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!

Gay Marriage:

Activist Judge Logic Versus Monsignor Logic

.

Gay Marriage in the United States

GOVERNMENT BY … THE PEOPLE?… BY EXECUTIVE ORDER?… BY PROGRESSIVE PROCLAMATION?

The Obama administration has been promoting the gay agenda for some time now, including the 2011 White House announcement of it’s intention not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA is a federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under laws of other states.

By refusing to defend DOMA, the White House fails to defend and enforce the law of the United States, taking upon itself the authority to override laws which have been passed by Congress, to override laws which represent the people of the United States.

In fact, lawsuits are in progress against President Obama over his abuse of executive authority, particularly abuse of executive orders.

Gay Marriage in Wisconsin

Similar things are happening in Wisconsin.

In November of 2006, 59% of the voters in Wisconsin approved an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage or any substantially similar legal status.  The people of Wisconsin had spoken, and gay marriage was banned in Wisconsin.

Judge Crabb was appointed by Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1979, and “unexpectedly” took on Senior Status  in 2009 with President Obama’s approval.  Her stated intent for switching to Senior Status was to continue her work for the court while opening up a position for another federal judge.

• 2009 – Judge Crabb ruled that the Wisconsin Judicial Commission’s code of judicial conduct, which restricts political activism by judges, was unconstitutional. Translation: Judges no longer have to behave impartially; they are now free to donate to political campaigns and to support political candidates.
• 2010 –  Judge Crabb ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s claim that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional.  (This decision was reversed unanimously by a federal appellate court in 2011 due to lack of standing.)
• 2013 –  Judge Crabb ruled that the housing tax exemption for pastors is unconstitutional, again ruling in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s law suit.  .
• 2014 – And now, Judge Crabb just ruled in favor of several same-sex couples, ruling that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.

Judge’s Unexpected Maneuver

Judge Crabb’s surprising transition to controversial and obviously “progressive” rulings invites speculation.

Do Judge Crabb’s recent progressive rulings reflect an impartial legal judgement?
Her rulings seem to reflect instead a prejudice that has little to do with logic or the law.
Is Judge Crabb’s prejudice philosophical? Religious? Personal?

Tipping the Scales

Could the Judge have been conscripted by a progressive organization such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in whose favor she has ruled more than once, and which represents only 1 per thousand atheists and one per 30,000 Americans?

oooo
Could it be that the Obama Administration recruited her to help with its progressive agenda, including President Obama’s efforts to promote the gay agenda?

ooo
What’s in it for Judge Crabb?
Why would a Judge suddenly make time for progressive controversial rulings?
Is anybody paying her, or rewarding her by some alternate means?

Regardless of her motivation, Judge Crabb started her progressive campaign with the most controversial ruling– eliminating for the first time the requirement that Judges behave impartially.
This set the stage for the chaotic rulings that followed.

What Is A Judge If Not Impartial?

A judge is a person who has the power to make decisions on cases brought before a court of law.
It is assumed that a judge rules fairly, impartially, and consistently with the rule of law.
The Wisconsin Judicial Commission’s code of judicial conduct spelled that out.
But Judge Crabb took it upon herself to reverse this requirement of a judge to be impartial.

THE QUEEN OF HEARTS
from Alice in Wonderland

Such a decree, eliminating the requirement of impartiality for Judges, invalidates the purpose of the entire court system, and plunges society into a free-for-all-power-grab in which anyone who can bribe one judge wins.

The idea that one Judge could single-handedly make such a fundamental change in the functioning of American government is most disturbing.

The suggestion that a Judge who supports Planned Parenthood and Pro-Abortion political candidates publicly and financially could make impartial decisions on abortion as Judge is naive and unprofessional.

People who cannot limit their personal political activity in deference to the position of public trust that they hold as Judges are, by definition, not sufficiently impartial to hold the position of a Judge.

More Prejudiced Judgements (Progressive Proclamations)

Having set the stage with her first decision, having declared her right to rule without impartiality by Progressive Proclamation, Judge Crabb then went to town with subsequent prejudiced progressive proclamations, culminating now with her attempt to reverse Wisconsin’s same sex marriage ban.

Judge Crabb’s behavior since 2009 is reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland), the ultimate parody of impulsive and irresponsible authority.

Obama’s 2009 Alice in Wonderland Party

Ironically, President Obama held a lavish Alice in Wonderland-themed Halloween Party at the White House in 2009, in the midst of a national recession, a party he kept secret for over two years, knowing that it would be bad PR.

Little did the nation know that the upside-down world of Alice in Wonderland, in which logic and even the laws of gravity are often reversed, would soon be the norm coming out of the White House and it’s progressive appointees.  (See also Embarrassing Women.)

The Judge’s Logic

.
The Fault in the Judge’s Logic

Judge Crabb’s logic is faulty.

From The Monsignor:

Dear Friends in Christ:

Abortion and Homosexuality –So What Did the Pope Actually Say?

or

When Two Jesuits Talk

Today, October 4th, the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of St. Francis of Assissi. Our Pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a Jesuit, made a bold gesture of love in adopting the name of St. Francis, patron of the Franciscans. St. Francis is commonly pictured with animals.  He was renowned for his love, not only of animals, but more importantly, of all human beings.  St. Francis lived his love to the extreme of adopting poverty himself.  This discussion of Pope Francis’ controversial America Magazine interview is dedicated to this unbelievable Pope on his feast day.

St Francis of Assisi (1181 – 1226) (from Universalis) Francis was the son of a prosperous cloth merchant in Assisi. When his father objected to having his goods sold without his consent to pay for the restoration of a church, the bishop commanded Francis to repay the money. He did. He also renounced his father and gave back everything he had ever been given, even his garments. He began a life of perfect evangelical poverty, living by begging and even then only accepting the worst food that people had to give. He preached to all the love of God and the love of the created world; because, having renounced everything, he celebrated everything he received, or saw, or heard, as a gift. A rich man sold everything and joined him in living next to a leper colony; a canon from a neighbouring church gave up his position and joined them also. They looked into the Gospel and saw the story of the rich young man whom Jesus told to sell everything; they saw Jesus telling his disciples to take nothing with them on their journey; they saw Jesus saying that his followers must also carry his cross. And on that basis they founded an order. Francis went to Rome himself and persuaded the Pope to sanction it, though it must have seemed at once impractical and subversive, to set

thousands of holy men wandering penniless round the towns and villages of Europe. Because Francis was wearing an old brown garment begged from a peasant, tied round the middle with string, that became the Franciscan habit. Ten years later 5,000 men were wearing it; a hundred years later Dante was buried in it because it was more glorious than cloth of gold. There is too much to say about Francis to fit here. He tried to convert the Muslims, or at least to attain martyrdom in doing so. He started the practice of setting up a crib in church to celebrate the Nativity. Francis died in 1226, having started a revolution. The Franciscans endure to this day.

Is the Pope Reversing the Catholic Church’s Ban on Abortion and Homosexual Marriage?

Recently there has been a media stir reflecting some confusion on Pope Francis’ position on abortion and on homosexuality, based on an interview he recently gave to America magazine.

