Jordy Blog

Debauching the Currency

I really like Glenn Beck when it comes to the economy:

This uncontrolled spending (and it’s underlying debasement of the currency) may well destroy us.

Inflation, as a means of overthrowing the free market:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens … Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of over-turning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. – John Maynard Keynes (via quoty)

Inflation, as a means of overthrowing our nation and our liberties:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson (via quoty)

Sadly the “change” mantra was nothing more than a seductive lie, because when it comes to the policies of spending and inflation, Comrades Obama and Bush (not mention McCain) are exactly the same.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. :(

If you liked this post, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Selective Constitutionalism

I don’t do this very often; but this article by Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee, is so good that I decided to re-post it in its entirety:

Selective Constitutionalism
by Chuck Baldwin
December 9, 2008

Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.

Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s U.S. citizenship.

Historically, “natural born Citizen” has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii’s secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama’s actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.

Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a “constitutional crisis.” The fact is, however, we have been in a “constitutional crisis” for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives “go ballistic,” but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.

For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After all, he was Obama’s principal opponent in the race for the White House. Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all interested in the Obama citizenship issue?

Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a “constitutional crisis”? Get real!

Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run for President.

But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution’s requirement that a President be a “natural born Citizen.” Like liberals, most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W. Bush repeatedly ignored–and even trampled–the U.S. Constitution.

Where were these “constitutional” conservatives when George W. Bush was assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of Transportation to open up America’s airlines to foreign ownership? Where were they when President Bush nullified (using “signing statements”) over 1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could go on and on.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has–maybe more so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as their respective Presidential nominees.

While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member) would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take was raised while they were in Congress.

However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It is called “the Saxbe fix,” after Nixon’s appointment of Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general.

Do we have a “constitutional crisis”? You bet we do; but it is not limited to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God help us!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081209.html

If you liked this article, please consider signing up for Chuck Baldwin’s newsletter.

Chuck Baldwin 2008

I dislike both major-party presidential candidates so profoundly that I would feel extremely uncomfortable giving my vote to either of them. Sure, I like Obama even less than McCain, but luckily I live in a “landslide” state where I don’t have to make the difficult decision of whether I’ll vote for the proverbial “lessor of two evils”. In Utah, I can vote my conscience with a pretty solid confidence that the direct outcome will be exactly the same; Utah will see a landslide win for McCain either way, so why marshal support for someone I don’t even like?

Instead, I’m voting for Chuck Baldwin.

“Why haven’t I heard of Chuck Baldwin”, you ask. Well, it’s either because the main stream media thinks you’re stupid, or because it wants you stupid. I’ll let you decide which.

Chuck Baldwin is the Constitution Party’s candidate for president. If he won (which he won’t) I would be comfortable that our nation would be in good hands.

“But why vote for someone who can’t even win?” Well, technically he could win, but he won’t. Either way voting for someone you like makes a heck of a lot more sense than voting for someone you don’t like –especially if you live in a state (like Utah) where your vote is mostly symbolic.

My vote is a protest: I’m sick of big government Republicans that are nothing more than socialists in sheep’s clothing. They’ve done our country harm, they’ve done my party harm, they’ve done my family harm, and I want them out.

I’ve got a lot to say about how the Republican party has lost its way, but I’ll forbear for now. Suffice it to say that I think it may very well cost us this election –and we deserve to lose. Not that the Democrats are any better (in fact, they’re much worse).

I’ve also got a lot to say about our current voting system, but I’ll forbear for now. (Watch for my upcoming rant.) Until then if you live in a relatively uncontested state, you really should look at your real options: Check out Chuck Baldwin!

In the recent bailout fiasco, while both major-party candidates were using scare tactics to push pork legislation through –chiding each other all the while for not being socialist enough– Chuck’s stance against the banking bailouts was constitutional and exemplary. No wonder they didn’t want to invite him to the debates.

Now that’s leadership.

Happy voting!

Knight of the Old Republic

This is who I’m being for Halloween.  :)

Ron Paul was dead right about the economy. If you haven’t watched his videos on YouTube, you should. He was calling the bursting of the housing bubble well before it happened. And the credit crunch? Yep, he’s warned of that too.

