Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Beautiful Presentation on "End the Fed" ~ Ron Paul mention @ 4 min Mark Twain

Submitted by Mark Twain on Sun, 05/27/2012 - 17:01
Markets

End the Fed - Koozzoo News 6 mintue newsreel.

Here is a well presented news report all about, "End the Fed." Presented in a most delightful way.

1. Lead headline statement. "The 2008 global financial crisis has not really gone away. It only got worse.
2. 20 sec. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, & Italy.
3. 25 sec. Mainstream media doesn't want you focuses your anger on the culprits. BBC, Sun News, Chicago Tribune, CBS Market Watch, ABC News, Daily Mail, Financial Times, CNBC, Time Magazine, Reuters News. It's called news containment...
4. 50 sec. Money printing on the scale the world has never seen in the history of mankind. This can only end badly for all concerned.
5. 1 min. Morgan Stanley issued a report that will go down in history as pure buffoonery.
6. 2 min. You can't make this stuff up even if you tried... Glass Steagall Act needs to be restored. Must keep banks from speculating with deposits & the nations credit... Bill Clinton swept it away...
7. 2:30 min. Watch this shameful performance.
8. 4 min. It is no wonder that Congressman Ron Paul calls for "End the Fed." The Fed creates debt-money out-of-thin-air.
9. 5 min. "Governments have borrowed 10 trillion over the last 10 years. Defaults are inevitable sometime soon. Means crash hurting rich & poor." - Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. ~ Owner of the Wall Street Journal.
10. Brace yourself for a ride into the financial abyss. You're going to get hurt. Really hurt.

Beautiful Presentation on "End the Fed" ~ Ron Paul mention @ 4 min Mark Twain | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

NDAA - Passed by A NEO-CONservative Republican lead Congress; a NEO-LIBeral Democrat Lead Senate; Signed By a Marxist; Approved by Mitt Romney

deleted double post

Minnesota State Convention... Must see video we are in it to win!



The message of liberty and freedom has become viral, Minnesota took over the GOP with the Ron Paul R3volution. Freedom will Ring. Minnesota is sending 32/40 national delegates to Tampa to represent Dr Paul and promote the message of Liberty. please help send 4 of us to Bilderberg in Chantilly VA, if you dont know what Bilderberg is please watch "Hegseth Highlights"

Neil Boortz's Amazing Texas A&M Commencement Address

The Ghostfighters
May 25, 2012

Texas A&M Commencement Address – The students gave a standing ovation; the faculty were deathly silent!



Neal Boortz is a Texan, a lawyer, a Texas Aggie (Texas A&M) graduate, and now a nationally syndicated talk show host from Atlanta . His commencement address to the graduates of a recent Texas A&M class is far different from what either the students or the faculty expected. Whether you agree or disagree, his views are certainly thought provoking.

“I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It’s about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you’ll have enough smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I’m not here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of what I have to say, and that’s fine. You will remember it though.

Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You’ve heard the old saying that those who can – do. Those who can’t – teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.

By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn’t mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot’s license many years ago, he said, “Here, this is your ticket to learn.” The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.

Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast… Including your own assessment of just how much you really know.

So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives.

From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, the Rich, the Disadvantaged, the Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.

That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.

In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven’t developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.

Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You’re going to actually get a full time job!

You’re also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn’t going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn’t want to share in your effort, but in your earnings.

Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can’t manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills, but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent’s for their personal enrichment and benefit.

That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive government.

Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has.

Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly force to accomplish its goals.
You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.

Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I’m sorry, there just isn’t any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can’t decrease its share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.

So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes, a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless, somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.

Now let’s address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.

First is that favorite buzz word of the media and academia: Diversity! You have been taught that the real value of any group of people – be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever – is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individuals abilities or character, but on a person’s identity and status as a member of a group. Yes, it’s that liberal group identity thing again.

Within the great diversity movement group identification – be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status – means more than the individuals integrity, character or other qualifications.

Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work.

From this day on every single time you hear the word “diversity” you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.

We also need to address this thing you seem to have about “rights.” We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called “rights” in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.

You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right – the right to a Beemer for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.

Forget it. Forget those rights! I’ll tell you what your rights are. You have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I’ll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.

You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all, President Obama said so, didn’t he? But you cannot receive health-care unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time – his life – to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that’s his choice. You have no “right” to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person’s life or to any portion thereof.

You may also think you have some “right” to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would scream if some urban outdoors men (that would be “homeless person” for those of you who don’t want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.
The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs – the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn’t cost anyone else either property or time. It’s their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.