Some in the media implied that the Pope is directing the Church not  to concern herself with the issues of abortion and homosexuality.
ABC went so far as to say that Pope Francis wants the Church to shake off “small-minded” rules on abortion and homosexuality.
Bloomberg claimed “Pope Says Church Should Stop Obsessing Over Gays, Abortion.”
Reuters reported somewhat more correctly that the Pope is asking for a change in tone.

Apparent Contradictions

And yet, the same Pope Francis, in the same America magazine interview in question, in the same paragraph, two sentences later, stated “The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church,” thus confirming his loyalty to Catholic Church teaching.

Also, the same Pope Francis just excommunicated a dissident priest in Australia the same month, who advocated gay marriage and female priests.

A Pope who just excommunicated someone for their stance on gay marriage is not likely to announce any changes in Church teaching on gay marriage, as liberal media seems to hope. Excommunication by the Vatican is very rare; there have only been 5 since the year 2000, and this is the first one under Pope Francis.

So, What’s the Story?

So is the Pope for abortion and gay marriage, or against?
Is the Church changing age-old teachings, is the Pope a radical progressive, or is the media botching their reporting?
Short answer: the media is botching  their reporting.
Longer answer? Keep reading.

Ignorance, Wishful Thinking or Deceitful Intent?

So the media is botching their reporting, yet again.
Out-of-context quotes from Pope Francis have gone viral a number of times already this year, and it’s hard to guess what the media is thinking by reporting so sloppily.

It’s difficult to determine whether the liberal media’s unprofessional reporting is due to ignorance of religion, to wishful progressive thinking, or to a deceitful intent to recruit more Catholics into the progressive political agenda, by leading them to think that the Pope approves progressive thought.

But far more interesting than speculating on media motivation is to ask what did the Pope actually say, and what is he trying to tell Catholics and the world?

.

What did the Pope actually say?
or
When Two Jesuits Talk

The Pope is a Jesuit, America is a Jesuit magazine, and the interviewer, Antonio Spadaro, is a Jesuit with an impressive Jesuit resume.

Jesuits are not feebleminded.  In fact, Jesuits are renowned for their scholarly talent.
When two Jesuits talk, not everybody can follow.

When two Jesuits talk, the discussion is rarely short.
The conversation in question here, the interview between these two Jesuits  was 12,000 words long.
If we typed that up as a college paper, it would be 50 pages long.

In the age of tweets and texting, that’s TMI (too much information) for most people.
We need an interpreter, and the one-liner produced by the mainstream media might not be very representative of what the Pope was really trying to say.

When two Jesuits talk, the discussion is always quite intellectual.  In addition to using theological references, biblical references, Latin phrases and Italian phrases, Jesuits also use references to the classics, to music, to literature, to history, and to numerous other things that leave most of us in the dust.

Beethoven

Pope Francis’ 50-page interview included references to Puccini, Alessandro Manzoni, Caravaggio, Chagall, Mozart, Beethoven, Prometheus, Bach, Wagner, La Scala, Knappertsbusch, Fellini, Anna Mabnani, Aldo Fabrizi, Cervantes, and El Cid, in addition to his theological and biblical references, and references to saints.

I’ll be up front and admit that I had to do some googling on more than a couple of those!

Bottom Line, When Two Jesuits Talk

When two Jesuits talk,

i.e. when Antonio Spadaro (Editor of the influential Jesuit journal Civiltà Cattolica)  interviews Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis),

we are not on the View with Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and Barbara Walters. Whoopi might give a brilliant performance in  Sister Act, but in real life, she’s no Jesuit.

When two Jesuits talk, the conversation will be deep, it will be significant, it might take the rest of us some ploughing to get through it, but what we unearth will be worth the effort.

Recommendation

So my recommendation would be to read Pope Francis’ interview in it’s entirety.  Pope Francis is inspired, and he’s delightful.  I enjoyed the experience.  The interview can be found at America Magazine.

Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison

Failing that, if you’re looking for some Cliff notes and an interpreter, where better to get that than from Jesuit #3, Madison’s Bishop Robert Morlino?

Bishop Morlino’s synopsis and observations on the Pope’s interview can be found at the Catholic Herald’s Bishop’s Column, September 26^th, 2013.  Bishop Morlino’s got it down to under 2,000 words, or about a 7 page term paper.  Bishop Morlino is always a good read. And he’s very good at bringing it to our level.

Finally, if you want the perspective of one in-the-pew-Catholic like me, read on at your own (spiritual) peril.  It will probably be way longer than Bishop Morlino’s version, and way less accurate.  But here we go… thoughts from the pew…

The Controversial Paragraph

The media had to dig through half of Pope Francis’ 12,000 word interview, or through about 25 pages, before they could find one sentence that could be morphed by media into being “controversial,” albeit out of context. Here is the relevant paragraph (highlighting mine):

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

Note that the first highlighted item is the primary one reported by the media, while the second one, asserting that Church teaching has not changed and that Pope Francis is faithful to that unchanged teaching, was ignored by the media.

Rather then focusing on this out-of-context media implication that Pope Francis may be open to changing fundamental Catholic Church teaching, which is clearly disproved by the second highlighted sentence and by the recent excommunication, I’d like to focus instead on the title of the Pope’s interview, and on three points that leaped out at me when I read the interview document.  These items illustrate very clearly and succinctly the message the Pope was trying to send us.

The Title

The title of the Interview, approved by Pope Francis, was A Big Heart Open to God.

O.K., the Pope is saying we must have a big heart.  A big heart means love, self-explanatory.  No small hearts in the Church, please. We do everything with love.

The Pope is also saying that we must be Open to God.  What does that mean, to be open to God?  Well, we should be listening and seeking what God wants of us, as opposed to demanding what we want from God.  We should not ordering God, not ranting against God. Open to God means obedience to Christ’s teachings, obedience to the Church.  Our hearts should be open, waiting to be filled.

A Big Heart Open To God.
In six words, the Pope has managed to teach lovingly to both extremes in his unruly Church.  Disciplinarian dogmatists are reminded to have a big heart.  No Pharisees, please.  And liberal progressives are reminded to listen to God, to obey God.  No rebellion against Christ’s Church.

Pope Francis, the good parent, has spoken kindly and gently to his unruly bickering children, calling for unity, and reminding us in six words what we have to do.

 The First Question

The first question asked of the Pope was “Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?”

Of all possible answers, Pope Francis chose “I am a sinner.”

Not “I am the grand high exalted holy ruler of 1 billion people.”
Not “I am a holy man.”
Not “I am a priest.”
Not “I am a Jesuit.”
Not “I am an Argentinian.” or “I am an Argentinian-Italian.”
Not “I am the son of Mario and Regina Bergoglio.”

No, instead the Pope said “I am a sinner.”

This Jesuit was not faking humility.  His words were carefully chosen, not to be about him, but to teach us.
The good gentle shepherd is reminding us “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7)    By calling himself a sinner, he is reminding us not to throw stones at each other.

Pope Francis is telling us to treat sinners with mercy, because we are all sinners.
He is teaching gently by example, by announcing that he too is a sinner.
We must all remember that we are sinners, if we want to attract anyone to the Truth.
There is no room in the Catholic Church for holier-than-thou condemnation.
We must start with compassion, and not with condemnation.

