Posted on 05/07/2016 1:10:15 PM PDT by Jacquerie
This is the first chapter of a publication I am writing for the benefit of the delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention. The final document is intended to assure that all delegates are aware of the duties and responsibilities.
To the casual observer, primary elections will determine the nominee. However, a trained observer will note that the delegates to the Republican National Convention actually choose the nominee.
The Progressive Movement in the United States has championed primary elections as the way to take the power to choose candidates for public office away from “political machines”(AKA political parties) and vest that authority in the general public voters in primary elections.
Progressives in both the Democratic and Republican parties, in collaboration with the media, and an out of control political industry that feasts on the massive spending now common to primary elections, have nearly succeeded in giving the primary system complete control over party nominations.
The final tool necessary to accomplish the Progressive goal of democratizing the Presidential nomination process, is the “binding” of the delegates to each major party’s national convention, forcing each delegate’s vote to be cast on their behalf according to the results of the public vote in primary elections.
Progressives within the Republican Party have been trying to emulate their Democratic mentors for many years with a steady, persistent push to make primary elections the final determinant of the Republican nominee.
In order for the Progressives to achieve their objective, they would need to convince the delegates to the national convention to surrender their individual right to choose the nominee, and, instead, vest that right in the low information voters in primary elections. Would the delegates, while sitting at the 2016 convention knowing they possess the right to choose the nominee, voluntarily surrender that right? No!
(Excerpt) Read more at sayanythingblog.com ...
Progressives of both parties love democracy.
Curly Haugland is a Republican National Committeeman representing the North Dakota Republican Party.
The parties have had their way for over a hundred years. The times they are a’changing.
Note to Curly: Your guy lost...here is the rule de jour....Unless you are the lead dog your view never changes ...we know whose rear end you have been behind all this time...since you won’t lead and probably can’t get the hell out of the way or the TRUMP train will roll you over...
Freegards
LEX
So to this nitwit Haugland, the people actually having a say in who is elected is “Progressive”. I guess he sees himself and his cadre as above the common herd and more worthy of directing the country. What an elitist pig.
Currently, the Republican Party wants it to have the veneer of a primary process where the people decide, but in reality it wants the inner Party members to decide who runs and who is selected. If they want to be honest abut it, then don’t bother with State primaries and having the great unwashed vote.
People, tar and feathers was not just a joke. Fite up the tar.
Now you see why!
And that is giving these jackasses a break!
Curly the other two stooges are calling you.
Ryan, Jeb and Curly, the 3 Stooges.
The people have spoken. Trump is the all time vote leader in the 167 year history of the GOP. Get that fool?
Curly Hoagland is having his 20 minutes of fame. He claims to be an expert in GOP rules, but he somehow always overlooks out the most important part of the preamble to the GOP rules:
BE IT RESOLVED,...
It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible to all Americans.
He’s still receiving comments.
We do not want party apparatchiks picking their candidate. IT’S OUR CANDIDATE!! This guy was telling us how Trump wasn’t going to get control even if we outvoted the other candidates. This man will be purged in the new Republican party in the very near future and no longer will the oligarch tell us a damned thing! GO TRUMP!!
Haugland = silly little prairie fascist.
North Dakota grows this kind of self-appointed autocrat the way it grow mosquitos and hemorroids.
With much the same result.
In order for the Progressives to achieve their objective, they would need to convince the delegates to the national convention to....
SURRENDER THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (what rights- like it’s a civil rights issue-Curly?).... to choose the nominee, and, instead,
VEST THAT RIGHT IN THE LOW INFORMATION VOTERS IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS (that’s us Curly- the dumb voters).
Would the delegates, while sitting at the 2016 convention knowing they possess the right to choose the nominee, voluntarily surrender that right? Of course not!
But, undeterred and determined, Republican Progressives turned, instead, to deceit and trickery in their attempts to defeat the authority of the convention and transfer the power to nominate our candidate to the primary system.
Yes. What is different now in the information age is the electorate can be informed. For instance we are sitting in our own houses discussing this on an internet board open to anyone in the world. That kind of openness and availability of information was not even dreamed of even a few decades ago.
The electorate doesn’t need party bosses to tell us how to vote anymore. We can research it ourselves.
Methinks ole Curly has had his balls and his brain frozen too many times. And you sure as hell are right about the mosquitos. The bastards have “N” numbers on them and have to get clearance to land from the FAA. As they say, the only thing worse than the winters in ND are the summers!
Hey I’m from ND. We are not all that way. Those who are are getting exposed this election cycle.
Our State Rep Kevin Kramer is a Trump supporter.
It's the Progressives who have had their way, and it's just about exactly for 100 years. That's when they rammed through an amendment to the USC that Senators had to be elected by popular vote--turning it in effect into a national election based on statewide and national issues--instead of by state legislators responsible to the interests of local constituents.
In parallel, the authority for the election of the President has been in effect removed from state electors (the system spelled out in the USC) and subjected to a popular vote, which is something much more vulnerable to manipulation by concentrated power and money in this country or some other country.
The same logic applies to the party system, which used to be much more strongly locally driven. The Progressives (today's Democrats) have been campaigning throughout the 20th century to get party nominations out of the hands of county and state delegations. Within the Democratic Party, they've succeeded, and turned that party from a half-conservative one into a nationally based, Maoist cultural revolution driven by Communist billionaires like Soros and today's metrosexual info-barons.
The Left--and their Communist forebears--have always used outside money to move political movements, starting with Lenin in 1917 with money from the German Empire. In the U.S., their tactic is to have everything decided by mass primaries where essentially anyone from either party can vote. Elections are much easier to buy, and voter fraud much easier to commit, the bigger they are, and the less well all the players know each other. And of course, the effects of one victory are more far-reaching.
As every political observer since the Greeks has recognized, democracy is what leads most directly to tyranny, since tyranny is enabled by mass panic and delusion, which allow it to trample on individual rights to further its own power.
Representative government keeps local priorities at the top of the agenda--which are the things by which people actually live. Panics and the creation of a ruling class in D.C. are slowed down when legislators have reason to fear showing their faces back home.
The outrages that Trump (and Cruz and Lee and Paul) have been speaking against are the creation of the popular-vote political system. To take a key example, only a nationally based and corrupt Chamber of Commerce would try to remove our border with Mexico. The local chambers of commerce in southern Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona would never have put up with such a thing. They'd show up with guns. They live there!
If you love liberty, love political parties with their thousands of messy local meetings and their neighbor-to-neighbor campaigning. They keep things rooted in physical reality, and save the country from big, vapid, ideals for which someone else far from the guarded mansions of the powerful pays the price.
No matter how many times the current President and other so-called "progressives" of both Parties repeat the term, statements like Benjamin Franklin's oft-repeated assertion to the lady outside Constitution Hall - "a Republic" - are reinforced and substantiated by other Founders, as well as by early Presidents, Justices, and historians, including Bancroft and Frothingham's 1872 "Rise of the Republic of the United States."
John Adams' son, John Quincy, was 9 years old when the Declaration of Independence was written, defended and discussed by John and Abigail, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive on the subject at hand and provide an appropriate rebuttal to "progressive" claims to the contrary.
In 1839, John Quincy was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the "Jubilee" Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of "democracy" and "republic" throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:
"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.
"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-
"1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.
"2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.
"3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
"4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
"5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
"6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
"7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
"8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
"9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.
"10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.
"11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."
In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained."
.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton
— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016
Why have you posted some dirty blog as news?
Dirty blogs are not news, they are blogs.
Let the people decide who should choose the next #SCOTUS. #NoHearingsNoVotes pic.twitter.com/3jJVCrvm7T
— ReincePriebus(@Reince) May 7, 2016
They changed the rule last time, right at the convention...
Romney had the votes of the people but Ron Paul had very few votes of the people but he had the majority of delegates...So Ron Paul was the winner...
They didn’t like that so they flip flopped on the rule and gave the nomination to the one with the votes...
Now this time around, Trump has all the votes...And he has the delegates, on the first round...
They’re going to have to come up with some wacky rules to take it away from Trump but you can bet your best dog that they are going to try to steal Trump’s thunder...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.