New RNC Rules Could Shut Out Anti-Amnesty Candidates

Hope I got everyone's attention by the title of this thread. I just wanted to make sure EVERYONE took notice. I don't believe that I am being overly dramatic when I write this. This may very well happen in our future by those in power who are for amnesty. All the GOP would have to do is replace duly elected delegates who are for a grassroots candidate who is against amnesty, with delegates who are for an establishment candidate who may support amnesty.

Some people here may remember me as a Ron Paul supporter. I haven't been here in a while because of my very hectic schedule, but I took the opportunity on this Labor Day weekend to gather the following information so I could share it with everyone here.

In case you haven't heard, there was some very fraudulent and appalling events that transpired at the Republican National Convention that people need to be made aware of - particularly of the major rule changes voted within the RNC that will directly affect ALL grassroots activists in future elections - such as Tea Party and Anti-Amnesty groups. Michelle Malkin has been very outspoken about this as well.

If you are okay with a group of insiders sitting around a table and choosing the delegates they want over WE THE PEOPLE, then this thread isn't for you. But if you happen to be a Liberty minded Conservative who has been active in your local grassroots movement to restore our Republic, then please take the time to watch/read some of these videos and articles. Contrary to some opinions, this isn't just about Ron Paul. Rather it is about the power grab of the establishment RNC against the Grassroots. These rule changes will make it much harder to elect non-establishment candidates in the future. :mad: The liberty movement is growing and the insiders are feeling VERY threatened.


VIDEOS:

RNC Fraud & Rule Changes (Plus - The RNC Teleprompter Had The Results Before The Vote Was Taken!)

http://youtu.be/f2O248VaDpA



Colorado Delegate Explains What Happened

http://youtu.be/UWCHnZ-rvaY


RNC Sham 2012

http://youtu.be/B39W91O-rUg


Ron Paul Delegate Press Conference at RNC (08.30.12)

http://youtu.be/6fruTILguQA


Ron Paul Advisor Doug Wead: "I Think It Hurts (the GOP) More Than Us"

http://youtu.be/wbrUPtwIKuk


Continued......

Bullets Planted in Luggage of Ron Paul Delegate at 2012 RNC

http://youtu.be/1TsFVmZBAWI

* Update: Latest Delegate Interviews

http://youtu.be/cOLVrfPQWZM




ARTICLES:


As you may know the Romney camp is pushing new rules, specifically Rule 15, which would strip grassroots activists of any meaningful ability to participate in presidential politics. The process has always been bottom-up, but Romney officials have rewritten the rules so that the nominee can stifle any dissent on the platform committee and even unseat delegates. Make no mistake, this will weaken the process by which Republicans chose their candidate for president and push the grassroots out of the party process.


From Buzzfeed reporter Zeke Miller: "The Republican National Convention Rules Committee voted 63-38 to approve a new rule allowing granting the Republican National Committee — and Mitt Romney — sweeping new powers to amend the governing document of the GOP.


The move came at the encouragement of Mitt Romney supporters on the committee, including Romney's top lawyer Ben Ginsberg, who stressed that it would grant "flexibility" to Romney and the committee to adapt to changing political environments. The rule allows the RNC to amend the party's rules without a vote by the full Republican National Convention. And it offers the Republican Establishment a new tool to keep at b[a]y Tea Party initiatives that threaten to embarrass or contradict party leadership and stray from a planned message." (emphasis added)


UPDATE: Locate the phone number of your state's delegates on the Rules Committee here, call them immediately, and tell them to oppose Romney's Rule 15, that strips grassroots activists of the ability to participate in the Republican platform process.


Stop the Establishment from Rewriting the RNC Rules | FreedomWorks


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RNC power grab: the aftermath

By Michelle Malkin • August 29, 2012 12:39 PM

There were several inspiring speeches delivered at last night’s Republican National Convention. Talk of “unity” filled the air. Many GOP leaders praised the “grass-roots.” But behind the scenes, the RNC power grab has exacerbated distrust between a diverse group of rank-and-file activists and party bosses.


