Sunday, March 20, 2016

Coming House of Cards Moves in Presidential Race?

I know, with every fiber of my being, that the establishment interests which have funded and controlled the Republican party for decades will not simply let Donald Trump or Ted Cruz be the next President just because a bunch of plebeians voted to give him their party's nomination. The primaries and caucuses are only there to get people emotionally invested in one or the other private political clubs and the comforting illusion that this process is self-government.

Listen to this eye-opening interview with the GOP national committeeman from North Dakota. He is close enough to the top to see what is the realities are, but not high enough to know that he is never supposed to admit them to the public. Those delegates represent the party, not the voters. After the first ballot, the delegates can vote for anyone they want, even someone with few or no delegates.

So what might they do in order to subvert the very process which they themselves set up and sold to you as the pathway to nominate someone for President? Here are some things they did to stop Ron Paul in 2012. Some of these tactics are merely sneaky and unethical. Others are violent and would be considered crimes if the thugs they hired had not had badges. Read the link for details. The difference this time is that unlike the kind and gentle Paul, Donald Trump and his supporters would respond to such tactics with brutish tactics of their own. This means they are going to have to try and steal delegates from Trump in more subtle ways. One consequence of this is that they might not be able to stop him from reaching the magic number of 1237 delegates.

The Establishment has a perplexing problem because the only other candidate with a reasonable number of delegates, Ted Cruz, is probably not in their club either. He and his wife have played footsie with them but I doubt they are in. To be in the club, when the chips are down you have to be willing to do the wrong thing for the right people. Cruz is probably trying to work the system for his own purpose, not theirs. Lot's of people have tried that, few as successfully as Cruz. The vast majority get co-opted or discouraged along the way.

If the establishment manages to stop Trump from winning on the first ballot and a brokered convention produces a winner who is not Trump or Cruz, the Republican party could go the way of the Whigs who they replaced. It would have to be a surprise move anyway. If Trump and Cruz get wind of any such plot, they could still always put aside their differences and form an alliance.

The establishment needs Ted Cruz right now, even if they don't love him. They need him to help stop Trump. They need him to continue to fool their voters into believing that who they vote for in the primaries has some relevancy to who is actually going to be the nominee. Cruz needs to be on the top of any Trump-stopping ticket, even in the case of a brokered convention.

The House of Cards play here is for the establishment to help Cruz on the condition that he pick an establishment guy, the Jeb Bush or a Jeb Bush, to be his Vice Presidential choice. Then the "unity" ticket goes forward with the Cruz-backing grassroots fired up and feeling better about the establishment of "their" party being big enough to take a back-seat.

Then they wait for Hillary, who is in the club too, to be the "bad guy". When her team files a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Ted Cruz for President, it will be heard pronto. Right now such suits are being thrown out on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the case against his eligibility. See the brief filed by Einer Elhauge if you want a devastating critique of Cruz's argument that he is eligible. The suit associated with the brief was thrown out on procedural grounds, but the suit team Hillary files won't be. As a candidate in the race, she will have standing.

So Cruz is tossed off the ballot and the JEB! style VP pick becomes the top of the ticket. This time, with the adoring approval of the GOP masses because by-golly, Jeb-style tried to help their boy Cruz win, they were just foiled by that evil Hillary. The establishment's problem is solved. They have their pick no matter which one wins (as usual) and most of the base feels like their party tried to represent them, they were just stopped by those evil Democrats. It only has to be plausible enough for people who want to believe it to believe it.

But suppose they can't swing it? Suppose the brand is ruined? I would expect the same funding sources would quickly drum up a new fake brand to pretend to represent limited-government conservative voters.  Just like they realized that a real conservative media would rise up if they did not jump out in front and fund a fake one (FOX), they will try to jump out in front and form a fake new party. The media will be ablaze with the news. It will seem to spring up from nowhere, ready to suck up the political energy of the gullible conservatives.

The establishment is ruthless, cunning, and very well funded. But they can be beaten. The answer is decentralization. Whatever the fake new organization they try to build looks like, it will be a national organization. It will have a headquarters in DC. If conservatives instead start decentralized political networks in every state run by the grassroots instead of a big national label run by the same people who led us to this disaster then they can have real political representation, probably for the first time in their lives. They may not be able to elect a President set up like that, but they can elect everyone else, making it far, far less important who the President might be. Here is what the establishment is and why a centralized political party is inherently the wrong tool to use to limit and decentralize government.

Thursday, March 03, 2016

Mullah Moody

In Iran candidates for office must first be vetted by religious leaders before they can stand for election. If a candidate is not sufficiently pious, the mullahs will strike his or her name from the ballot. In Arkansas we don’t need mullahs to keep infidels off the ballot; we have a federal judge to fill that role.