Ron Paul would have smoked Obama in the debates, especially on questions regarding the economy. Anyway, there certainly wouldn’t have been any bantering about who didn’t support the bailouts enough. Good grief!

Sadly, the way things are looking I think we’re in for more of the same at best, no matter which major party candidate wins. Now that’s scary.

Happy Halloween!

Ask Congress to Stop Socialist (Fascist) Bailouts

Today the US House of Representative is very likely to pass one of the most stupid pieces of legislation I have ever seen. They’re getting MAJOR pressure by the president, majority and minority leaders in congress, both major party presidential nominees, the Federal Reserve, and everyone else you can think of to pass an “emergency” bill that does NOTHING to help people stay in their homes.

Instead the proposed bill introduces liquidity into the market by purchasing garbage mortgage-backed securities from private companies, thereby socializing their risks while privatizing their profits. Warren Buffet described the derivatives we are to buy as financial weapons of mass destruction. Incidentally, they’re the same kind of stuff that brought Enron down, but do you see anybody going to jail from our current scandal? No, instead we reward them purchasing these bad assets at above-market prices.

Believe me, if these things had real value, the free market would be forking out the dough for themselves. Ask yourself, “Why in the world should you and I be forced to purchase ’securities’ that cannot sell on an open market?” It’s analogous to having congress force you to buy every car in the junkyard and then have the nerve to tell you it might actually be a good investment.

“But surely,” you ask, “people who are upside-down in their homes will finally get some much-needed relief?” Absolutely not! This bill does nothing for them –not that it should. But since the whole seductive point of socialism is supposedly to benefit the working class, you would think they would make some effort at it. This bill actually hurts upside-down buyers because it reduces their bargaining power by flooding the coffers of their debtors.

“You mean that congress might not be acting in our best interests?,” you ask.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group that studies money and politics, reports that on average, lawmakers who voted in favor of the bailout bill have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries.

Hmmm… Could congress possibly be acting in their own interests? Might those be directly opposite yours? One commenter hits it right on:

Why wouldn’t America, the greatest nation on earth, have the best congress money can buy?

This is especially true considering the sheer amount of pork added to the bill to insure that it passes in the house.

Wait, you thought the a motivated Senate might insuring passage by actually adding something substantive to the bill, or maybe cutting out some of it’s blatant threatening verbiage? Nope, too hard. Just throw on a bunch of tax-credits from a completely unrelated bill to make sure it has enough earmark grease to squeak through. Tax credits for green appliance manufacturers? That should get some Democrat votes. Oh NASCAR needs some tax credits? Republicans will like that. Tax rebates for Puerto Rican rum duties? Sure, throw it in. All of a sudden the bill is 451 pages of meaningless pork, which by the way our maverick hero John McCain swore to veto. Can you say double-speak?

Seriously, any house member who changes to an approval vote this time around has clearly been bought and sold. There are almost no differences whatsoever that relate to the main subject matter at all. Just more grease.

Want more?

This bill rewards companies that behaved foolishly (and probably dishonestly). It consolidates unprecedented power to the Federal Government, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve. It increases the average American citizen’s tax burden. It grants unprecedented power (with no oversight whatsoever) to a consummate banking insider. And it undermines our so-called “Free Market” system at every step of the way.

And just in case you thought I was kidding that there’s no oversight whatsoever in how the $700 billion is spent, here’s the verbiage directly from the bill:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

By the way, how did they come up with the $700 billion figure in the first place? The answer: it had to be a lot. Now that’s good math in action. What’s it for? Well, if we knew we could have come up with a real number by now.  Besides, wouldn’t you rather leave that up to one man with no recourse to the American people whatsoever. He alone decides who wins and who looses. Checks and balances be damned!

Oh yeah, and did I mention that nobody is saying that this thing will work? It’s always pitched as a “band-aid” at best. But when this $700 billion band-aid is saturated with blood, it will need to be ripped off so another one can be applied. This is a slippery slope, a terrible precedent. Bad companies need to be allowed to fail so that markets can adjust gracefully, and so that basic market principles can be reinforced.