By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase “less fortunate” a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoors men? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you’ll understand why.

To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is “less fortunate” is to imply that a successful person – one with a job, a home and a future – is in that position because he or she was “fortunate.” The dictionary says that fortunate means “having derived good from an unexpected place.” There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.

If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of “fortune” or “luck,” then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This “success equals luck” idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as “people who have won life’s lottery.” He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky. It’s not luck, my friends. It’s choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled, “The Greatest Secret in the World.” The lesson? Very simple: “Use wisely your power of choice.”

That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He’s there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other – victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, “Look! He did this to me!” than it is to look into a mirror and say, “You S. O. B.! You did this to me!”

The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.

Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.

Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block – some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.

The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.

Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.” The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more “fair.”

You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government’s own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor .. there’s an explanation — a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor. So, you need to know that under our government’s definition of “poor” you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and a million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as “living in poverty.” Now there’s something you haven’t seen on the evening news.

How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is “living in poverty,” the government measures one thing — just one thing. Income.

It doesn’t matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are living in poverty.”

This isn’t exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it? Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.

Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam?

Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power.

If the government can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of “poor” is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.

I’m about to be stoned by the faculty here. They’ve already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get. That’s OK, though. I still have my PhD. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It’s a trap.

Think about it – the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you’ll be unable to deal with life, or the truth, so get over it.

Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.

* You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again.

* When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for President. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.

* Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the President of the country. If someone can’t deal honestly with you, send them packing.

* Don’t bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it — to take their money by force for your own needs — then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.

* Don’t look in other people’s pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone.

* Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don’t see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.

* Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

* Finally (and aren’t you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,

1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.
2. Use wisely your power of choice.
3. Go the extra mile, drive home in the dark.

Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.

Now, if you have any idea at all what’s good for you, you will get out of here and never come back.

Class dismissed”

Texas A&M Commencement Address – The students gave a standing ovation; the faculty were deathly silent! « The Ghostfighters

Follow The Money Trail: An Analysis Of The Top Donors For Each Presidential Candidate

Submitted by sharkhearted on Sun, 05/27/2012 - 22:08
Ron Paul 2012

A Short Analysis of the Top Donors for each Presidential Candidate:

NOTE: These are individual donors, and don’t include super-PACS. When you make a political donation, you have to state what company you work for, and that is how this is compiled. These are not the companies themselves donating, but the individuals who work for those companies. For example, in 2008, people who work for Goldman Sachs, gave over $1 Million to Obama, and were his top donor. In 2012, Mitt Romney’s top donor, is, you guessed it, people who work for Goldman Sachs, at $575,000 and counting.

Also the lists provided are the top 20 donors for each candidate.

First I will make a few observations in regards to the numbers about each candidate, and then feel free to peruse the specifics, below:

Obama 2012:

In the $3,290,000 raised so far from the top 20 companies whose employees so far have made individual donations to Obama:

$560,000, or 17%, has come from technology firms;

$794,000, or 24%, has come from Big Academia;

$1,008,000, or 31%, has come from big lobbying firms.

Of course, these lobbyists, have the usual list of clients, you might expect, from all the “Bigs”.

This is extraordinary: Almost 1/3 of all the personal donations to Obama in this top 20 block, have come from lobbyists and their firms.

Remember his 2008 campaign about promising to end special interests?

Right.

Romney 2012:

In the $4,723,000 raised so far from the top 20 companies whose employees so far have made individual donations to Romney:

Fully $3,760,000 of that, or 80%...has come from Wall Street firms.

Of those top 20 firms whose employees have donated so far $4.72 Million, to Romney, those same firms received, in the 2008 bailouts stolen from the American taxpayer (which of course both Romney and Obama supported), an estimated $335 Billion dollars in bailout money!

Infused with $335 Billion of cash taken from the backs of taxpayers?? No wonder they are able to ‘afford’ to donate so much!

Ron Paul 2012:

In the $675,000 raised so far from the top 20 companies whose employees so far have made individual donations to Dr. Paul:

$157,000, or 24%, has come from technology firms;

$73,000, or 11%, has come from government contractors

$338,000, or 50%, has come from active duty military.

So, let me get this straight:

1) The biggest donors to Obama in 2008, were the Banksters.
2) The biggest donors to Obama in 2012, are lobbyists…for the Banksters.
3) The biggest donors to Mitt Romney in 2012, by a huge majority, are the Banksters…and the lobbyists who represent them.

4) The biggest donors to Ron Paul in 2012, fully 50% in this sample of the top 20, are from the United States active duty military. You know, the military guys and gals are throwing their support behind the guy who is supposedly so “weak” on foreign policy.