Judge James Moody, Jr. has ruled that the Secretary of State (an elected Republican) is justified in enforcing his "strong interest in preventing voter confusion by limiting ballot access to serious candidates." In a state where half the congressional elections are uncontested, and one in three state legislative races is unopposed, it hardly seems likely that there will be much voter confusion.

Just to make sure, Judge Moody stands ready, willing and able to insure that the poor voter is protected from all the hysteria and confusion of having two – or, horror of horrors, THREE - candidates from which to choose.

The mullah/judge can only get by with this kind of ludicrous ruling because the old parties have his back. For many decades the D’s and R’s have written laws that protect them from upstart political groups. After all, the Constitution of the United States guarantees Democrats and Republicans protection from Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists and other “unserious” candidates. Oh, wait. No, it’s not the Constitution that makes that guarantee. It is corrupt, political judges that do that.

That brings up the question, “Who IS a serious candidate?” Is it one who has a serious chance of winning? Is it one who takes his or her role in a vibrant republic seriously? Well, thank goodness, you and I don’t have to concern ourselves with such questions. We have Mullah Moody and the elected Democrats and Republicans of the state legislature and constitutional offices to tell us who is a serious candidate.

What Arkansas really need is an honest, serious jurist on the bench. Unfortunately Mullah Moody is a lifetime appointee, and he is a young man. We may have to wait a LONG time.

Above by Frank Gilbert, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate

Federal Judge James Moody Jr. recently ruled against the Libertarian party in a lawsuit over whether it was constitutional to force alternative parties to select their candidates before the Republicans and Democrats select theirs. They intend to appeal. I should add that I too am appealing a ruling from Judge Moody regarding his upholding a 2013 state law which effectively prohibits citizens from deciding during the filing period that they want to run for office as an independent, while Republicans and Democrats can wait to the very last day of the filing period to make their decision. 
These recent changes in election law are moves by the two establishment parties to force all candidate access to the ballot to go through them- no matter how many people are so disgusted by their behavior or realize that going through them is a futile way to effect real political change.

Defenders of the status quo appear to have a jewel in Judge Moody. In my suit he got my attorney to agree that the "facts" in the case were not in dispute, then ruled against us on the basis of a bare assertion that my lawyer did not really contest because it was barely mentioned in the state's 120 page plea and was not relevant. Once the judge got him to say the facts were not in dispute, he ruled against us based on the irrelevant "fact." Since we did not dispute the claim itself, only its relevancy, the idea is that we should not be able to address the truth or validity of the state's claim on appeal. The state says we can only address questions of law.

To give you an analogy to explain it, say a government official ran over somebody trying to cross the street in a crosswalk. They get to court and say "we were on our way to an important government meeting and it was vital we get there on time, so we could not stop for the pedestrian. We had to get there." The lawyer of the victim does not even challenge the assertion as to why the official ran over the pedestrian. The excuse was irrelevant, it didn't matter if they were on their way to a meeting, or how important it was. People have a right to not be run over by government officials. But imagine in this case the judge, after getting the lawyer to agree that the case was a matter of law not of fact, then decides that if there is an important meeting that the official must not be late to, that the state has an interest in making that happen which over-rides the pedestrian's right not to be run over if they get in the way.

We knew all along that the meeting was not very important at all, and it started so late that they could have easily made it on time driving at a safe speed. We just did not spend any time worrying about it because it was so obviously irrelevant. The judge somehow decided that is was relevant, and now the state says "on appeal you can't talk about whether or not we had plenty of time to get to that meeting because you did not contest our comment about the meeting being important." Since we did not "contest" the original irrelevant fact the first time we can't challenge on it later. Pretty slick eh?

There is a long-term battle going on to protect the American people's freedom of political expression from Republicrat's attempts to reduce it. In Arkansas me and a few others at Neighbors of Arkansas are fighting this battle for the people of the state. Republicrat response to increasing dissatisfaction with their misrule is to make it legally harder and more complicated to attempt to get candidates to the ballot unless they are run through their corrupt, DC-based and globally funded private political clubs. Even while most Americans are still clamoring for this duopoly to act in their interests, the duopoly constantly acts in its own interests. Meanwhile, a few who see the truth are trying to keep the duopoly from effectively legally closing the door to going around them before most people even catch on to the truth- if we want to really be self governing people, we are going to have to go around them.

FOX Admits to Bias in Pumping Up Rubio

Roger Ailes says "We're finished with Rubio.....we can't do the Rubio thing anymore." Private sources confirm that the order has gone out to Fox employees to quit giving Rubio favorable coverage.  To stop slanted coverage pushing a particular candidate means of course, that one was doing those things to begin with. This simply confirms what this blog has been saying for years (use our search function for FAUX News and FOX News to see what we mean). Fox is not fair and balanced. Nor are they conservative. They are fake conservative, much like Rubio himself. If Fox had not come along, a real conservative media outlet would have formed, so some big money folks decided to jump in front and form a fake conservative outlet to blunt the possibility of any such effort.