Make no mistake: this is power grab, a consolidation of wealth, and a giant step toward socialism. Furthermore, it does NOTHING to address the actual problems at their source. This bill actually prolongs the problem by side-stepping the free market with heavy-handed government intervention. And on top of everything it’s blatantly unconstitutional! No wonder everyone is in such a hurry to get it passed! But seriously, if people took time to read and think about this, it would never pass; thus the rush.

Please tell your congressmen that failure to honor their oaths to uphold the defend the constitution will disqualify them from every getting your vote again. They already know that this bill is vastly unpopular, but they need to hear it from you. They actually do keep a tally, and letting them know how you feel really can work –so long as their phones are ringing off the hook.

For background, here’s how House members voted last time around (when it failed). Here’s how the Senate voted on the bill that they will try to jam through the House today.  Here’s a list of House members that may change their vote. Here’s a list of all congressmen with their contact info.

Please contact House members first since this bill has already sailed through the Senate.  A simple 2-line email will do. This legislation is insideously dangerous, so please contact them right away.

Binding Utah Delegates to McCain

I blogged that this was happening, and now it’s happened.  I liked David’s Garber’s summary of the Utah GOP’s delegate bait and switch so much that I got permission to post it its entirety:

———————————————-

It’s official! This morning, by a vote of 70 supporters to 12 opponents, Utah’s state Republican Party’s Central Committee voted to adopt a proposed new “standing rule” that would apply a new twisted interpretation to our party’s by-laws–an interpretation that will now bind our state’s set of Republican national delegates to vote for McCain rather than Romney on their first national convention ballot.

Here is the precise text of this new standing rule:

Standing Rule

This Standing Rule has been adopted by the State Central Committee of the Utah Republican Party and shall be a binding rule of the Utah Republican Party unless and until superseded by a change in the Constitution or Bylaws of the Utah Republican Party, or by a subsequent standing rule adopted by the State Central Committee expressly revoking or modifying this Standing Rule:

It is hereby ruled by the State Central Committee of the Utah Republican Party that:

1. An ambiguity exists in the meaning of “the candidate” as it is used in Bylaw 7.0 (B) that is sufficient to have generated public controversy among Party members over the meaning and effect of Bylaw 7.0(B); and that

2. Each reference to “the candidate” in Bylaw 7.0(B) is hereby interpreted to mean a person who is a candidate for nomination on the first ballot at the National Convention at the time of that ballot, according to the rules of the Republican National Committee and any rules adopted by the National Convention; and that

3. Bylaw 7.0(B) does not require that the Utah National Convention delegates and alternates be allocated to or bound to vote on the first ballot for a person who does not meet the definition of candidacy defined in part 2 of this Rule; and that

4. Bylaw 7.0(B) does require that the Utah National Convention delegates and alternates shall be allocated to and bound to vote on the first ballot for “the candidate” as defined in part 2 of this Rule, who has received the most votes of the statewide vote in the Utah Republican Presidential Primary.

RULED this 23rd day of August, 2008, by the State Central Committee of the Utah Republican Party, meeting in South Jordan, Utah, in the presence of a quorum.

Funny that they never noticed this “ambiguity” before–they seemed pretty clear about what it meant during our state convention when they tried to have this rule suspended.

I wrote this story for some friends on MySpace to try to explain what happened:

Utah’s GOP Leaders Defeat Utah’s GOP Rules

This morning marked the end of a long war between Utah’s GOP leaders and Utah’s GOP voters/delegates/rules over whom our national delegation will support at our national convention next week.

Utah’s GOP Primary: “Okay, it’s time to vote, Utahn Republicans! Which of these candidates do you prefer to become your next President?”

Utah’s GOP Voters: “Well, 89% of us reckon that we prefer that conservative-talkin’ LDS guy with the nice hair!”

Utah’s GOP Rules: “According to us, based on these primary election results, Utah’s Republican national delegation will be bound to cast 100% of their votes for Romney on their first national convention ballot in September.”

Mitt Romney: “Meh, my Presidential campaign is hopeless, with McCain’s friend Huckabee drawing votes away from me. So, I’m suspending it and becoming McCain’s biggest cheerleader, instead. *buttsmooch* I now want all of my national delegates to vote for McCain to the extent that the law/rules will allow. Now, what is thy bidding, my master?”

