Obama’s political opponents, scandal upon scandal has broken, and President Obama’s reputation and popularity are collapsing swiftly.

Including God in the Plan

There is, indeed, a God Who watches over us and participates in human activity, usually in very surprising and unexpected ways.  So ignoring God, failing to court His support and ignoring His wishes should constitute a pretty big tactical error for political strategists, if God does exist.  It would also be a pretty big tactical error for the 80% of America that prays not to pray for God’s help in restoring justice to our nation and to our world.

People can be so illogical.
90% of Americans believe in God, and they believe daily what CNN reporters report in the news, yet they forget that by definition the God they believe in would be powerful, good and involved with the world, and that it makes little sense to believe Anderson Cooper’s reports on events in Benghazi, while denying historical reports in a chronicle of God’s interaction with humanity, the Bible.  So the lessons to be learned from biblical stories like the parting of the Red Sea, or David’s slaying of Goliath, are illustrations of God’s power and of the assistance He provides to those who, like Moses, or like David, have faith in God’s promises and act with great confidence on that faith.  The same God, wielding the same power, is available to us today.  If we were to act with the faith of Moses or of David (or of Constantine, Pope John Paul the Great and Ronald Regan), we can expect monumental results that defy all odds.

We might note that God’s mind rarely works the way ours do. In all the cases cited above, Moses, Goliath, the Christianization of Europe, the defeat of the Soviet Union, and the demise of Barack Obama’s reputation, human expectations did not line up at all with the surprises God provided.

So the missing key to dealing with politics includes remembering to put God into the plan, and then having the faith and the patience to watch Him work in His own time.

Planning Without God

In the absence of a God, if we were reliant solely on our own devices, it would become tempting to fight adversaries with their own tools.  It would become tempting to sling mud back at our opponents, to court voters with promises of lollipops, to court moderate votes with continual compromise of our moral standards, and even to consider introducing a few lying and cheating Alinsky tactics of our own, when dealing with modern “progressive” opponents such as the Obama administration.  How else can we win against the tactics presently being used against us?

Quite a few modern conservatives have fallen into this temptation, and have started compromising with the opposition.  They fall for the fallacious argument that says compromising values will attract moderate voters.  They fall for the fallacious argument that hand-outs will buy votes.  They begin to walk away from their values, they compromise more-and-more, and they foolishly shift never-endingly toward the left.

The nomination of Mitt Romney was an example of such compromise, in which the Republican party split became very apparent, and in which frightened old school Republicans even violated their own convention rules.  They forced through the nomination of Mitt Romney, instead of playing by the rules, instead of negotiating their way through a brokered convention, and instead of considering more than one nominee at the Republican Convention.  They failed to realize that some greats like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan were chosen under similar conditions, and that these conservative but previously unknown candidates had principles that were better able to defeat the incumbent Democrat President.

What does including God in politics look like?

When you remember to include God in the plan, you follow His rules, even in the face of overwhelming opposition and of Alinsky tactics, you pray, and you wait.
It takes a lot of faith, but it works.
God always comes through.

Your opposition would LOVE you to divorce politics from principled faith.
Divorcing politics from faith would have paralyzed Moses, David, Constantine, John Paul the Great, Regan, and now in 2013, divorcing politics from faith will paralyze us if we go in that direction.
Why do  you think Lenin worked hard to exterminate religion and why do you think Obama is working so hard to paralyze the Catholic Church through the HHS Mandate?

Because that is how they paralyze their opposition.

Dumping Judeo-Christian Values (or Adopting Alinsky Tactics) Will Boomerang on You

When we succumb to the threats progressives make and we fall for their demands to violate God’s law, we compromise our values.  To fight the devil with his own tools doesn’t work anyway, it boomerangs on us.

In nominating Mitt Romney, conservative and pro-life values were compromised, and Republican Convention rules were broken.  Mitt Romney may be a very nice man.  But he was not elected democratically at the Republican convention, and he does not personify the values of conservative America. Mitt Romney was a compromise with the left, a compromise some claimed was very similar to Barack Obama.   The result was the alienation of true conservatives, and the alienation of numerous Tea Party activists.  This alienation among conservatives was so pronounced that 3 million REGISTERED REPUBLICANS did not go to the polls in November of 2012.

Three million registered Republicans stayed home rather than vote for Mitt Romney, the man who refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony pro-life pledge, who had supported abortion and embryonic stem cell research in the past, and who now supports gay boy scout leaders and gay adoption.  The man who created the blueprint for ObamaCare. The man whose nomination was pushed through by brute force at the Republican convention by the Party Establishment, against the wishes of numerous true conservatives. The man who did not represent the wishes of the people, and so 3 million people did not go to the polls in protest.

Three million votes added to the November 2012 totals would have won the election for Republicans.  If the REGISTERED Republican voters whom the Republican establishment aliented with it’s shenanigans had gone to the polls on November 6, 2012, Barack Obama would no longer be President!

Selling out our values sure does boomerang on us.

What About Those of Us Who Prayed, Who Worked, Who Participated in Freedom of Religion rallies?

The prayers, the work, the Freedom of Religion rallies of 2011 and 2012 in which many true conservatives participated were not wasted.  Americans have been wakng up in recent years both politically and religiously, and are fighting back against the Imperial Obama administration.
God did not ignore those prayers or those efforts.

Mitt Romney would not have been the answer to those prayers.
A true conservative would have been the answer to those prayers, but the Republican establishment made sure, compromising even the rules of the Republican Convention,  that a true conservative was not nominated.

If the Republican Party establishment was prepared to sell out our values and to (undemocratically) ram through  their favored “presumptive nominee,”  we might actually be better off with 4 more years of Barack Obama, rather than with an unknown, opportunistic Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney would have, at best, treaded water for us.  Conservative policy was not likely to be implemented any time soon.

But, four more years of Obama Administration offers the potential for Americans to experience  firsthand the results of the disastrous Obama policy.

Pain and economic hardship can have a sobering effect on people, forcing them to realize that liberalism is a luxury they can no longer afford.  The poor, by definition, cannot be liberal with money and must conserve.  Goodby liberalism, hello conservatism!  God’s balance beam at work!

This principle holds true not only for economic liberalism, but for moral liberalism and for all forms of liberalism.  Society, like individuals, makes mistakes, learns from them, and frequently make corrections, when truth becomes obvious.

Back to the Most Popular Articles

The articles to which my readers have been flocking include those analyzing the Alinsky tactics in use by teacher’s unions in Madison, by progressives in the Democrat party, and by the Obama administration.  They include comparisons between Alinsky tactics and the Ten Commandments.  They include quoting Alinsky’s  dedication of his book to Lucifer, or to Satan.  They also include warnings to Republicans on surrendering moral ground in the face of Alinsky tactics.  They include pointing out that a conservative candidate, contrary to some opinions, would have made a much stronger candidate in the 2012 Presidential election.  They include reminders that America is not a Godless country, that the Constitution is not a Godless constitution, and that it is worth our while to stick to Judeo-Christian morality and to the Constitution of the United States, despite the fear of many that elections can only be won by continual compromise and by erosion of moral ground.

What Insurmountable Problems Do We Face Today?

How, in a nation that appears to be divided 50/50 on moral, cultural and political issues,  do you defeat a Santa Claus administration which is handing out lollipops and favors in exchange for votes, while demonizing hard working Americans with Alinsky tactic lies and with smear tactics?

Does the solution lie in joining the Santa Claus band wagon, and compromising moral absolutes such as abortion, in order to win over a percentage of the “moderate votes,” in an attempt to tip the balance in our favor?

The Solution

Or does the solution lie in bold moral leadership inspired by devotion to God, such as that provided by Presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan, who took strong moral stances and inspired voters to support good men and to follow their lead?

When we give up speaking of God, we fail to use our most powerful resource.

Modern political correctness insists that we deny the truth, that we pretend the Emperor (e.g. Obama) is wearing clothes, and that we admire his fabulous non-existent clothes.
When, in actual fact, he is quite naked. The Emperor has no clothes.