In the interview, Pope Francis identifies his own calling with the calling of St. Matthew, the tax collector.  Our Pope says “ I am a sinner whom the Lord has looked upon.”  Pope Francis wants to reach out lovingly to other sinners, and he wants us to do the same.

What Does It Mean for a Jesuit to be Bishop of Rome?

Early in the interview, Pope Francis was also asked “What does it mean for a Jesuit to be Bishop of Rome?”

Blessed Pope John XXIII

The Pope’s answer, quoting Pope John XXIII’s philosophy and motto, jumped out at me as illustrating his loving and nurturing approach to exercising authority, and as illustrating what he is asking of us:

The Pope said See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.

Again, our Pope, like a good shepherd, guides gently and slowly, rather than overwhelming us with condemnation and criticism.  He asks us to extend the same courtesy to each other.

The Pope also emphasized the importance of prioritizing discernment (discernment always done in the presence of the Lord).  This means that time and prayer are the most appropriate means for approaching problems, and we must be wary of impulses and hasty decisions.

This is how Pope Francis sees the role of a Jesuit in the Chair of Peter.

The Church as  a Field Hospital

The Pope gives us a third window into his philosophy in this interview, in his comparison of the Church with a field hospital:

I see clearly, that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds…. And you have to start from the ground up.

It’s pretty clear that the Pope is not advocating or approving high cholesterol, but he recognizes that wounds have to be prioritized over cholesterol concerns.  He’s telling us to examine what we prioritize when we look at each other.  Do we turn a blind eye to much, identify the biggest wounds, and tend to those, before launching into overwhelming criticism?

We are not likely to get our culture on board with giving up abortion and homosexual marriage by condemning them.  It is by offering the love and peace of Christ that we will attract them, and the rest will follow in due course.

Respect for others does dictate kindness and a gentle approach.  Which one of us would like to be approached first with recriminations about our sins?  Who are we to decide that the degree of evil in the sins of others (gay lifestyle, abortion) is greater than the degree of evil in our own sins (pride, greed, lust, anger, gluttony, envy and sloth?).

Take Home Message

We could go on, quoting from and discussing the Pope’s interview.  But then this article would become longer than the Pope’s interview, and you are much better served reading Pope Francis’ actual interview yourself.

The biggest take home message this Catholic found in reading the Pope’s interview was that when evangelizing, our Church needs to proceed with love, humility, and gentleness, and we need to prioritize humanity’s biggest wounds. We also need to work on obedience and on unity.

And what are humanity’s biggest wounds?
Our Pope, discerning carefully in the presence of the Lord, will help us to identify those.
He’s been remarkable so far, flooding the world with his love, and including all of humanity in his flock.
His outreach to atheists is symbolic of his profound love for all of humanity.

A Club of 1 Billion

The Catholic Church is a global club of of 1 billion people.

Like any other large group, including large nations, we have our  conservatives and we have our liberals.  Some liberals and conservatives make good points.  Others take a good thing too far.

The person in charge of 1 billion people, in this case the Pope, should be a unifier, an educator and a leader, not a divider.  He should not start with criticism, blame and attack.  A good leader observes, waits, and corrects a little at a time; he breaks up job assignments into small manageable parcels.
This is what Pope Francis is doing, and his approach should not be taken to mean that he approves sin or that he has changed Catholic Church teaching.

The Pope has given us our marching orders in the gentlest manner: time for authoritarians to tone it down and to lead with love, and time for rebels to prioritize the will of God over their own will.

What Jesuits Do

What do Jesuits Do?

Jesuits were founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola, and are noted for their educational, missionary, and charitable works.

Then we should not be surprised when Pope Francis, a Jesuit, wants to teach, to teach the faith, and to teach the faith with love.

Pope Francis’s interview illustrates that he is a deep thinker, a compassionate shepherd, and a well-educated intellectual.
He’s made a great start in less than one year, with discernment, with humility, and with love.

The Best is Yet to Come

Few of us are qualified to judge a Pope.
Those of us who think we are probably have an issue with pride.
So when the Pope says something that surprises us, we need to examine what he said with an open heart, and have the humility to admit that his correction may be deserved.

In my judgement, this Pope is remarkable.  As were the previous ones in my lifetime.

Pope Francis’ Global Adoration effort and his day of prayer and fasting for Syria are among his first official actions.
With these actions, the Pope illustrated to us the importance of bringing faith into life, and into public life.
Pope Francis demonstrated the urgency of interconnection between Church and State.  Interconnection not from the top down, but from the bottom up.  The State does not dictate the faith of the citizens, but the citizens must use their faith and their God-given conscience and must stand up for what is right.

The results global prayer and fasting combined with interconnection between Church and State are just beginning to roll in.  The best is yet to come.

Not Just for Catholics

This is not just for Catholics.  Everyone should get on board.
This Pope is reaching out to all of humanity, including atheists.
He seems to be getting a very positive response to his call.

Summing Up

Pope Francis’ interview can be summed up pretty simply-

• Drop the finger-wagging, get out the smiles, treat people with respect, pray hard, pray globally, and correct just a little at a time.
• Remember, respect includes not calling people out publicly for their sins, at least not as the first resort.
• We attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.
• Sin is still sin, what’s wrong is still wrong, but let’s not forget the beam in our own eye when pointing out the splinter in someone else’s eye.

Does that mean that we give up the struggle to eliminate abortion or to preserve marriage?
No.
But those are not our opening efforts, before we break out mercy and love.
We don’t lead with those items while evangelizing.

Appendix:  More VIRAL QUOTES from Pope Francis:

From the Washington Post: Pope Francis’ Viral Quotes on Wealth, Abortion, Atheists, War and Gay Catholics. 

We can never serve God and money at the same time. It is not possible: either one or the other. This is not Communism. It is the true Gospel! Pope Francis poses for a photo after meeting with young people in downtown Cagliari, Italy, on Sept. 22, 2013. He spoke of the ‘idol’ of money during a trip to the region, one of the poorest areas in Italy.
Every unborn child, though unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of the Lord, who even before his birth, and then as soon as he was born, experienced the rejection of the world. . . . They must not be thrown away! Francis spoke about abortion on Sept. 20, the day after the publication of an interview in which he said that abortion, gay marriage and contraception should not become “obsessions” for faithful Catholics.
We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible, Pope Francis said in an interview that appeared in Jesuit publications around the world on Sept. 19, 2013. “I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear, and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? Francis remarked to reporters aboard the papal flight on its way back from Brazil on July 29, 2013. Pope Francis reached out to gays during the news conference on the plane, saying he wouldn’t judge priests for their sexual orientation in a remarkably open and wide-ranging conversation as he returned from his first foreign trip.
War is madness. It is the suicide of humanity. It is an act of faith in money, which for the powerful of the Earth is more important than the human being. Pope Francis celebrates a worldwide Eucharistic adoration ceremony after his comments on war at St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican on June 2, 2013.
Eternity “will not be boring,” Francis declared May 31, 2013. Later that day, nuns held up candles during a ceremony led by Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Square.
The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! Pope Francis said during Mass on May 22, 2013. In the photo, Pope Francis delivers a speech during a meeting with young people in September 2013 in Cagliari, Italy.
If the investments in the banks fall slightly . . . [it is] a tragedy . . . what can be done? But if people die of hunger, if they have nothing to eat, if they have poor health, it does not matter! This is our crisis today! Pope Francis speaks after meeting with the faithful of ecclesial movements on the occasion of a Pentecost vigil in St. Peter’s Square on May 18, 2013.