John McCain: “Muhahahahahahaha!!! Now, more than 51% of all national delegates will be voting for me! Next, I want to assimilate the other 49%, as well, so that I can enjoy a big everyone-loves-McCain-fest in September. Hey, Utah, gimme yours!!!”

Utah’s GOP Rules: “Sorry, McCain, but we don’t allow that–they’re bound to Romney, as the voters decided, and that’s final.”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “Whoa, not so fast, you darn rules! No worries, John, we won’t let those pesky rules stop us from getting you whatever it is you want. Hey, state delegates, we need 2/3 of you to vote to suspend these annoying party rules so that our national delegates can be free to vote for McCain, instead.”

Utah’s GOP State Delegates: “Wait, you want us to throw out our rulebook and nullify our primary? Just to please that awful McCain?! HECK, NO!!!”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “Dang, this won’t be as easy as we’d hoped. Darn those state delegates! Why must they be so devoted to those silly party rules rather than us? Hmmm, we need a different strategy to deliver those votes to McCain…”

Utah’s GOP Rules: “Forget about it, guys. As long as it’s up to us, Utah’s national delegates MUST cast their first set of ballots for whichever candidate received the most votes in Utah’s primary election. And that was Romney by a landslide. Sorry.”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “Hey, that’s it!!! We’ll just redefine what the meaning of the word ‘IS’ is! Er, ‘candidate.’ Let’s see, hmmm… Let’s say that ‘the candidate who received the most votes in our primary election’ does not apply to candidates who suspend their campaigns once the primary election is over! So, although Romney was initially ‘the candidate who received the most votes’ with 89%, since he suspended his campaign, he no longer counts–and, so, McCain has now became ‘the candidate who received the most votes’ with only 5%. Once we pervert these rules, those darn rule-respecting Utahns can follow them AND still give us what we want! Why didn’t we think of this devious scheme sooner?!”

Utah’s GOP Rules: “Hey, that’s not what those who wrote us meant to…”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “SHUT UP!!! You’ll mean what we say you mean! Now, central committee, we need you to vote to approve our new screwy interpretation that we’ve invented so that it will serve as a new standing rule for our party.”

Utah’s GOP Central Committee: “Okay, 85% of us say, hey, whatever you want, boss.”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “Hurrah, we won!!! Eat that, voters and delegates! As you can see, your votes only count when we like the outcome. We, not your silly rules, are the supreme power in this party! Bwahahaha!!!”

So, in less than two weeks, despite the fact that 89% of Utah’s Republican voters wanted Mitt Romney (not Juan McCainnedy) to be their next President, and despite our party rules that we all assumed would bind our national delegation to support our primary election winner, our national delegation will presumably vote for McCain, instead, thanks to these underhanded machinations of our party leaders.

I’m tempted to produce some sort of flier about this subject, mass-produce it, and then deliver a copy of it to every likely voter in my area. Unfortunately, I’m too broke at the moment to spend much at any copy centers. But I hope that some of y’all will consider doing something like this, though. Our Republican neighbors need to know what schmucks are running their party and, unless they hear it from us, they may never hear it at all.

———————————————-

I also liked these comments from Lowell Nelson:

The new “standing rule” passed 70 to 12. It binds the Utah delegation to the convention-election candidate who received the most votes in the primary election. But it was introduced as a clarification (not a change to a bylaw), and passed with a simple majority instead of the two-thirds required to amend a bylaw. Dishonest. Lacking integrity. Sad day for the GOP and the Utah electorate…

Thus, in my view, party leadership was able to CHANGE Bylaw 7B WITHOUT proper notice and WITHOUT requiring a 2/3 majority vote. In doing so, they arbitrarily determined that the second-place finisher in the primary was also the second choice of the electorate (which is illogical to me). Effectively, this change repudiates the will of 265,000 Utah Republican voters and a majority of the state delegates, and replaces it with the will of a relatively few party leaders.

It wouldn’t have been so bad if delegates had been released to vote for whomever they liked, but this political chacanery to force Utah GOP delegates to vote for John McCain (who got less than 5% of the vote) is nothing short of political BS. Worse still is that the results of this “standing rule” created as result of political expedience will have long-reaching effects perhaps not considered by the State Central Committee.

Utah GOP Insider Politics

I thought these emails were insightful as to the way the insider politics work in the Utah GOP:

—–Original Message—–
From: Ivan DuBois [mailto:idubois@utgop.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:15 PM
To: Utah Republican Party
Subject: State Central Committee Issue
Importance: High

Dear State Central Committee Member:

Today we received a written request from State Central Committee member Mark Shurtleff to give our National Delegates some flexibility at the National Convention regarding the Utah vote.  (His modified State Convention Resolution is below for your reference).  He is asking that the State Central Committee allow the delegation to consider and fulfill the wishes of Mitt Romney, the winner of the Utah Republican Presidential Primary with over 90% of the vote.

I have had many discussions with the Romney campaign on this issue.  They are firm in their desire for their delegates to be released.  (See the attached Letter from Mitt Romney).

The Utah Republican Party Constitution does not address the issue of rebinding delegates once a candidate has withdrawn and asked to have their delegates released.  To research this issue, I have spoken with the RNC to find out how other States are handling similar situations.  I have also studied the Utah Republican Party governing documents, RNC Rules, Utah State law, and our Parliamentary Authority – Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.

I have concluded that our National Delegates can be released, in part because no harm will be done to the affected party (Mitt Romney). In fact, this action is in response to his request. This procedure will be consistent with how other State Parties have handled this issue, according to the RNC.

I am asking for your support of my finding to allow Utah’s National Delegates to be released from voting for Mitt Romney at the Republican National Convention.

The State Central Committee is the governing body of the Party so your advice and consent is very important on this issue.  I would like to request that each State Central Committee member review this information closely and then respond to this e-mail.  Please provide your feedback on my decision by tomorrow, Friday, August 8 at 5 p.m.

Respectfully,

Stan Lockhart

P.S. If we are unable to come to an agreement electronically, we will need to address the issue at a State Central Committee meeting on Saturday, August 23, 2008.
_____________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION REGARDING RELEASE OF UTAH’S NATIONAL

CONVENTION DELEGATES

WHEREAS, Governor Mitt Romney was the candidate receiving the most votes of the statewide vote in Utah’s February 5, 2008 Republican Presidential Primary;

WHEREAS, Senator John S. McCain was the candidate receiving the second most votes of the statewide vote in Utah’s February 5, 2008 Republican Presidential Primary;

WHEREAS, Governor Romney has since withdrawn from the 2008 Presidential Election;

WHEREAS, Governor Romney has endorsed Senator McCain;

WHEREAS, Governor Romney supports Senator McCain’s candidacy for President of the United States of America;

WHEREAS, Governor Romney has respectfully requested that Utah’s National Convention Delegates attending the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota cast their votes for Senator McCain. In particular, in his February 29, 2008 letter to Utah Republican Party Chairman Stan Lockhart, Governor Romney wrote:

“Because I am no longer a formal candidate for the presidency of the United States, please consider this an official release, to the extent allowed by party rules and state law, of all delegates bound, committed, or otherwise pledged to vote for me at the 2008 Republican National Convention. I strongly encourage all released and uncommitted delegates to cast their votes for Senator John McCain at the Convention.”;

WHEREAS, the Utah Republican Party desires to respect Governor Romney’s request;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Utah’s National Convention Delegates attending the 2008 Republican National Convention are released from voting for Mitt Romney.

LET IT ALSO BE RESOLVED that we give the delegation the decision making ability to vote for John McCain.

Respectfully submitted,

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff

Here are some excellent responses.  This one is from Don Guyman:

Stan,

With all due respect this request is completely out of order.

1) Where in the rules does it allow our delegates to be unbound? Utah voters went to the polls and voted by over 90% for Mitt Romney. These same voters gave John McCain 5% of the vote. According to our rules our national delegates are bound to Romney on the first vote. It is not fair to the Utah voters who went to the polls to vote for Romney to suddenly change the rules after the vote has been taken.

2) This same proposal was presented to the state convention delegates who voted to table the matter.

3) There is no provision in the C&B for electronic voting. This process is out of order.

4) Through the email process there is no room for debate of delegates. Only one side is being presented.

We can spend all of the money we want on ad campaigns, but if we are not viewed as a party that can be trusted we will eventually lose political power in the state.