I have no patience for the Republican party-bots telling these front-line soldiers to shut up in the name of unity — and to hide “in-fighting” because the Left will publicize it. It should be publicized. Conservative activists and Tea Party members have worked their asses off within the system, doing the groundwork of righting the wayward GOP ship from the inside. These are the door-knockers, sign-makers, phone-bankers, and message-spreaders who fueled the Tea Party revolution and who enabled the 2010 GOP midterm victories. They fought for and earned their place at the table.


I also have no patience for the sideline-sitters who gripe that rules fights are booooooring and meaningless. The Tea Party conservative activists are doing what an effective movement is supposed to be: They’ve moved on from protests and rallies to the nuts and bolts of party politics. These battles matter, because exercising grass-roots muscles makes them stronger.


Finally, I have no patience for the addled critics who think we are unable to multi-task. Yes, you can criticize bad GOP maneuvers AND maintain the fight against Obama and the progressives at the same time! It’s easy if you try.


Below, I’m reprinting the after-action report from veteran conservative blogger and South Carolina GOP activist Drew McKissick, who first alerted me to the battle earlier this week.


The bottom line: Get organized, get loud, and stay vigilant. No matter who ends up in the White House in January, no matter what letter follows the names of the people in power in Washington, the grass-roots conservative movement must be prepared to stand its ground. Forewarned is forearmed.

Michelle Malkin » RNC power grab: the aftermath

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a competition, when someone cheats, he gets disqualified. The disqualification does not make the runner-up the winner. Rather, it reveals that the man who appeared to be the runner-up had in fact been the winner all along.

In the race for the GOP nomination for President, therefore, Ron Paul won.

As the New York Times wrote yesterday,

Delegates from Nevada tried to nominate Mr. Paul from the floor, submitting petitions from their own state as well as Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands. That should have done the trick: Rules require signatures from just five states. But the party changed the rules on the spot. Henceforth, delegates must gather petitions from eight states.

When Mr. Romney and the RNC cheat so blatantly, they make the game no longer about politics: they make themselves ineligible for the vote of anyone who cares about his own morality, his own honesty or his own integrity – regardless of his politics. And from a purely practical standpoint, they invite Americans to ask if they want to live in a nation governed with the same contempt for those who don’t toe the party line as has been displayed both in Tampa and throughout the primary process.

But as a Ron Paul supporter, I can’t remember feeling so invigorated and empowered in my cause.

Not only did my candidate win: the GOP has given the Liberty movement a greatest gift it could have given us. It has induced a righteous indignation will ensure that there will be no lull in the Liberty movement post-convention or post-election. It has educated us; it has brought us together like only a common hurt can, and it has freed us to do whatever needs to be done for the cause we love, wherever we need to do it.


To those in the Liberty movement who in the first flush of anger are saying they will never vote GOP again, I would humbly suggest that there is no better revenge than success, and that success, therefore, is a dish best served cold.

Ron Paul has been fighting for the cause of freedom for 30 years. Even if Romney were to win the election in November – a possibility now massively reduced by the disenfranchisement of a large minority of Republicans who comprise its most energetic activists – eventually he’ll be just another ex-President. But the GOP’s behavior has just about ensured that Liberty will never be just another ex-movement. Thanks to GOP, a hardened, indignant and wiser Liberty movement will be as much “here” in four years or eight years as the Constitution will be.

And each time one of the main parties blatantly chooses power over honesty and fairness, it opens the unconverted to one of the most important messages of the Liberty movement: that the answers to our problems may not be found in the platforms or most of the people of the main parties that created them.

When I was observing the GOP caucuses in Seattle, I was able to ask a number of caucus goers who they voted for. Everyone I asked who was under 40 was there for Ron Paul. Everyone I asked who was over 65 was there for Mitt Romney. The younger adults would explain why they liked their candidate with passion, conviction, excitement and an unusual understanding of issues – in other words, the stuff that victories are made of. The senior citizens – every one of them – gave as justification for their support of Romney, “He’s the man who can beat Obama”. (The logic didn’t work so well for John Kerry, as I recall.)