Auspicious June?
Auspicious: “of good omen”

The November 2012 Election is Approaching

With the approach of the November 2012 election, things are really heating up.
This promises to be so much more than the usual incumbent election.
Since before 2000, America has been closely divided on some crucial issues, and elections seem to be intensifying in passion.

Divisions are deepening and polarizing, not only between left and right, but are deepening and polarizing within the two major parties, Democrat (Liberal) and Republican (Conservative).

Division

In 2000, we fought over chads.
In 2008, Democrats were floored by Obama’s displacement of Hillary.
In 2010, Wisconsin went Republican, and Governor Walker took charge of making some conservative fiscal changes.

Democrats rebelled; in March of 2011, unions converged on Wisconsin to show their displeasure.
Now, on June 5, 2012, Wisconsin faces the potential recall of a Governor– not for high crimes and misdemeanors– but for fulfilling the conservative fiscal promises he made during his election.
Many view Wisconsin as a preview and as a test of the ability of conservative fiscal policy to solve budget problems while retaining the support of voters as difficult yet responsible sacrifices are shared. What “goes down” tomorrow in Wisconsin is thought to be predictive of the direction soon to be taken by many other states, as well as by the coming Presidential election.

In 2011, President Obama took charge of implementing some liberal fiscal policies, including stimulus and ObamaCare.

This time, Republicans showed their displeasure; not through massive demonstrations, but through the filing of massive legal challenges.

In 2012, as the two groups prepare to face off in the coming election, there is conflict within the Republican Party. There is also conflict among Democrats.

Both parties are split between moderates who wish to continue attempts at compromise with the opposition, and those who are less compromising and believe that the time for stalemate and delay has expired.

The ultimate conflict will be resolved in November, when Americans vote either to keep or to discard President Obama.  So far, historically, incumbent Presidents have been unseated by a challenger 10 times.

Division Over What?

The two positions, Liberal and Conservative, are stalemated on several issues for which it is difficult to imagine any compromise:

• Economy: the liberal solution, spending, is not compatible with the conservative solution, cutting spending.   A compromise, doing nothing, would (duh) do nothing while we watch our economy go down the tubes.
• Abortion cannot be legal and illegal at the same time.  It cannot be a “right” and murder at the same time.
• Marriage cannot be between one man and one woman, while also being between two men or two women.  A choice has to be made.
• There are numerous additional issues on which now polarized liberal and conservative positions would struggle to find a middle ground.

Historical Election

With the intensification of divisions in the United States, and with escalating pressure for action by elected officials in place of rhetoric,  many forecast the coming election to be historically decisive in determining the future direction of the United States.

Conservative Perspective

An increasing number of Americans, myself included, are turning more and more toward conservative approaches for the solution to the nation’s fiscal problems.  Gallup polls indicate a rise in conservatism, as did Wisconsin’s “going Republican” in 2010.
Some would like to cast the trend towards conservatism as a panicked regression towards old and foolish policies.  Of course, these would be Liberals, or Democrats, who view conservatism with such a negative spin.
Others would argue that the meaning of the word conservative (to conserve, or to save) is the no-brainer solution when resources, including economic resources, are in short supply, as they are today. Of course, these would be Conservatives, or Republicans.

Why Might June be Auspicious?

Few would argue that in times of famine food should be consumed at an increased rate instead of being saved and rationed.  For this reason, a shift towards conservatism can only be good in tough economic times.
Generosity to the point of wastefulness characterizes prosperous times, while austere measures, and shared sacrifice characterize austere times.
See Conservative is the New Liberal for a historical discussion of the liberal-conservative shift.

And there do seem to be a number of signs of shift towards conservatism in the works, coming up right now:

• Americans are praying in increasing numbers for solutions to our crises and our divisions.  Individuals and groups are banding together in interfaith prayer (e.g. the Interfaith Novena to Stop the HHS Mandate) to implore God’s direction and assistance towards justice and wisdom.

• Edward Klein’s new book The Amateur has just come out, describing the chaos reigning in the present White House.  And no, Edward Klein is not a conservative; he is a liberal career journalist.

• New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize winning Op-Ed liberal columnist Maureen Dowd has just turned on President Obama with statements like “The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters.“

• There are claims that Bill Clinton has questioned the competence of Barack Obama, calling him an amateur.

• June 5, 2012, tomorrow, marks the Wisconsin Recall election, which shows some promise of retaining the tough-love Governor Walker, thus influencing the rest of the country to embrace conservative reforms.

• Throughout all of June, including June 5 in California, Republican primaries continue.  Ron Paul continues to make progress toward collecting staggering numbers of delegates after the primaries, with controversial tactics called “delegate strategy,” which is certain at least to shift the Republican Party platform towards more conservatism than a Romney nomination would imply, if not actually threaten the nomination of Mitt Romney.

• June 8, 2012 brings the Religious Freedom Rally, with participants gathering in 140 cities across America to demand the reversal of the Obama administration’s contraceptive and abortifacient mandates added to ObamaCare.

• Thoughout June, lawsuits by 43 Catholic organizations are being considered against the Obama administration’s violaton of Religious Freedoms.

• The Movie 2016, based on the NYTimes best seller by Dinesh D’Souza and produced by Gerald Molen, producer of Schindler’s List, which projects the devastating effects of President Obama’s economic policies on America, and documents Barack Obama’s anti-American anti-colonialist philosophy, will be released in June. America will get a remarkable new perspective on Barack Obama, and what his (until now) baffling agenda might actually reflect.

• The end of June (or early July) is the projected release date of the Supreme Court Decision on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare.  This decision has the potential for nullifying ObamaCare, which many regard as a fiscal and moral catastrophe.

We Are in the Third Act

Act III comprises the final segment of a classic three act play. It is in the third act that the climax occurs, as well as the denouement, a period of calm at the end of a play where a state of equilibrium returns.

The suspense and the drama are building towards determining America’s future direction as we approach the November 2012 election, and we are in for an exciting June.
Of course, it is my optimistic hope and prayer that June will bring auspicious events, not catastrophic ones.
Time will tell.

What Can We DO?

• Pray constantly- for Governor Walker, for the Republican Convention in August, for the General Election in November, and for America’s future. Join a group prayer, such as the Interfaith Novena to Stop the HHS Mandate.  Also the ‘Fortnight for Freedom’ Observances in the Diocese of Madison.

• Vote on June 5 for Governor Walker and for Lieutenant-Governor Rebecca Kleefisch.

• Attend a Religious Freedom Rally at lunchtime on June 8th, at a location near you.

• See the movie 2016, and invite friends.

• Read the book, The Amateur, and suggest it to friends.

• Read the book The Roots of Obama’s Rage, and suggest it to friends.

What We Do (or Don’t Do) these Coming Months Determines the Conclusion of this Drama

We Are Making American History
Our Children Will Live with the Results

Inaction Will Have Consequences, Too

Is It Over?

Romney’s Got the Nomination, Right?

The Texas Primary

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, Texans held their Republican primary.
Voter turnout was low, about 10%.
Associated Press (AP) announced a projection indicating that Romney had secured at least 97 delegates, bringing him up to the 1144 delegates needed to win the Republican nomination.
Romney made an acceptance speech.
President Obama telephoned Romney to congratulate him.

Assocciated Press Projected a Romney Win; Most Media Sources Parroted the Report

The picture from AP's perspective: Orange=Romney, Green=Santorum, Yellow=Paul, Purple=Gingrich. However, this map neglects the delegates reclaimed recently by Ron Paul's "delegate strategy."

The mainstream and liberal media flocked to repeat and report the AP projected result:
Associated Press Yahoo
ABC news
USA Today
CNN news made an independent estimation (independent of the Associated Press report) indicating a similar conclusion, using the words “unofficially clinched the Republican presidential nomination”
Huffington Post 

Even some Conservative News sources such as Fox  and The Blaze  proclaimed the AP estimate, indicating a Romney win.

Other Media More Cautious

The Conservative Drudge Report was strangely silent.
Wall Street Journal reported cautiously that “Mitt Romney Tuesday night claimed (my italics) his win in the Texas primary gives him the requisite number of delegates to clinch the Republican presidential nomination.”

Some Reports Question Romney’s and Associated Press’ Claims of Victory

Ben Swann, a Fox News anchor from Cincinnati, Ohio, produced a segment of Reality Check, explaining why he believes that internal tension within the Republican Party may be undermining the security of Romney’s projected victory.

According to Ben Swann’s Reality Check from last week, The Liberty Movement (conservatives who support Ron Paul) is taking over the GOP.   On Tuesday, a new segment of Reality Check suggests that the Republican Party might be winning the Texas battle at the moment, but could actually be losing the primary war to conservatives.
More details on Reality Check’s claims will be discussed below; some claim that Ron Paul may have as many as 1,000 delegates going into the Tampa convention, compared with Romney’s present 1,081 delegates (the number of Romney delegates is under dispute, more below).

Fox’s Reality Check is not alone in their suspicions.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich also acknowledged just last week that Ron Paul is the “biggest danger” for Romney in Tampa.   Gingrich pointed out that Paul supporters have gathered an unexpected number of delegates at state Republican conventions recently in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri and Nevada.  Apparently, the number of delegates acquired by a candidate continues to change after the primary, with delegates changing allegiance, and Ron Paul is raking them in.

Ron Paul’s Supporters’ Claims

Ron Paul’s supporters, too,  claim a majority of delegates for Ron Paul in as many as 11 states already.

My Calculations

My previous calculations, based on Associated Press data (obtained from Wikipedia through USA Today), indicated that Mitt Romney could not  possibly claim the nomination before the Texas primary, and even then, he could only claim it if he got almost all 155 delegates.

Since then, quite a few things have changed, including the fact that Ron Paul is converting delegates who were previously committed to Romney to his own side.

According to present Wikipedia delegate counts (based on month-old AP projections, plus Texas numbers from a website called The Green Papers) , Mitt Romney is still short of 1144 delegates.   He has only 1081.  The Wikipedia report also neglects the reduction in Romney delegates that would result from Ron Paul’s amassing of delegates.

Where is AP getting it’s most recent numbers from? Why are the new numbers contradicting AP’s numbers from one month ago?
What are AP’s most recent numbers? Wikipedia does not use AP numbers for its Texas update; it is using The Green Papers numbers instead, and AP’s numbers are not in evidence.
How is it possible that Ron Paul seems to be reversing primaries that are already over, and seems to be wining delegates who were previously counted as Romney voters?

Conflicting Reports; Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong?

Media Research Center's Times Square Billboard in New York City

So which is it?

• Are Associated Press (and the mainstream media quoting them) and CNN wrong in their projections?  Are they trying to influence the election by bluffing?
• Does Ron Paul pose a serious threat to Romney as indicated by Fox’s Reality Check, Gingrich’s interview, Wall Street Journal’s caution, Drudge Report’s silence, and my humble calculations?
• Is somebody lying and spinning, or is the primary election system so complex that nobody can project results accurately?

The Associated Press and “Mainstream” Media

Associated Press has been a frequently cited source of news in the United States since 1845.   But media in the United States, originally priding itself in objectivity, has drifted toward  slanted reporting to the point where organizations such as the Media Research Center  have been established to neutralize the recent left-wing bias in the news media.

Media Blackout

One of the most shocking examples of liberal bias in the media today includes their failure to report on the biggest story in several decades – the barrage of concerted lawsuits launched by the 43 Catholic organizations on the Obama administration, over violations of the United States Constitution’s protection of religious liberty. An appropriate headline would have been the one used by CNS News: Catholic Church Unleashes Legal Armageddon on Obama Administration, So Media Ignore and Distort the News.

Catholicism is the largest religious denomination in the United States.  25% of Americans are Catholic.  The Catholic Church has accused the President’s administration of violating the First Amendment.  Yet the mainstream media is silent.  Most Americans do not know that this has happened.

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rallies to Be Held in 140 Cities June 8, 2012. Will the media report?

This news blackout included total silence by ABC and NBC, and only one 19-second report by CBS, covering the historic “Legal Armageddon.” Instead, the mainstream media focused on smaller events in an attempt to damage the Church’s image, such as dated stories on “predator priests” and reports on the Pope’s valet leaking documents to the press.  Twenty Catholic and evangelical leaders joined the Media Research Center (MRC) this week in calling out the networks for ignoring the Obama administration trampling on the First Amendment.

The news blackout appears to be aimed at protecting the Obama administration, while continuing attempts to discredit the Catholic Church.

Aside: Thus continues the now decades-long misrepresentation of the Catholic Church abuse sandal.  In actual fact, the Catholic Church has the lowest frequency of offense towards children on earth.  Children are at greater risk of abuse in their own homes and in public schools than they are, or have ever been, in the Catholic Church.

Credibility of the Mainstream Media

Back to the point – should we be considering an Associated Press and mainstream media attempt to spin reporting on the Republican primary?

• Do liberals have a preference for running against Romney, versus running against one of the more conservative alternative candidates?
• What is AP’s history on the Republican primary?
• Has AP been wrong before?

The answer to all of these questions is yes.

• Liberals do have a preference for running against Romney, they believe he is easier to defeat than the other candidates.
• AP has called results prematurely in the Republican primary
• AP has been wrong before

Most importantly, the media has even shown a willingness to participate in a news blackout, when that is advantageous to the far left and to the Obama administration.

Now, the Associated Press is making projections that do not jive with the estimates of others, nor with their own previous estimates.  They seem to be favoring Romney.

Fox’s Reality Check (quoted below) seems to believe that AP estimates of Romney’s delegate counts are wildly misleading.

Even Wikipedia’s charts of delegate counts  don’t seem to be updated to reflect conservative changes that have occurred during the past month.  Additions to Romney’s delegate count acquired in Texas are updated on Wikipedia, quoting the amateurish The Green Papers website’s numbers, but whole state majorities acquired by Ron Paul and acknowledged by Newt Gingrich are absent from the Wikipedia charts.

Considering the total news blackout last week, in which ABC and NBC failed to mention the story of the decade (concerted legal attack on the Obama administration by Catholic organizations), the mainstream media can no longer be relied upon to give unbiased facts on the 2012 election.  We, as citizens, are back to knowing very little about what is going on in our nation—two hundred years ago this was limited by the speed of the pony express; today, this is due to intentional news blackouts and manipulation of information by radical media.

Fox’s Reality Check, Gingrich, and Ron Paul’s people – Ron Paul is Still Collecting Delegates at a Striking Rate

The fact is, this is a remarkably unusual election.  Our nation is divided, not by economic status, not by gender or by race, but we are divided by philosophy.
Liberal versus Conservative.
And the balance between liberals and conservatives is changing.
This trend has been evident for a very long time.  The closeness of the 2000 election with counting of chads, as well as the unexpected unseating of Hillary Clinton by Obama were indications of division and of close competitions which are full of surprises. Wisconsin’s going Republican in 2010 was an indication that shift toward conservatism may be occurring.  Recent Gallup polls confirm this shift.

The two positions, Liberal and Conservative, are stalemated on several issues for which it is difficult to imagine any compromise:

• Economy: the liberal solution, spending, is not compatible with the conservative solution, cutting spending.   A compromise, doing nothing, would (duh) do nothing while we watch our economy go down the tubes.
• Abortion cannot be legal and illegal at the same time.  It cannot be a “right” and murder at the same time.
• Marriage cannot be between one man and one woman, while also being between two men or two women.  A choice has to be made.
• There are numerous additional issues on which now polarized liberal and conservative positions would struggle to find a middle ground.

According to Reality Check , even the Republican Party is now divided.  There appears to be struggle between Republican National Committee (RNC) leadership and a collection of conservatives whom it is difficult to label, but who seem to be rallying behind Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is amassing the support of delegates at a striking rate; there is reason to believe that Ron Paul has 1,000 delegates supporting him already.  Reality Check calls these Ron Paul supporters the Liberty Party, but I suspect that this group includes a much wider spectrum of conservative people.

Ron Paul Supporters

Ron Paul

Ron Paul’s supporters have been dismissed in the past, because of his minority following and because of some extreme policies.  But now the numbers of supports that Ron Paul is claiming are growing, and the RNC seems to be evading the obvious question; where are all these Ron Paul supporters coming from?

Previously, I was never a Ron Paul supporter. As a conservative I now support some of Ron Paul’s policies, but consider some of his positions as dangerously naïve; particularly his attitudes towards foreign policy, defense budget, and legalization of drugs.

However, the more I learn about Romney, I begin to see myself rallying behind Ron Paul in preference to Romney, when my top two preferences seem unlikely to be available (Santorum and Gingrich).

I believe that the Republican National Committee (RNC) would have more success moderating Ron Paul’s controversial policies (foreign policy/defense budget/drug positions) than they would have moderating Mitt Romney’s controversial policies (recent endorsements of embryo destruction, allowing gay adoption, and his fundraising associations with pharmaceutical companies which manufacture abortifacient drugs.

Romney’s Record

Why don’t some trust Romney?
Romney has no established philosophy driving his politics.  His philosophy, if any, appears to be utilitarian; it changes according to convenience and to circumstances.  His commitment to truth or to Judeo-Christian morality is not clear.

Here is Wikipedia’s analysis of Romney’s political positions:

Journalist Daniel Gross sees Romney as approaching politics in the same terms as a business competing in markets, in that successful executives do not hold firm to public stances over long periods of time, but rather constantly devise new strategies and plans to deal with new geographical regions and ever-changing market conditions. Political profiler Ryan Lizza notes the same question regarding whether Romney’s business skills can be adapted to politics, saying that “while giving customers exactly what they want may be normal in the corporate world, it can be costly in politics”. Writer Robert Draper holds a somewhat similar perspective: “The Romney curse was this: His strength lay in his adaptability. In governance, this was a virtue; in a political race, it was an invitation to be called a phony.” Writer Benjamin Wallace-Wells sees Romney as a detached problem solver rather than one who approaches political issues from a humanistic or philosophical perspective. Journalist Neil Swidey views Romney as a political and cultural enigma, “the product of two of the most mysterious and least understood subcultures in the country: the Mormon Church and private-equity finance,” and believes that has led to the continued interest in a 1983 episode in which Romney kept his family dog on the roof of his car during a long road trip. Political writer Joe Klein views Romney as actually more conservative on social issues than he portrayed himself during his Massachusetts campaigns and less conservative on other issues than his presidential campaigns have represented, and concludes that Romney “has always campaigned as something he probably is not.”

 Romney has changed his positions on abortion and on government health care.  Both of these are major issues in this election, and both have a huge impact on the economy.  Whether Romney’s changes in philosophy are genuine and permanent, or whether they reflect a willingness to alter his beliefs pragmatically over time, remains to be seen.

After four years of President Obama’s drifting and reversals, I would consider the choice of a Presidential candidate who has a history of flip-flopping, evolving, etch-a-sketching, or whatever you want to call it, simply irresponsible.  There is a chance that Romney’s conversions (on ObamaCare and on abortion) are genuine, but the risk that they are not genuine is too large to take.  Mitt Romney is still the only Republican candidate on the ballot who has refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony Presidential Pro-Life Pledge.

If we elect Romney, we could have another Obama on our hands, who promises one thing, then delivers something quite different.

Reversals on ObamaCare and on abortion by Romney would be catastrophic – not only on the “social” front, but on the economic front as well.  Socialized medicine and the killing of future citizens by abortion would have an equally devastating effect on the economy of the nation as they would have on the nation’s morality.

Flip-flopping, evolving, and etch-a-sketchingare not the marks of a candidate for President of the United States.

Flip-flopping, Evolving, Etch-a-Sketching: not good marks of a President

They are the marks of confusion at best, and the marks of a liar, at worst.

Who Would Support Ron Paul over Romney?

Above were the reasons why I would support Romney only after every other possibility has been exhausted for Republican nomination.  All three, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum, have established a more consistent conservative record of supporting Judeo-Christian morality (and the economic prosperity which this morality fosters) than has Mitt Romney. And I don’t think that I am so unique.  In fact, although I have never joined the Tea Party or participated in their functions, I typify quite closely the average Tea Party member.

Many conservatives, whether fiscal, social, or religious conservatives, could conceivably be persuaded to support Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum for these reasons over Romney. Tea Party, Evangelicals, and Catholics are just a few of the conservative groups who might likely support Ron Paul over Mitt Romney.

If the eccentric and perseverant Energizer Bunny calling himself Ron Paul, the medical doctor who opposes abortion and who has personally delivered over 4,000 babies in his lifetime, continues to amass delegates to support him, and if he makes it to the Republican Convention in Tampa in August, there could be some big surprises occurring at that convention.

My knowledge of the very complex electoral process is not sufficient to forecast whether Santorum or Gingrich will go to the convention and be listed on the ballot as well as Ron Paul.  But Ron Paul is now almost sure to be there.  In fact, his supporters have already organized a massive 3-day party, to be attended by 40,000 to 100,000 people, including as much as 1,000 delegates supporting Ron Paul, in Florida immediately prior to the Tampa convention.

The RNC is Worried

Delusional speculations, you may be thinking?
Well, the RNC appears to be worried about these possibilities, too.

The Massachusetts RNC leadership is apparently sufficiently worried about Ron Paul’s growing popularity that it is threatening delegates that they must sign an affidavit that they will vote for Romney on the first round of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, or be charged with perjury.  They would not be threatening delegates and creating last minute busy-work if there was no danger to their RNC establishment’s agenda.

Governor Romney is also concerned, and is creating a shadow party in some of the states at issue.

This does not make it look like Ron Paul is a harmless eccentric, or that Mitt Romney has the nomination bagged.

How Can Delegate Counts Be Reversed?

How can Ron Paul be reversing primary election results, and why is the media failing to acknowledge recent reversals?

Apparently, Ron Paul has discovered a strategy that circumvents the Republican establishment, and endeavors to facilitate a conservative takeover of the Republican party.  The strategy is called the “delegate strategy,” it seems to be working. It involves focusing campaign efforts on the ability to win over state delegates, rather than winning the popular vote.

Instead of focusing on getting the votes of voters at primaries, Ron Paul focuses on getting the votes of the delegates who are elected at state conventions and caucuses, typically a couple of weeks after the primary.

Ron Paul supporters use an extensive grass roots campaign network to influence local officials, who then influence higher-up officials.  Basically, delegates are persuaded to switch their vote to Ron Paul weeks after the popular vote at the primary, and this essentially reverses the effect of the primary.

For example, Benn Swann of Fox News reports :

For example, take the state of Massachusetts.  Just like in Texas tonight, Romney won the popular vote there.  But in the congressional district caucuses, where the delegates are actually chosen, Mitt Romney, despite having been Governor of that state, was embarrassed, when during the district caucuses, Ron Paul supporters took 16 of 19 delegate slots.  In doing so, the Boston Globe reports that those Paul supporters, they beat out major names in the Massachusetts Republican Party.  Including state house minority leader, Bradley Jones Jr.,  Kerry Healey, the former Lieutenant Governor, Sheriff Frank Cousins of Essex County, and Republican’s most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker.

This strategy is discussed further by Chris Miles at policymic.  Chris Miles concludes: “Boom, Ron Paul’s system looks like it is working.”

How Many States and How Many Delegates Does Ron Paul Now Have?

.

Ron Paul supporters claim to have as many as 11 states so far.
Ron Paul may have as many as 1,000 delegates so far.

Embeddable map at runronpaul.com:

.

Click each red state above  for reference and further information on Ron Paul’s claimed delegates.

Is the “Delegate Strategy” being used by Ron Paul Crooked or is it Legitimate?

The media has failed to inform people of  two main points.

• The Republican race is not won through a series of state primary contests. It’s won by accumulating delegates at state conventions, which typically occur a few weeks after the state primary contests.
• In the states where the primaries are over, Ron Paul is winning large numbers of delegates, leading to massive fights at State Conventions across the country.  It’s also leading to many new people taking over the GOP leadership in these states, and those people happen to be Paul supporters.   That has also led to Governor Romney creating a shadow party in some of these states.  This reflects the intensity  of the competition that is raging in the Republican Party,  all the while unreported by the liberal Mass Media, who would love to help push Romney as the candidate Obama will oppose.

What are the rules?
Are delegates in the Republican Party bound to vote for a specific candidate, as determined by the popular vote of the Primary?
Or is the popular vote an advisory one?

This question of whether Republican delegates are “bound” is actually under dispute at present.

• According to the 2008 Rules of the Republican Party, 25% of delegates are unpledged and are free agents at the convention (this year in Tampa) These include party officials such as the party chair or national party committee members.  But 75% of delegates are pledged delegates, indicating that they are “bound” by the popular vote from the primary.
• However, the Legal Counsel for the RNC made a ruling in 2008 that ‘The RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.’”  This statement allows all delegates to be free agents, voting for whomever they choose.

So there is a contradiction.
It is not clear how this dispute will play out.

For comparison, Newt Gingrich’s delegates are still bound to vote for Gingrich in Tampa.  Newt has the option to release his delegates to vote for Romney as he wishes.  But his delegates will be bound to vote either for Gingrich or for Romney in the first two ballots of the Republican convention in Tampa. If there are more than two rounds, they are free to vote for any candidate.  Incidentally, Newt Gingrich has not yet released his delegates to vote for Romney in Tampa.

SO: the rules are not yet clear.  This is going to be an exciting summer and an exciting convention.

Has This Ever Been Tried Before?

I’ve discussed the Harding election previously, in which Harding went into the Convention with only 20% as many delegates as his opponent had.  However, since no delegate had the required 51% (1144) at first, several rounds of voting took place.  Eventually, Harding ended up winning the nomination and then winning the election to become President.

I am not sure how the details of the primary worked out, but the fact is that when candidates do not have the requisite 51% (today 1144) delegates before the convention, a brokered convention is held, and some big surprises can surface after several rounds of voting.
This system was wisely put in place to create a process of elimination, so that when there are numerous candidates, as there are in 2012, and not one of them gets 51% of the vote, a minority leader does not end up leading the United States as President.  A “brokered” convention steers a process of repeated voting and elimination, which culminates in a candidate who is supported by at least 51% of the U.S.

At present, Romney is still short of 1144 delegates by many estimates.  Even AP’s estimates make assumptions and guesses about delegates who are not bound (at least 25% or more of them are not bound), and then even bound delegates are no longer bound after two rounds of voting if more than one candidate enters the convention.  With Ron Paul’s number of delegates rapidly growing (and thus Mitt Romney’s number of delegates rapidly shrinking, something that AP does not seem to have acknowledged yet), the numbers are in such a  flux in 2012 that it is difficult to make any projections at all.

How Many Delegates Still Up For Grabs?

According to the Wikipedia charts (from USA Today, AP and The Green Papers), this is the present estimated delegate count:

Primaries Remaining :

Note: If Ron Paul continues to succeed in winning delegates who were previously though to be “bound,” all of the above AP numbers become meaningless.  Note also, that the total of delegates still to be determined by the primary votes from the above table is 359, while the AP estimates from table before that listed 537 as still to be determined.

The Final Outcome

The outcome of this primary – Romney versus a much more conservative candidate like Gingrich, Paul or Santorum – could have a powerful impact on the future of the United States.  There is reason for concern.  Romney is not similar to the other 3 remaining candidates, and a Romney presidency could be much different than what the conservatives who elect him might imagine.   In some ways, Romney has the potential to “evolve” or to reverse himself almost as badly as Obama has done during the course of the last four years.

If all this speculation by Fox’s Reality Check, by Newt Gingrich, by Ron Paul and his supporters, and by me turns out to be mistaken, Mitt Romney will have the nomination, and he will run against Obama for President.  In that case, he will have my vote.  That is the highest probability scenario.

But if reports of a power struggle in the RNC between moderates and conservatives are correct, there is not only a good chance that Ron Paul’s name will be on the ticket at Tampa, but there is also a good chance that a large number of conservative delegates (previously Santorum and Gingrich supporters) might join him.  If Ron Paul’s “delegate strategy” turns out to be legitimate and successful, Ron Paul could even defeat Romney.

With the present NEWS BLACKOUT orchestrated by the liberal media, this primary may not be over until the Republican Convention in Tampa (August 27 – August 30, 2012) is over.

Is the Republican Primary Over?
No, it’s Not Over Yet

Does Mitt Romney Have the Nomination?
No, Mitt Romney Doesn’t Have the Nomination Yet

“I Follow Hate”

or

Why Do Liberals Keep Shooting Themselves in the Foot?

I’ve just been “followed” on Twitter by an anonymous somebody who calls themselves ifollowHATE. 

Most people on twitter follow what they LIKE, not what they HATE.
Hate is quite discordant with the cute little twitter bird, which represents a social network with members “chirping” or “tweeting” information to each other for the purpose of networking.

Self-Definition

Yes, I know, ifollowHATE is not indicating that he or she hates me.  They are implying that I hate, and this is their attempt to label me as hateful.

You do have to wonder about people who define themselves not by what they believe, but by whom they judge, whom they oppose, and whom they hate.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, for example, has been one of those rare groups which define their beliefs by a negative and whose activities center on interfering with the beliefs of others.

ifollowHATE has by no means isolated me alone.  ifollowHATE follows 2,247 people and groups on Twitter, and has made 7,544 tweets.  Clearly not a casual tweeter, nor a casual activity.  Quite a bit of effort has been invested in this hate-labeling campaign.

Why Me?

ifollowHATE was probably inspired to follow me on Twitter by my recent article on Gay Marriage and Homosexuality.  ifollowHATE self-identifies on Twitter as:

“I follow people that follow the group that fans the flames of hostility against blacks and gays (their words, their admission)”

Ironically, my article, although disagreeing with the radical gay agenda, was anything but hateful.  I challenge ifollowHATE or anyone else to find a hateful remark in my article.

Where’s the Logic?

Most would expect those who promote the gay lifestyle to direct their efforts toward explaining the benefits of their philosophy.
Or, perhaps, to defend criticisms others make against their philosophy.
But scanning the Internet for websites which disagree with you, and labeling them hateful without explanation is not a marketing philosophy that is likely to sell an idea.

Intimidation

So if ifollowHATE’s motivation is not promotion of the gay lifestyle, what is it?

ifollowHATE’s intention is probably intimidation.  Conservative bloggers are frequently targeted by radicals, as Michelle Malkin describes.

Yesterday, Michelle Malkin posted Free Speech Zone, showing solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers, whose ranks I have apparently officially joined today.   Michelle writes:

Over the past eight years that I’ve been blogging and operating Internet media companies, I’ve witnessed or experienced firsthand some of the most unhinged behavior against conservatives — from individual harassment and intimidation, to e-mail bombs and e-mail hackings, to troll infestations, distributed denial of service attacks, coordinated spam block attacks, and death threats.

Michelle’s reaction to threats:

Over the past twenty years that I’ve worked in daily opinion journalism, written books, and traveled across the country speaking in every type of venue, I’ve always believed that the most effective response to attempted censorship of conservatives is more speech, not less.

More. Louder. Bolder.

Internet Bullying

This internet targeting of conservative bloggers, or internet bullying, seems to be a common tactic utilized by the left.
All part of Alinsky tactics, or trying to justify the use of dirty tactics to achieve one’s goals.

And, like most bullies, ifollowHATE  is cowardly and hides behind anonymity. Like most bullies, their chances of success are slim.

Revealing Name

So ifollowHATE spends his or her time pursuing, judging and labeling others, behind an anonymous mask.
Ironically, this makes ifollowHATE more hateful than the people they are presuming to judge.  ifollowHATE really does follow hate; but the hate is found in their own heart, not in the hearts of those whom they try to label.

Half of America Hates

Some of the individuals and groups labeled by ifollowHATE as being hateful include:

American Papist, Catholic Music, Catholic News Service, Catholic Radio Dramas, Catholic Writers Guild, National Organization for Marriage, and The Witty Catholic

Not bad company I have just joined!
This list also indicates that ifollowHATE’s hate seems to be directed primarily at Catholics.

And, according to ifollowHATE’s  definition of hatefulness – disagreement with the radical gay agenda –half of America must hate, too.

Who Gets to Define America’s Moral Values?

When it comes to the marriage question, 1.7% of the population, gays, is trying to dictate the law to 98.3% of America, those who are straight.

It’s actually even less than 1.7% trying to dictate the law, since the vast majority of gays do not seek gay marriage.

What can radicals be thinking?  That Americans will take well to intimidation by minority?  The more they step up the aggression and the ridicule, the less likely they are to succeed.  They are shooting themselves in the foot.

So What has ifollowHATE   accomplished?

Am I planning to return ifollowHATE’s follow?
Not highly likely.
So ifollowHATE is not likely to network effectively on Twitter.

Will   ifollowHATE succeed in spreading their philosophy by this method?
Probably not.

Actually,  by focusing all his or her efforts solely on attacking all who disagree with them without explanation, ifollowHATE simply makes themselves look foolish, damaging their cause.

What a sad waste of time!

Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Homosexuality is a hot topic that was bound to make it onto this cultural values blog at some point.
The Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality (which I support) is not popular in Madison, where I live. Madison is a very liberal– no, radical place. Home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and numerous other radical groups.

I have delayed discussing homosexuality on my blog in the past.  Primarily because I would rather focus on the “wooden beam in my own eye” before pointing out “the splinter in my brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3   In other words, I am in no rush to discuss the sins of others.  I am also no expert on this subject.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. – Matthew 7:3  

 However, recent events in the news have brought the subject of homosexuality to the forefront of public discussion again, and perhaps it is time for me to weigh in with some thoughts.  I will defer to experts on the subject and provide some useful references below for those who are interested in understanding why the preservation of traditional morality and of traditional marriage is so important to so many Americans.

Recent events:

Vice President Biden announced five days ago that he was ‘absolutely comfortable” with homosexual marriage, thus putting President Obama on the spot regarding Obama’s position on homosexuality.

Obama "evolving"

Most recently, President Obama had said that his position on homosexual marriage , although he was opposed a few years ago, is “evolving.”  So now President Obama was placed on the hot seat regarding this issue.
Three days ago, North Carolina approved and amendment banning gay marriage, and banning same-sex civil unions as well.

Yesterday, President Obama announced his personal support of gay marriage, after statements in the past opposing gay marriage.  He attributed this change to his “evolving stance” on gay marriage.

The other two Presidential candidates (Mitt Romney and Ron Paul), mirroring the values of the majority of Americans, still stick to the traditional definition of marriage as one man- one woman.  And no, the Republican primary is not yet over!  (Updated post coming soon.)

.

.

.

.

Where Does America Stand on Gay Marriage?

Some data indicates majority support of gay marriage

.

Gallup results indicate that half of Americans support legal gay marriage.
The results seem to be hovering right around 50/50, within the margin of error, within the last two years.

CNN polls indicate that a slight majority of Americans support gay marriage (50% support, 48% oppose).

.

Some data indicates majority opposition to gay marriage

North Carolina’s passage of a state constitutional amendment legally preventing gay matrimony yesterday makes North Carolina the 30^th state to implement a ban on same-sex marriage.  30 States out of 50 is 60%.  This implies that 60% of America opposes gay marriage. continue reading…