5) Go figure.
-------------------------------------------------
Here is the breakdown of all the top donors of the candidates (all data here courtesy of opensecrets.org):

Obama’s top donors:

Microsoft $348 K
DLA Piper $298 K
(International lobbying firm with clients from defense contractors like Raytheon to big pharma Pfizer to various health care / insurance firms)
U of California $262 K
Sidley Austin LLP $240 K
(Lobbying firm that has included many Big Pharma clients, as well as the Federal Reserve).
Google $212 K
Harvard $195 K
Comcast $181 K
Skadden Arps, et al $154 K

“Lobbyists working for Skadden, Arps represent some of the largest political players outside of elected office, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and U.S. Steel. And it’s the firm’s individual employees, as well as their immediate family members, who come out in droves for Democrats. Together, they routinely help the firm rank at the top of the lawyers and lobbyists industry in terms of campaign contributions.”

- OpenSecrets.org

Morgan & Morgan $136 K
US Department of State $132 K
Time Warner $130 K
US Government $127 K
Stanford University $123 K
Kaiser Permanente $112 K
National Amusements, Inc $110 K
Columbia University $109 K
Mayer Brown, LLP $109 K
(Lobbying firm)
Wilmerhale LLP $107 K
(Lobbying firm)

Finally one of the many lobbying firms who are the top backers of Obama, willing to actually admit their clients.

Representative Clients | WilmerHale

Among Wilmerhale’s clients…are a good corporatist bunch:

Bayer
Boeing
Citigroup
Deutsche Bank
General Electric
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan Chase
Millennium Pharmaceuticals
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Pfizer
Procter & Gamble
UBS
University of Chicago $105 K
Jones Day $100 K
(Lobbying firm)

ROMNEY 2012:

FIRST number: Top donors to Romney 2012.

SECOND number: How much bailout money those companies received in 2008:

Goldman Sachs $574 K $13 Billion
Bank of America $399 K $15 Billion
JP Morgan Chase $394 K $25 Billion
Morgan Stanley $374 K $107 Billion
Credit Suisse $318 K $500 Million
Citigroup $302 K $25 Billion
Kirkland & Ellis $249 K
(Lobbying firm whos clients include Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Medical, and yes, you guessed it: Morgan Stanley, UBS, etc.)
Barclays $229 K $48 Billion
Pricewaterhouse/
Coopers $209 K
(Accounting firm darling of Wall Street)
Wells Fargo $205 K $25 Billion
HIG Capital $191K
UBS AG $191 K $75 Billion
Blackstone Group $183 K
Bain Capital $149 K
Marriot International $133 K
EMC Corp $129 K
Citadel Investment
Group $128 K $1 Billion
Elliot Management $118 K
Deloitte LLP $125 K
(Accounting firm with clients such as Morgan Stanley and Monsanto)
Bain & Co $123 K

Top donors to Ron Paul 2012:

US Army $108 K
US Air Force $84 K
US Navy $84 K
Google $42 K
US Dept. of Defense $34 K
Microsoft $29 K
US Marine Corps $28 K
Boeing $27 K
IBM Corporation $27 K
Lockheed Martin $24 K
Northrop Grumman $22 K
Intel Corporation $21 K
US Government $21 K
Rangingwire Enterprise
Solutions $20 K
Corriente Advisors $20 K
Oracle Corporation $18 K
Verizon $17 K
US Postal Service $17 K
FedEx Corp $16 K
AT&T $16 K

~Chris
May 27, 2012

P.S. Have a meaningful Memorial Day…and remember the fallen, please.

Data taken from OpenSecrets.org. Great website!

Follow The Money Trail: An Analysis Of The Top Donors For Each Presidential Candidate | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

Hypocritical GA GOP Anti-NDAA Until Saw Mitt For It - Vid



Published on May 24, 2012 by BenSwannRealityCheck

Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look how the Georgia GOP nearly passed a resolution rejecting candidates who favor the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA but suddenly changed their minds.

Boston Globe: Mass. GOP moves to invalidate caucus ballots - Ron Paul backers cry foul

Submitted by redwhiteblue on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 00:02
Ron Paul 2012
Massachusetts

"Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant."

It looks like the Globe has picked up the story about the Mass GOP's attempt to invalidate the 5th District caucus and not count any of the provisional ballots cast in caucuses throughout the state.