With all due respect, I ask you to reconsider your motion.

This one is from Rob Alexander:

Dear Utah Republican Party Executive Committee,

The proposal by Chairman Lockhart and Attorney General Shurtleff to release Utah’s national Republican delegates from voting for Governor Romney on the first ballot is an egregious violation of the rules, especially the way it is proposed to do so. The Utah Republican Party Constitution does not address the issues of binding or releasing national delegates. The Utah Republican Party Bylaws clearly state the following:

7.0 CONVENTIONS AND ELECTIONS

B. Allocation and Binding of National Delegation. All National Convention delegates and alternates shall be allocated to the candidate receiving the most votes of the statewide vote in the Republican Presidential Primary. On the first ballot, the national delegation shall be bound to vote for the candidate who has received the most votes in the Republican Presidential Primary, but the delegation shall not be bound on any subsequent ballots.

Also, we delegates at the state convention resoundly booed Chairman Lockhart when he requested extra time to speak in favor of releasing the delegates from Governor Romney. I believe we delegates voted to table the matter not because we wanted it brought up by the State Central Committee at a later time, but because we wanted to end discussion on the issue.

Further, as National Delegate Guymon mentioned below, there is no provision in the Utah Republican Party Constituion or Bylaws for electronic voting, thus making the proposed process out of order.

As such, I respectfully encourage each of you to request that Chairman Lockhart and Attorney General Shurtleff withdraw their motion.

Thank you,
Rob Alexander
REPUBLican State Delegate, Salt Lake County
REPUBLican Candidate for State Representative
Utah Legislative District 35
http://voterob.alexanderfamily.org

This one is from Lowell Nelsen:

Thank you for asking, Stan.

Here are three quick reasons (not exhaustive) why Mark Shurtleff’s request should be denied:

1. As you said, our party constitution does “not address the issue of rebinding delegates once a candidate has withdrawn and asked to have their delegates released.” It does, however, clearly indicate that the votes of our delegates in the first round be given to the candidate who received the most votes in the Presidential Preference Primary (regardless of the status of that candidate). Therefore, our delegates must remain bound to Mitt until after the first round of balloting is concluded. This is a “rules” issue; we must follow the rules.

2. This question essentially was answered at the state convention when, by a super majority, state delegates voted to table the motion to unbind our national delegates from Mitt Romney. For the State Central Committee to reverse the decision of the convention would be a breech of the trust placed in the committee by county parties and Republican delegates throughout the state. This is a “trust” issue. First, the electorate of Utah said that Mitt Romney should receive 36 votes in the first round. Second, the state convention (composed of roughly 3500 state delegates) said that Mitt Romney should receive 36 votes in the first round. Is the State Central Committee (SCC) so brazen as to repudiate those two referenda and just do what it darn well pleases?

3. In our party constitution, Article IV, Section D, we read the following: “Quorum. In order to conduct binding business, the State Central Committee must have a quorum in attendance, defined as 40 voting members.” (This clause is echoed in the bylaws, Article II, Section B.) These two words, “in attendance,” clearly implies that a meeting (something that can be attended) be held in order to conduct binding (or unbinding, in this case :–) business. Therefore, putting forth this resolution is out of order. No provision is made for the SCC to meet, establish a quorum, debate, and vote (conduct binding business) electronically.

Please withdraw the motion/resolution.

Thank you. Lowell.

I couldn’t agree more with these last three.  This back-door motion should be offensive to Utah State Republican Delegates who already voted on the matter in convention.

Why are Utah GOP insiders so anxious to show support for John McCain that they would disregard their own bylaws and trample the will of their own state delegates?  Politics are supposed to be from the bottom up, not the top down.

So Much Media Blather

I was eating breakfast at Gondolfo’s when I noticed that Fox News was covering this hard-hitting story from the Associate Press.  Apparently a recent poll shows that pet-owners prefer McCain.

Wow. It’s a good thing there are no important issues that could be covered right now.  Of course, by important issues I mainly mean dead bombshells whose childrens’ potential fathers are squabbling over custody of the money, former baseball stars who may have used steroids (thank you congress for overseeing those hearings), or even the transcendently wise tips on wearing sunscreen since –this just in– the sun is still hot.