Church and State – The Intimate Connection

It is presumed by most, particularly in the United States, that our laws are based on morality. And that law is based on what is right and not wrong, and on what is just and not unjust.

It is a given fact that morality is reasoned out and embodied in religious belief that there is a God, and that He has set down some inviolable laws that even governments cannot violate.
History shows that without limits, in the absence of a higher authority, governments, like individuals, tend toward becoming tyrannical.

It is therefore logical, particularly in a nation that is religious (as is the United States), that at least on some level, there must be a connection between Church and State.  And that government is accountable to God, the maker of the universe.

Christian Principles Fundamental in the Constitution of the United States

The Declaration of Independence of 1776 referred to US citizens being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and the Founders of this nation included Christian principles in the Constitution.  Even the First Amendment, which forbade any law establishing an official national religion, also forbade prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The religious intent of the First Amendment was further clarified by a 1799 court ruling, which indicated that the Founders intended the US to follow Christian principles, without allowing one religious group to control government:

Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people.  By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing. 1799 – Runkel vs. Winemiller

To this day, the vast majority of the population of the United States (80%) are still Christian.  These Christians vote, and these Christians contribute towards shaping the law.

Further history describing the role of religion in US government and on the origin of “Separation of Church and State” can be found at   Separation of Church and State, NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM STATE, by Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA.

Keeping Your Beliefs Under Your Hat

In the present culture, we are told to keep our religion under our hats, and not to discuss it publicly.
This has been hammered into us so effectively, that most conservatives are intimidated into silence regarding their beliefs.  The likes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation ardently and publicly attack anyone who dares to demonstrate their belief in God visibly.

Just recently, my husband and I had dinner at a great Madison Middle Eastern Restaurant.  Seated at a table not far from us was a group of academics, a professor and graduate student hosting an invited speaker who had obviously just given a lecture at UW Madison on LGBT issues.  Their conversation was focused on LGBT issues, was loud and lively, and tended to dominate the small room we were in.  It was not an exceptional situation in Madison.

My thoughts drifted to the fact that my husband and I were NOT discussing our very conservative views, were NOT discussing them at high volume, and were NOT dominating the room.  I started wondering what would happen to us in Madison, WI, or in most American towns, if we did start doing that.  I realized that many of us have been shushed into silence.

Selective Silence Enables Minority Rule

The silence on morality and on religious beliefs demanded by modern political correctness is not an equitable mandate to which all are subject.  Liberals and progressives remain free push their values publicly and brazenly, and they clamor violation of rights when anyone tries to prevent them from doing so.

Yet conservatives have no such parallel rights, either to speech or to action. When conservatives follow legally prescribed channels and vote their values into law, progressive judges (not elected, but appointed) are found to cancel the democratic majority’s moral resolution.

One prime example of this the the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), voted into law in 1996, yet now challenged by progressives, who hope to use the Supreme Court of the United States to get their way when majority rule does not help them. A Supreme Court, incidentally, to which two progressive radicals have recently been appointed, by progressive President Obama, who does not stand with the American public on most major issues, including gay marriage, federal funding of abortion, and privacy and transparency issues. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down certain aspects of DOMA, ruling that now the federal government has to accept the redefinition of marriage when the states redefine marriage.

Separation of Church and State – Very Important to Define Separation

Separation of Church and State.
Yes, Church and State must be separate in government.
If I had the power to enforce my religious belief system on the United States, I would not do so.
No government can force any one religion, and citizens must be free to choose their beliefs (or non-beliefs).

But that is where the separation ends.
The individual must exercise their religious beliefs, their God-inspired knowledge of what is right and wrong, in the voting booth and in their public stance on issues.
How can any Christian shelve the morality of murder, of theft, or of any moral issue when delegating power to those who govern us?
Those who advocate any such notion are short-sighted; do they have no idea that our independence as a nation and our government  are based on certain inalienable rights?
That even the Imperial Obama administration cannot violate our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

Future Directions

The answers are pretty simple, and are available to anyone.

I view all of life, including American politics, from a educated religious perspective, and thus I refuse to separate Church and State.
Any shreds of wisdom that may find their way into my material are not my own.
I Quote from the Liturgy of the Hours, a set of daily prayers based on Holy Scripture and available to all:

If the Lord had not been on our side….
Then would the waters have engulfed us,
the torrent gone over us;
over our head would have swept
the raging waters.
……………………………………...-Psalm 123 (124)

It’s very simple: stick strictly to God’s law, pray, and wait.
So cool to watch as it works!

Related Post: What Happens When You Take Character Out of Politics

Appendix

Articles generating most interest include:

• Herman Cain: Guilty or Not Guilty and Why Does It Matter? – False Accusations Should Be Punishable by Law – in which I suggest in December 2011 that the Herman Cain Scandal could be an example of Obama administration’s use of Alinsky tactics against his opponents.
• Circus Madison Goes On, which summarizes political events in Madison, WI in 2011, during and following the Union Protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol. (Aug 2011)
• The Presumptive Nominee, or the Secret Insurrection, an analysis (before Romney’s nomination) of why Romney might not be the most likely candidate to win. (Aug 2012)
• Update on Catholic Child Abuse Scandals, in which evidence restoring the moral authority of the Catholic Church is duscussed. (April 2013)
• Freedom From Religion Contracting Leprosy and Dissolving, in which evidence questioning the moral authority of the Freedom From Religion Foundation is discussed. (March 2013)
• A Tale of Two Presidents- The Drama Continues, in which the conflict between Obama and Cardinal Dolan (Obama’s challenge of religious freedom) is presented. (Feb 2012)
• Clashes Between Liberals and Conservatives, in which the morality of political tactics in analyzed with reference to the Ten Commandments. (April 2011)
• Reaching Out to God and Explaining Adoration, in which the effectiveness of prayer in modern life is discussed. (Oct 2012)
• The Wicked Said Among Themselves, in which the relevance of a Liturgy of the Hours reading from the Book of Wisdom to modern life is evaluated. (March 2013)
• The Contrast, in which Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers (in this case, Freedom From Religion Pro-Choicers) are compared. (June 2012)
• Today’s Catholic Nuns- The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, in which the accuracy of the media in portraying the Catholic Church (in this case, primarily Catholic Nuns) is analyzed. (March 2013)

What’s STILL going on in Wisconsin?
or
Circus Madison Goes On
or
How Minority Can Dominate in Democracy
or
What to Do with Badly Behaving Adults?

Liberal to Conservative Shift in Wisconsin

Circus Maximus- Rome, 326BC-549AD.  Ancient site famous for chariot races, gladiator fights, Christian slaughter and games, as well as local marketplace.

Conservative fiscal thinking is catching on, and now “conservative is the new liberal.” Not only in Wisconsin, but in our entire nation.  As power shifts from liberals to conservatives, liberals are not relinquishing power gracefully.  They are frantically employing unethical Alinsky tactics , trying to get their way (despite being the minority),  “by hook or by crook”.

The power shift was very dramatic in Wisconsin, where Democrats have long been accustomed to being in power.  The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the state capitol of Wisconsin, Madison, has remained very liberal, and now has become an island of liberalism surrounded by a sea of conservatism in Wisconsin.

Madison Disapproves

Many people and officials in Madison do not approve of the conservative changes voted in by the rest of Wisconsin.  Yet the Capitol

The Madison Capitol Building- stage for extreme events in Wisconsin, capturing the attention of  the entire nation this year.

building, which houses the legislative chambers and the Governor’s Office, the place where conservative changes are now being implemented, is the central fixture around which all of downtown Madison is clustered.

One local liberal paper recently featured a front-page article entitled “Not my Madison,” in which the author bemoaned  “a new sense that normal citizens can’t change anything.”  The numerous long-ensconced Madison Democrats had come to feel an entitlement to Madison as well as to control of the State Government.  When conservatives finally gained power, liberals have become outraged and took over the Capitol, disrupting the smooth functioning of the Democratic process. continue reading…