Mass. GOP moves to invalidate caucus ballots - Metro - The Boston Globe

Boston Globe: Mass. GOP moves to invalidate caucus ballots - Ron Paul backers cry foul | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

Mass. GOP moves to invalidate caucus ballots

Ron Paul backers cry foul

By Stephanie Ebbert
| Globe Staff May 28, 2012

Scott Audette/Reuters Supporters of Ron Paul fear losing influence over the party platform at the Republican convention this summer in Tampa.

A month after Mitt Romney’s loyalists were trounced by supporters of Ron Paul in the former governor’s home state caucuses, the Massachusetts Republican Party is trying to invalidate some ballots.

The move, some say, could oust Paul backers and send more Romney representatives to the GOP nominating convention in Tampa in August. It has infuriated rank-and-file Republicans who accuse establishment insiders of bending the rules to their own benefit.

“Just because you didn’t like the outcome of an election doesn’t mean you overturn it because you have the power to,’’ said a state committeeman, Stephen Zykofsky.

Much of the ire is directed at a challenge in the Fifth Congressional District - where Romney lives and where all six of his selected delegates and alternates lost. A member of Romney’s slate contends the results should be thrown out because the caucus chairman failed to get all the participants to sign in.

A 14-member GOP committee is expected to consider whether the results should be counted this week.

Inflaming the situation is Republicans’ decision not to count provisional ballots in any district. The provisional ballots are those cast by voters whose registration could not be confirmed on April 28, the day of the caucuses. Paul supporters say it is a maneuver by the party to diminish their influence.

Even if the factors change the makeup of the delegation that Massachusetts sends to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, they will not affect the Republican nomination for president. Based on Romney’s strong primary win in Massachusetts, the delegates to the convention are all committed to vote for him, and Paul has dropped out of contention. But it could weaken the voice of Paul supporters, who had hoped to influence the party platform.

Ed McGrath, a Romney-backed nominee who lost in the Fifth District, is chairman of the committee that will take up the ballot challenge on Tuesday.

He said last week the challenge in his district had nothing to do with manipulating the outcome, and, in an attempt to dispel that perception, he withdrew from consideration as a delegate.

“I don’t think it’s an effort to get the Romney slate back on,’’ he said. “It certainly isn’t for me.’’

The delegates for the national convention were elected in caucuses held in each of the state’s congressional districts. Romney advertised his support for a slate of 54 delegates - three delegates and three alternates in each of the nine congressional districts. But Romney’s slate was overwhelmed by Paul supporters, who have been posting similarly strong showings in other states.

In the Sixth Congressional District, the only one of Romney’s six nominees to prevail was state Senate minority leader Bruce E. Tarr, who won by just one vote. The losers included state House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr.; Kerry Healey, the former lieutenant governor; Sheriff Frank G. Cousins Jr. of Essex County; and Republicans’ most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker.

But the Massachusetts Republican Party has still not confirmed the results of the caucuses. A spokesman, Tim Buckley, previously told the Globe that the votes would not be official until the party’s allocation committee certified them and that the tallies remained uncertain because some voters’ eligibility could not be confirmed. Neither Buckley nor the party’s lawyer, Vincent DeVito, could be reached for comment.

To participate in the caucuses, voters had to be registered as Republicans before Feb. 15. Those whose names did not appear on registration lists were allowed to cast provisional ballots and told their votes would be counted if they were proven eligible and if the election was narrow enough to make a difference.

But last week, the party’s counsel began telling Republicans who were questioning the results that the provisional ballots would not be counted and that the rules had never allowed provisional ballots to be cast in the first place.

That had some Republicans fuming: Why did the party print, distribute, and collect provisional ballots only to later tell voters who cast them that they were invalid? Heather Mellem, a 37-year-old Paul supporter from South Boston who lost in last month’s caucuses, said the outcome might have been different if provisional ballots were counted.

“Now it’s time for Republicans to come together, and if they’re trying to unify the party, not counting the ballots is certainly not the way to do that,’’ Mellem said. “They’re going to only offend Ron Paul supporters and make them feel more excluded.’’

She and others objected to the notion that decisions affecting the results are being made by Republican leaders with interests in the outcome. DeVito, the party’s lawyer, is one of the Romney-backed delegates who won.

Brad Wyatt, a Paul supporter and confirmed delegate, said there is a simple remedy: open the provisional ballots and count the votes that are valid.

He acknowledged Paul’s supporters hope to influence the party platform at the convention and to press for a prime-time speech by Paul but said, “We are all committed to voting for Mitt Romney when we get down there. We’re not causing any trouble.’’

“Many of these guys are really excited about the Republican party,’’ Wyatt said. “But the Mass GOP is really walking a thin line here. They’re going to really upset a lot of people.’’

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05...eMN/story.html