I wanted to help them see the flaw in their answer by asking why they’d want to replace a large bank-funded, Patriot Act-supporting, NDAA-supporting, interventionist who doesn’t have a plan to reduce government spending in the foreseeable future with a …

You see, of course, why I couldn’t ask the question.

More to the point, the people who “like Romney” are the outgoing seniors. The future of the party will comprise, out of simple biological necessity, those younger, liberty-loving, peace-mongering Constitutionalists, the likes of whom the RNC has worked so hard to put down.

That’s exciting.

But things are even more exciting if I am wrong.

Think for a minute what happens to all these excitable young people if the GOP old-guard stick around for long-enough to succeed in thwarting every effort the Paul supporters make to take over the party. In that case, the GOP will achieve something that no third party has: it will make third parties credible and their support significant. We may even look back at the 28 Aug. as the day when the seed of a brand new party was sown. Stranger things have happened.

Whichever way it goes, the GOP’s failure to integrate its liberty wing will seriously endanger the duopolistic political system on which they have depended for so long because the liberty movement is now simply too large to disappear.

Whether this liberty movement of critical mass changes the mainstream of US politics by controlling the GOP, or by becoming the philosophically coherent minority that swings elections is, in the long-run, a choice for the Republican party to make. However, for this election cycle, the GOP appears to have made its choice.

Robin Koerner's blog | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

"Tis the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."

Governing through intimidation does not grease the wheels of democracy. It is a display of arrogance and a display of ruling a country or party rather than leadership participating. Are'nt those qualities that I hear us complaining about with the present administration? This was not about Ron Paul, it was about absolute control.

So, we have one candidate accused of accepting illegal votes and one not counting the oppositions votes received. How large or small is the difference? How does that advance belief in our system?

Thank you Chole24!

That video footage of the teleprompter is absolutely amazing! Speaker John Boehner was just on a script!

W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

"Tis the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."

Governing through intimidation does not grease the wheels of democracy. It is a display of arrogance and a display of ruling a country or party rather than leadership participating. Are'nt those qualities that I hear us complaining about with the present administration? This was not about Ron Paul, it was about absolute control.

So, we have one candidate accused of accepting illegal votes and one not counting the oppositions votes received. How large or small is the difference? How does that advance belief in our system?

Thank you Chole24!

---

You're very welcome kevinssdad. I just hope more people will take the time to view this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

That video footage of the teleprompter is absolutely amazing! Speaker John Boehner was just on a script!

W

---

I KNOW! How could they possibly think they could get away with it without anyone finding out??? But the more important question is, what can ordinary citizens do about this power grab?

"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods." - H.L. Mencken

Just wanted to update this thread to make sure it has the most accurate information. According to this delegate, the RNC rule to replace delegates was defeated. However, they kept the rule which allows them (RNC) to change their rules at any time during a campaign. (which they had been doing anyway against Ron Paul delegates during the caucuses) So basically nothing has really changed since they can pretty much do whatever they want and the grassroots will not have a say.

http://youtu.be/5ibZIw9P3pc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chloe24

I KNOW! How could they possibly think they could get away with it without anyone finding out??? But the more important question is, what can ordinary citizens do about this power grab?

---

If the two party system is the best we can have, both parties MUST have their foundations shaken simultaneously!

The only way that I and others (numbers growing, modestly but growing) have come up with to shake both is to vote for neither party's candidate, which they both deserve our "no cofindence" vote this election. Without adequate time to promote and advance a candidate or causes we are going to vote for ourselves and encourrage others to vote for themselves.

We have looked at other other politicians that may be acceptable to cast votes for, however, the problem is that they are members of one or the other major party. It seems to be a consenus of opinion that shaking up a candidate is inadequate. BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES need to receive the message that we are displeased with the status quo.

Voting for ourselves, we believe, says that we, non-politicians, have more faith in ourselves than we have with the parties and/or their chosen candidates participating in the political arena.

Should those that vote in this manner be adequate to receive recognition, whether this election or later elections, we may cause one of two results. In essence just a quiet revolution. Voters rather than large contributors will again be pertinent in elections and one or both parties pay voters heed, or two, a new party will emerge.

I cannot see any harm to democracy in either result

Your comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Voting for ourselves, we believe, says that we, non-politicians, have more faith in ourselves than we have with the parties and/or their chosen candidates participating in the political arena.

Should those that vote in this manner be adequate to receive recognition, whether this election or later elections, we may cause one of two results. In essence just a quiet revolution. Voters rather than large contributors will again be pertinent in elections and one or both parties pay voters heed, or two, a new party will emerge.

I cannot see any harm to democracy in either result

Your comment?

---

Right you are kevinssdad. And thanks chloe24 for bringing us updates on this important matter, you're helping to open the eyes of everyone around here and those visiting the site. they need to spread the message to other online communities.

Romney and the establishment, which Romney has shown last week that he is very much a part of, are afraid of the possibilities of a grassroots movement rising up and taking control of the party and firing everyone currently at the top. So what do they do? They attempt to shove these pathetic rule changes through. But they're sadly mistaken to believe they can get away with it. We will not forget. They will never ever have the power to control who I vote for and if I want to vote for none of the above this November the 6th, I will.

The GOP is insuring it's destruction, but out of ashes will rise a new party not beholden to the old leadership, but a new, younger, bolder leadership. This new party, I hope, will adopt a new name, "The People's Party of America" to leave behind the stained and rotten "Republican" name that it has become.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by googler

Right you are kevinssdad. And thanks chloe24 for bringing us updates on this important matter, you're helping to open the eyes of everyone around here and those visiting the site. they need to spread the message to other online communities.

Romney and the establishment, which Romney has shown last week that he is very much a part of, are afraid of the possibilities of a grassroots movement rising up and taking control of the party and firing everyone currently at the top. So what do they do? They attempt to shove these pathetic rule changes through. But they're sadly mistaken to believe they can get away with it. We will not forget. They will never ever have the power to control who I vote for and if I want to vote for none of the above this November the 6th, I will.

The GOP is insuring it's destruction, but out of ashes will rise a new party not beholden to the old leadership, but a new, younger, bolder leadership. This new party, I hope, will adopt a new name, "The People's Party of America" to leave behind the stained and rotten "Republican" name that it has become.

---

Fantastic idea, Thank you. I cannot bring myself to ever vote Republican again. Voting for myself is much preferrable. Remember both parties are in this together. It is time to do something.

I am so glad this thread is getting more views.

Obviously, the system is rigged where our only choices are those from the 2 party system. Speaking as a Ron Paul supporter and based on my experience as such, the biggest obstacle we would have in promoting true independent/grassroots parties in America is THE MEDIA. They are completely under control.

Case in point: Ron Paul visited over 30 packed college campuses this year without any coverage. Perhaps if more Americans saw the following footage in the news, the momentum would have shifted to Ron Paul, as the large crowds he drew this year, were very similar to the ones Obama drew in 2008:


http://youtu.be/2HQeTMFCizU

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - John Adams

If I may suggest somethng from experience I found that I am more attentively received when I leave past preferences politically in the past, whether that is candidate preferences or party preferences.

Today I have no party, I have no preferred candidate. I truly do not care if the dems or the repubs first respond to us, or if another party materializes.

For democracy to work the citizen voter has to be, has to be more important than how deep is this voter's pocket (contributions). The country has to be more important than the ego of the candidate or the party. When I seem to be pro party or candidate my listener is less attentive.

My message with others is that the continuation of Constitutional Democracy is the most important consideration from any party or candidate.

My personal view truly, becasue of all the gerrrymandering that has hapopened, my view is that I'd like to see non-partisan congressional elections. (I emphasize personal view.) More on this can be discussed later.

If leadership should develop, so be it! Maybe a party develops and we get lead to run-off elections, so be it. If one of the existing political organizations recognize the error of their past ways, so be it. If a strong leader from an existing party becomes our leader, one among us or that will be among us becomes our leader, so be it, because he/she is truly of very popular and strong principles, so be it.

I believe personally, that we are about prompting government of the people, by the people and for the people. That phrase from revolutionary times still is the best way to advance principles and democracy.

WE, those that demand principles and fairness in elections leading to governors, must not seem to be disgruntled voters, but voters standing fo righteous principles.

Okay, can we all agree that Obama must go? If so, who is left that doesn't support open borders, amnesty for illegals, tuition assistance for illegals, driver's licenses for illegals, and does support a nation-wide E-Verify program? Who has said that Arizona's immigration law should be a "model" for the country? Who has said that illegals will self-deport if we take away all the magnetes that draw them, including jobs? Additionally, who supports English as our official language and has said he would veto the Dream Act? Who said, the 11 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the United States need to “get in line behind everyone else” by returning to their native countries and applying for legal status?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Regardless of party, I see Romney as our best bet for "hope and change" on the illegal immigrant front. For anyone that disagrees, I challenge you to present your candidate of choice and tell us what he or she will do to deal with illegal immigration and border security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Okay, can we all agree that Obama must go? If so, who is left that doesn't support open borders, amnesty for illegals, tuition assistance for illegals, driver's licenses for illegals, and does support a nation-wide E-Verify program? Who has said that Arizona's immigration law should be a "model" for the country? Who has said that illegals will self-deport if we take away all the
that draw them, including jobs? Additionally, who supports English as our official language and has said he would veto the Dream Act? Who said, the 11 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the United States need to “get in line behind everyone else” by returning to their native countries and applying for legal status?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Regardless of party, I see Romney as our best bet for "hope and change" on the illegal immigrant front. For anyone that disagrees, I challenge you to present your candidate of choice and tell us what he or she will do to deal with illegal immigration and border security.

---

Hi MW,

Unfortunately, they never give us any real choices so we always are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I recall having these discussions with you in the past. It's too late in the game to do anything now. That's why people need to truly research all candidates by INDEPENDENT sources (Not through the MSM), BEFORE elections are right on top of us. How did people here feel about voting for McCain (Mr. Amnesty himself) just so that Obama wouldn't get in? See the choices they give us? There is no choice. It's all fixed. Americans are easily swayed by the attention the corrupt media focuses on one candidate. The media builds up the momentum over their candidate of choice and completely blacklists and marginalizes any other candidate that they fear will ruin their agenda.

The majority of conservatives are very unhappy with Romney because he's not at all a true conservative and has flip flopped on mostly everything. The only reason they are lining up now, is because, just like with McCain, they don't want Obama to be reelected. So... it is hold your nose time all over again. Is that anyway to vote? Out of fear and not principles? I'm not blaming the voters because we are all basically forced into this position.

However, there does need to be a major shift in our belief system that there is any difference between the two parties. It is a false paradigm meant to keep us divided so that we are more easily controlled. Both parties serve the same masters - and it aint us! If you look at our past history, we were never meant to have political parties. John Adams warned us about it. But enough of my rant. I'm getting off topic here. Discussing candidatess was not the main point of this thread.

It was to point out the corruption and specifically the rule changes that were made during the RNC. Unless they change, any future grassroots candidates you may happen to support for example, an anti-amnesty candidate, may not make it through because the establishment wants their own people in - and one of them might be a pro-amnesty candidate... which, if I may remind people, the establishment Republicans were pushing amnesty down our throats when Bush Jr. was in office. Americans have very short memories when their party is no longer in power.

I found an article from Freedom works that maybe explains the rule changes more clearly:


Yesterday’s fight offers a sobering glimpse of what life will be like for conservatives in a Romney Administration. It proves once again that sometimes we have to beat the Republicans before we can beat the Democrats.

In Terms of Substance

Last Friday, August 24th, longtime GOP lawyer and Romney advisor Ben Ginsberg surprised Rules Committee members by proposing some rules changes that, on reflection, are almost certainly intended to consolidate control of the party in Washington and head off a conservative challenge to President Romney in 2016.

The proposed changes would do two main things:

1. Amend existing Rule 12 to hand members of the Republican National Committee, for the first time, the power to change the party's rules on the fly between national conventions. (National conventions only take place during presidential election years.) The RNC may not amend Rule 12, however; that privilege remains reserved to a national convention. Three-fourths of RNC members must approve a proposed rules change for it to take effect.

Comment: This is unprecedented. It would give RNC members a new power to circumvent rules adopted by a national convention. And it actually bars the RNC from devolving this new power back to the states. One can easily see how campaigns would take advantage of this power to shape and control the presidential delegate-selection process, and how special interests would use it to shape the national platform to benefit themselves.

2. Amend existing Rule 15 to allow the presumptive presidential nominee to “disavow” duly elected delegates and force state parties to hold new elections to replace any delegate or alternate deemed unacceptable by the presumptive presidential nominee. (Note: The proposal also contained a provision altering the method of allocating delegates, in order to front-load and shorten the presidential primary calendar.)

Comment: One can imagine the influence this change would give a presumptive nominee over any delegate that doesn’t toe the line. He could, in effect, choose the people who are to choose him. It’s not hard to imagine the temptation a campaign would feel to use this power to intimidate delegates and to reward friends, supporters, and campaign contributors.

Unfortunately, the proposed change to Rule 12 passed. Thankfully, the proposed changes to Rule 15 were stopped. But a version of the “disavowal” provision did pass, touted by the insiders as a "compromise."

Under this “compromise,” a new Rule 16 was added to stop an alleged “faithless elector” problem -- delegates who run claiming to support one candidate but then vote for another at the Convention. The new Rule 16 requires that a delegate who attempts to violate his binding pledge to a candidate under state law or state party rules shall be deemed to have resigned and the Secretary of the Convention must record the improper vote as it should have been cast based on state law or party rule. This compromise was supported by conservative stalwart James Bopp, as well as Ron Kaufman and Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Blackwell opposed the compromise because it retained the Rule 12 change.

As long as the RNC can change the rules between conventions, the proposed changes to Rule 15 that we managed to stop could easily be revived at any time, without a vote at a National Convention. Since the RNC usually follows the lead of its Chairman, and the Chairman has powerful incentives to go along with an incumbent Republican President, it should be easy for Team Romney to change the party rules pretty much any time at their pleasure. This should trouble every Republican.

At a minimum, the effect of the new rules will be to empower insiders over the broad party electorate and to discourage grassroots activists from taking part in the process. The new rules will thus have a chilling effect on intra-party debate, including debate over the National Platform and, of course, on future rules changes. The “Inner Circle” has scored quite a coup.

The rules package, containing the insider’s compromise, passed by a decisive vote of 78 to 14. Unfortunately, the Rule 12 change (permitting the RNC to change the rules between conventions) remained in the package, unaltered. Which, of course, means that the Rule 15 change (giving the presumptive nominee the ability to hire and fire delegates based on their perceived loyalty) can be imposed later, without a vote.

The package then went immediately to the full Convention for approval. On the convention floor, Governor Sununu offered it as a “strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years, and with no debate or even mention of the controversy over Rule 12, Speaker Boehner then called for the ayes and noes. The crowd roared loudly, on both sides of the question. Despite the “noes” being (in this hearer’s estimate) louder than the “ayes,” Boehner hastily gaveled the matter closed, declaring: "In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the resolution is adopted."

Apparently, someone at RNC was able to predict the future, because this sentence had been helpfully written out for him in advance, and included in his teleprompter script.

Boehner's scripted announcement provoked cries from the crowd of "No!", "Boo!", "Roll call!" and "Division of the house!". But the microphones had been turned off. Boehner pretended not to hear.

The Fix Was In

The will of the delegates did not matter. The "Inner Circle" had decided.

What does the RNC power grab mean for the future?

1) Beginning today, the GOP will be much less representative of state parties and voters -- and much more representative of whichever interests are smart and powerful enough to dominate the RNC.

2) The conservative grassroots will now have to add “Monitoring the RNC” to their “eternal vigilance” list.

What should our next steps be?

1) Between now and November 6th, our main focus should be the elections. We must fire Barack Obama and elect a new wave of true fiscal and constitutional conservatives to the U.S. Senate to reinforce allies like Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.

2) But starting today, we must also work to ensure the RNC doesn't actually use its new power to change the rules on the fly.

3) In four years, we must amend the rules at the national convention to decentralize power and restore the status quo ante.

Let's take the Republican party out of the hands of insiders and centralizers, and make it a bottom-up party again. That means doing the hard work of getting elected to local and state committees, adopting resolutions, buttonholing RNC members, etc.

All that said, let's face it. This is a slap in the face to the countless Americans who are trying to effect change from the bottom up. We must decide whether and to what extent we want to remain engaged in a Republican Party whose establishment clearly does not want our input. My own personal opinion is we should exhaust all our options to reverse the power grab before we even think of "walking out."

The RNC power grab has succeeded, for now. We’ll be back.

Romney's "RNC Power Grab": What Really Happened | FreedomWorks

Chloe, MW, I loved reading both of your posts. I do agree that Obama must go. I do agree that Romney with the endorsement of other republicans made rules that displayed their intention to be rulers rather than governors. As odd as it may seem, I am on the side of both of you, because I see all of us here as real Americans struggling for what America means and was meant stand for.

Matter of fact, there were people here in America that eventually composed the Constitution that had vehement disagreements, it is what happens in revolutionary times. Eventually consensus of opinion will prevail, and majorities wil find ways to agree on something of principle.

As I posted on another thread this morning, for hundreds of years political parties struggled to become the superior party, now that struggle, because of two dominant parties, that struggle has digressed into desire to be THE PARTY. Consequences of that is that the adage "all politics is local," then is irrelavent.

It is unfortunate that change comes slowly. This immigration fight has been years and years developing. I liken this now to a flood. After the flood has begun we have to wait for the worst to happen before we can repair the damage. It is very evident that neither party, after nearly three decades, that neither party has any desire to curb immigation, legal or illegal. So, we need to overcome that while trying to overcome power brokers in both parties simltaneously. History says that it s not likely at all to happen in one election cycle. I have to accept realism. Thus for our purposes, we may have to watch it become worse (as a flood) while we return concensus of opinion to the common sense of our forefathers. Best we might achieve on immigration is NO AMNESTY on immigration, I pray for that daily.

We must become a democracy again controlled by voters, as the national debt has risen so has costs of running a campaign, on both sides. Ever wonder if that might be related. In terms of big money, big contributors it is significant if not related.

Chloe, I think it is about politics. I have friends that are advocates of either party, a few politicians of both parties show some sense that they are serving the public good. But, they get to Washington and it becomes a pressure cooker of having to serve the party ahead of the public or your re-election is nothing but a dream. Probably taught to both parties by Johnson.

Someone on this thread mentioned rising from the ashes. Because of scars left on many from wounds from either party, prejudices exist. It is America that has to rise from the ashes. A friend of mine, one a dem and one a rep, watched the Tea party develop. Neither the dem or rep was comfortable. We watched the Occupiers develop, neither the dem or the rep was comfortable. Both sides are consumed with self interest, it seemed.

The point made evident to me became that for a new wave to return control of common sense to America then the new wave would have to project little if any relationshhip to either major party. That probably means politicians that have never served under one political banner or the other unless that politcian is near mystical in crowd pleasing. We do not need one of those either, history would indicate that mystical people in politics beome dictaters.

All that said, I do not object to one of the existing parties becoming the new leadership if they will or can. However, because of the aformentioned prejudices, I do not beleive that can be achieved, prejudices will prevent consensus of opinion.

Your responses are anticipated cheerfully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Chloe, MW, I loved reading both of your posts. I do agree that Obama must go. I do agree that Romney with the endorsement of other republicans made rules that displayed their intention to be rulers rather than governors. As odd as it may seem, I am on the side of both of you, because I see all of us here as real Americans struggling for what America means and was meant stand for.

Matter of fact, there were people here in America that eventually composed the Constitution that had vehement disagreements, it is what happens in revolutionary times. Eventually consensus of opinion will prevail, and majorities wil find ways to agree on something of principle.

As I posted on another thread this morning, for hundreds of years political parties struggled to become the superior party, now that struggle, because of two dominant parties, that struggle has digressed into desire to be THE PARTY. