Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged Michelle Obama

Presidential Nominees -Who Gets to Choose Them?


What’s a Delegate to Do?


Slide113-e1345651613258Note: 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.Slide1

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:

ballotpedia2-630x286According 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 1968Barak 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

Slide1So 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.
  • Slide1Binding 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.

Slide1But 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.

Slide17-e1401570829969Yet 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.

Slide1So 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.Slide1

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!

Republican-National-Convention-Cleveland-2016Well, 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. Slide1
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.

patriot_400x400What 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.











MSNBC, the First Lady, and the Gas Engine

Why Progressives are Regressives and Conservatives Make the Progress

Guess WhatTrying to Get a Balanced Picture of the News

So, in my usual scanning of diverse news sources to get a balanced view of the news, I looked at the MSNBC headlines, and guess what I found?

Two headlines which begged to be linked together:

Why Would the First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS) Be Linked to a Gas Engine?

FLOTUS begs linkage to a gas engine because she promotes the school lunch programs in which students are widely known to throw away lunches and try to abandon the lunch programs altogether, while the MSNBC’s Gas Engine article below the FLOTUS headline claims the engine can be fueled by, among other things, discarded school lunches!

Feeding Sandwiches to an EngineSlide1

The scientist and the conservative in me had to kick in, and I had to investigate the possibility and the cost- effectiveness of feeding an engine with school lunches.
Long story short, and sparing you the details and calculations (contact me if you want them), it boils down to this-

Let’s acknowledge that sandwiches and gasoline, being hydrocarbon-derived, do actually have a similar energy density, or energy available per pound of each material.
So, if you could put discarded sandwiches into your gas tank and burned them efficiently, that might provide some energy.
Points for progressive ideas.

But you can’t put a sandwich directly into your gas tank and burn it efficiently.  Conservatives are needed to do the thinking!
Reality must be addressed.

What does it take to burn a sandwich in your gas tank?

In order to use school lunches in the GE engine described in the MSNBC (GE-sponsored) article (and yes, GE ads are now masquerading as top headlines at MSNBC), there are several steps involved:

  • The sandwich has to be industrially fermented by microorganisms to produce methane (a gas with 72 times higher global warming potential than CO2; oops, big progressive no-no! This would beg the question whether sandwich fermentors had to pay a flatulence tax. ).  The factory doing the fermenting also uses power and equipment which requires power to be manufactured and to run.Slide1
  • The methane then has to be burned in a GE engine, an engine that also requires power and natural resources to manufacture.

So, yes, your discarded school lunches could be used to run a gas engine.

What is the Cost of this Discarded Sandwich Fuel?

Initial cost: the average school lunch, about $3 per pound, already costs 7x higher than the cost of gasoline (43 cents per pound).
Next, we need to account for the intermediate costs involved in industrial processing to convert to methane and transport it to the power plant.  A generous estimate might be 10-15% efficient.  So, the use of discarded school lunches to fuel engines will cost at least 70 times more than using gasoline.

How would you like to pay for school lunch gasoline at $280 per gallon?  BTW, we taxpayers also had to pay for the discarded school lunch.

An Alternative Approach


Sage Kokjohn, Rolf Reitz, Reed Hanson, inventors of RCCI

My husband Rolf Reitz  is a scientist and a conservative.
He has spent his entire career, together with other dedicated scientists, developing a process called RCCI, which is causing quite the stir in the automotive industry today.

RCCI increases the efficiency of the internal combustion engine by about 30% while reducing pollutant emissions at the same time.   The reduced emissions reduce the cost of engines dramatically, because expensive exhaust after-treatment is no longer needed.

If implemented in our entire fleet overnight, the RCCI process would eliminate United States need for import of Persian oil.  The United States would practically be self reliant in our energy needs.

Incidentally, the RCCI process is also compatible with numerous alternative fuels, which may be developed in the future.  It can even be compatible with the methane produced from Michelle Obama’s discarded school lunches.

The Difference Between a Progressive and a Conservative

Our progressive First Lady and progressive MSNBC have many good intentions and creative dreams.  Unfortunately, most of them, like this one, are completely unrealistic.  Also unfortunately, the First Lady and MSNBC pressure others to pay for their ideas, and to do the work.

The First Lady’s husband, our President, is about to use his Executive Order privileges to dictate a mandatory 20% reduction in carbon emissions from coal-fired electric plants.   This reduction is deemed totally unnecessary by thousands of scientists, who reject catastrophic global warming claims, believing them not to be supported by science.  This reduction would also represent a regression for the United States economy and for our energy supply.Slide1
Progressives falsely claim that 97% of scientists support global warming theories, when in actual fact alarmists are in the minority,and 60% of meteorologists (weather experts) see no potential threat.

So progressives dream, ignore facts and demand the impossible.  They insist on trying to achieve their goals without supporting, reasoned analysis.
Often their idealistic dreams boomerang, come back as nightmares, and implode their wishful plans.  That’s what’s been happening to President Obama recently.
His initial 2008 success, his popularity, and everything associated with him, including ObamaCare, have been failing and imploding, despite all the hopes, dreams and good intentions he had at the start.

Progressives turn out to be regressives, making no progress and dragging the entire nation with them into tragic regression instead, both economic and moral.

What Would a Conservative Do? 

A conservative also abhors waste, but instead of indulging in fruitless wishful thinking, spends the time analyzing the problem.  That is how sustainable solutions are reached.

This is what can happen when conservatives roll up their sleeves and get to work, rather than looking to the government for solutions.  They provide the government with solutions, rather than asking government for handouts.

The Tables Are Turned

Today, Progressives make no progress.  They cause regression instead, so let’s call them Regressives.
Conservatives should be called Progressive; they make progress by taking charge and by solving problems.

Time for Conservatives to Take Charge!
There are some elections coming! 








America Has Chosen…



We can ask ourselves in hindsight, “Why are we not surprised when kindergarteners vote for lollipops, instead of voting for healthy meals?”  Ask Michelle Obama about that.  Not sure she has an easy time with Barack’s nutritional choices.


One  thing we keep forgetting is that the prerequisite, for the success of democracy, is an ethical population.
In the absence of an ethical population, self-indulgence rules, and those least committed to justice and equality rapidly find ways of helping themselves to the national treasury, on every level, political and individual. When the number of such individuals grows too large, the nation begins to sink.

We can allow ourselves a moment of self-pity and regret.

Then we roll up our sleeves and start to patch the boat.

We can remind ourselves that humanity has done this for millennia- made mistakes, rolled up sleeves, and salvaged the wreckage with the help of God.  From the Old Testament tribulations of the Jews to the trials suffered by our parents and grandparents in World War II.  Apparently our assignment or “war” is the cultural war, which seeks to replace the Judeo-Christian foundations of the Constitution of the United States, with self-indulgent secular values, which discard the Ten Commandments.  We have lost a battle, but the war goes on.

As throughout the rest of history, God remains on our side.

Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.
– Matthew 11:28


The good news is that half of America still understands the importance of Judeo-Christian values.
The other half, like most young people, need to make some mistakes and suffer a few bruises before they figure out where they are going wrong.
If we’re at all honest, we say “Been there, done that.”

And our job is to tolerate them, to love them, to pray for them, and to help them.
Don’t get me wrong, not to facilitate.  But to watch for opportunities to provide constructive help.

The dream of achieving paradise on earth is always a tempting one, but in reality, no nation has ever achieved it, so we should not be surprised that we struggle to do so.

God will see us through.


And now, for my moment of personal self-pity before I roll up my sleeves once again:





What does not kill us will make us strong.

New Logo for Michelle Obama:

 Cardinal Dolan for President!


Is the Republican Primary Over Yet?

The Presidential Race So Far

Mitt Romney - Barack Obama

Recent Gallup polls indicate a neck-in-neck competition between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama in the Presidential race.
Some are worried whether Romney will be able to beat President Barack Obama.
Others are worried whether Romney can be relied upon to repeal ObamaCare and refrain from issuing his own health mandates, if elected to the Presidency.


Find someone more conservative and more popular than Mitt Romney!

Cardinal Timothy Dolan

Would anyone have guessed that according to the TIME Person of the Year Poll, Cardinal Dolan is way more popular than either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?

Cardinal Dolan’s Popularity

Cardinal Dolan placed #16 globally in the TIME Person of the Year Poll, and about #4 nationally.
Cardinal Dolan got almost twice as many votes as Barack Obama, and about 6-fold more votes than Mitt Romney.

More famous people who were less popular than Cardinal Dolan:

  • Lady Gaga
  • Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona
  • Steven Colbert
  • Hillary Clinton
  • George Cluny
  • Sandra Fluke
  • Michelle Obama
  • Queen Elizabeth II
  • Rick Santorum
  • Newt Gingrich


Is Anybody in the U.S. More Popular than Cardinal Dolan?

Ron Paul

The only presidential candidate more popular than Cardinal Dolan was Ron Paul.
The only American more popular than both Ron Paul and Cardinal Dolan was Jeremy Lin, a famous baseball player.


Who Else Beat Out Ron Paul and Cardinal Dolan in Popularity?

Not too many people beat Ron Paul and Cardinal Dolan.

Anonymous Recruiting Ad: "Legion"


Among those who did globally, were Vladimir Putin and the hackers called Anonymous, reputed to have hacked into the Vatican (and many other national websites).  Of course, in the case of Anonymous, there is the suspicion that they were not voted into #1 position globally, but could have hacked themselves into that position. 🙂



Impact on the Republican Primary

Whether these results could impact the Republican Primary, or simply be a reflection of national opinion which can impact the Republican Primary,  is a matter for speculation.

Clearly, neither I, nor anyone else, including Cardinal Dolan, are seriously considering Cardinal Dolan for President.  But this popularity poll is interesting in the light of my previous articles on President Obama and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Dolan.  They have butted heads in an important religious freedom confrontation, and it’s interesting to see which President is so much more popular with Americans.

But back to serious consideration of the Republican Primary.

Most believe that the Republican Primary is all but over.
Some cling tenaciously to alternative possibilities.  These include a Ron Paul, whom many consider to be an ineffective eccentric.

Now, Ron Paul’s ability to top so many national figures in the TIME Person of the Year Poll indicates we should take him much more seriously than we have in the past.  He has beat Cardinal Dolan, Barack Obama, Lady GaGa, Steven Colbert, Hillary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth II, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

Could Ron Paul be the next giant political surprise?


Is the Republican Primary Over?

The Republican Primary is Not Yet Over!

There’s already been some discussion of whether the Republican Primary is over yet.
In the light of this TIME poll, and taking into consideration that politics is complicated and is often filled with unexpected surprises and results (like Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2008 by Barack Obama), in the light of these facts, we better keep an eye on Ron Paul, the pro-life doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies and now wants to be our President.

Ron Paul shows no signs of giving up.  He is actually making great strides towards taking over state Republican parties and delgations to the Republican National Convention.  His campaign shows no sign of giving up. As of last weekend, Ron Paul has locked up at least half the delegates in at least 3 states (Iowa, Minnesota & Washington).  He only needs the majority of delegates in 2 more states (like North Dakota and Maine) in coming weeks to be entered officially in the nomination at the Convention at Tampa, FL.

Romney, with only 847 if the 1144 delegates needed for the nomination (74%), will still have to contend with Ron Paul for quite some time.


Full Results of the TIME poll:

TIMES 2012 Person of the Year by Popular Vote
Rank           Name                                     YES votes    NO votes
 1 Anonymous (group of hackers) 395793 27303
 2 Erik Martin- German Composer 264193 49450
 3 Narendra Modi -Chief Minister of an India state 256792 266684
 4 Asghar Farhadi – Iranian Film Director 140785 23359
 5 Imran Khan – Pakistani politician 116130 25447
 6 Alexei Navalny – Russian politician 92095 77309
7 Benedict Cumberbatch – English actor 91840 13327
 8 Bashar Assad – President of Syria 91632 98387
 9 Jeremy Lin -American basketball player 89691 9570
 10 Lionel Messi -world renouned soccer player 78987 10167
 11 Vladimir Putin – Russian politician 71584 35380
 12 Ron Paul – American Presidential candidate 70473 16630
 13 Novak Djokovic- Servbian professional tennis player 65117 6563
 14 Aung San Suu Kyi – Burmese opposition politician 45688 2625
 15 Adele – English recording artist 44180 38241
16 Timothy Dolan- American Cardinal and President of the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops 42796 23653
 17 Cecile Richards – President of Planed Parenhood 38942 45395
 18 Lady Gaga- American singer and songwriter 32393 19946
 19 Shakira – Columbian singer 30056 8115
 20 Jan Brewer – Governor of Arizona 26174 26603
 21 Barack Obama – President of the United States 25373 23783
 22 Anna Hazare – social activist in India 23977 3340
 23 Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani – ruler of Qatar 22948 9481
 24 Stephen Colbert – American political satirist and comedian 22131 6010
 25 Sachin Tendulkar – Indian cricketer 20962 5672
 26 Zooey Deschanel – American actress 20940 10338
 27 Ai Weiwei – Chinese artist 20393 8780
 28 Recep Tayyip Erdogan – Prime Minister of Turkey 20071 15105
 29 BeyoncŽ -American singer 19008 23245
 30 Hillary Clinton -U.S. Secretary of State 18093 14757
 31 Rihanna- Barbadian recording artist 17721 16837
 32 George Clooney – American actor and film producer 17660 8301
 33 Vidya Balan – Indian actress 16982 14784
 34 Ellen DeGeneres – American comedian 16893 7208
35 Warren Buffett- American business magnate 16877 7441
 36 George R.R. Martin – American author & screenwriter 16864 6443
37 Sandra Fluke- Amercan law student who supported the contraceptive mandate 16300 11958
38 Louis C.K. – Mexican-American comedian 15497 8036
 39 Usain Bolt – Jamaican sprinter & gold medalist 14810 8049
40 Aziz Ansari – American actor/comedian 14639 16258
 41 Michelle Obama -wife of the President of the United States 14539 14647
 42 Mustafa Abdel-Jalil – Libyan head of state 14099 17256
 43 Mark Zuckerberg – inventor of facebook 13811 9163
 44 Navi Pillay – UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 13790 3254
 45 Nitish Kumar – Indian politician 13400 3865
46 Almudena Bernabeu – international attorney 12974 4677
 47 Jeff Bezos -founder of Amazon 12459 5594
 48 Kate Middleton – Prince William’s new wife 12124 10610
48 Daniel Craig – English actor who played James Bond 12100 8355
 50 Jennifer Lawrence – American actress 11855 6044
Ken Levine 11853 5507
Thein Sein 11630 4890
Michael Fassbender 11574 8665
Meryl Streep 11524 3756
 55 Tim Tebow 11502 8999
Suzanne Collins 11428 6751
 57 Alec Baldwin 11245 17450
Fatou Bensouda 11080 5933
JosŽ AndrŽs 10812 9598
Salman Khan 10726 3651
LMFAO 10429 15146
Preet Bharara 9685 5708
Angela Merkel 9611 4975
Marc Andreessen 9485 11081
Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen 9472 9687
Tim Cook 9034 5554
Rick Falkvinge 8901 5616
Ryan Gosling 8832 5982
Jaycee Dugard 8380 3525
 70 Ben Bernanke 8308 13916
Tawakul Karman 8245 2188
Larry Page 7971 2669
Maggie Smith 7720 2683
David Cameron 7555 10006
 75 Queen Elizabeth II 7546 6673
 76 KONY 2012 7501 15375
 77 Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie 7487 10784
Michael Phelps 7397 6916
Eike Batista 7366 8494
Ayatullah Ali Khamenei 7355 7600
Richard Muller 7133 2849
Bill McKibben 7125 4979
Alex Salmond 7092 2775
Jack Dorsey 7029 4884
Dieter Egli 6845 3361
Robert Grant 6733 1413
Frank Luntz 6717 4891
 88 Oprah Winfrey 6591 7884
Portia Simpson-Miller 6527 3197
Ashfaq Kayani 6512 5609
Bon Iver 6506 10826
Pete Cashmore 6476 7064
Martin Scorsese 6361 3019
Danny Boyle 6345 7761
Andrew Cuomo 6329 5982
Viola Davis 6195 5646
David Graeber and Tim Pool 6115 3295
Ai-jen Poo 6013 2565
Chris Christie 5946 9683
Bryan Cranston 5911 6203
Molly Katchpole 5838 1923
Karen Pierce 5816 2991
 103 Rick Santorum 5783 19093
Oscar Pistorius 5772 2267
Marc Maron 5768 4363
Paul Rieckhoff 5714 2071
Lana Del Rey 5554 12177
Dick Costolo 5275 4699
Foster the People 5267 8496
Kristen Wiig 5264 3553
Sara Blakely 5252 9811
Eric Cantor 5240 10301
 113 Mitt Romney 5202 14003
Ira Glass 5115 4059
 115 Benjamin Netanyahu 4992 8992
 116 Rush Limbaugh 4969 13352
Ben Rattray 4847 2510
Richard Cordray 4776 5433
Melissa McCarthy 4764 10216
John Roberts 4697 4353
 121 Kim Jong Un 4675 8640
Kamala Harris 4608 3130
Nicki Minaj 4595 19274
Ron Fouchier 4501 3152
Mario Monti 4469 7250
 126 Marco Rubio 4453 5601
David Karp 4438 3197
 128 Paul Ryan 4383 5764
E.O. Wilson 4358 1583
 130 Scott Walker 4324 6843
Elisabeth Moss, Christina Hendricks and January Jones 4237 8848
Bruce Springsteen 4197 4512
Christine Lagarde 4021 4026
Li Chengpeng 4018 2465
David Chang 4003 7081
Sarah Burton 3982 9228
Alan Gross 3966 2876
Youssou N’Dour 3938 3341
Jonathan Tilly 3924 1640
Hope Solo 3924 3807
John Prendergast 3890 2871
Rachid Ghannouchi 3786 3665
Mario Draghi 3732 5614
Goodluck Jonathan 3651 3102
Sheldon Adelson 3637 22720
Daniel Ek 3566 4791
Sheryl Sandberg 3532 3409
 148 Newt Gingrich 3505 15409
Eli Manning 3484 5363
 150 Nicolas Sarkozy 3465 6515
Marine Le Pen 3457 4827
Peter Thiel 3457 3350
Greg Smith 3446 2767
Rory Mcllroy 3398 8082
Jessica Chastain 3389 8659
Drake 3383 13149
Ann Patchett 3330 3989
 158 Rupert Murdoch 3301 10081
Charles Murray 3283 3650
Julian Fellowes 3218 5922
Juan Manuel Santos 3194 3112
Pippa Middleton 3139 13807
Yuri Milner 3129 6321
Pamela Druckerman 3118 6585
 165 Leon Panetta 3079 5069
Xi Jinping 3073 3311
Maria das Graas Silva Foster 3034 5376
Howard Schultz 2956 3352
Ingrid Michaelson 2954 9251
Tilda Swinton 2870 4227
Chelsea Handler 2808 7323
Michel Hazanavicius 2724 3728
Sergio Marchionne 2718 3118
 174 Charles and David Koch 2680 6516
Claire Danes 2638 7931
Reed Hastings 2593 3813
Mark Pincus 2563 5434
Harvey Weinstein 2462 3141
Grover Norquist 2458 5153
Jamie Dimon 2437 6940
Hung Huang 2398 3300
Franois Hollande 2322 3603
Hamid Karzai 2207 5971
Ree Drummond 2116 6856
Chan Laiwa 2114 4364
Ashton Kutcher 2111 11428
Reid Hoffman 2069 3596
David Plouffe 2020 4553
Terry Gou 2009 4642
Jason Katims 1980 4061
Roger Goodell 1884 5064
RenŽ Redzepi 1866 3345
Ray Dalio 1817 5964
Ryan Seacrest 1809 8044
Mike Nichols 1652 4114
Douglas Peterson 1601 5781
Laura and Kate Mulleavy 1525 6935
Rick and Richard Harrison 1463 6040
Jessica Simpson 1439 12279
Graydon Sheppard 1379 5963



All Posts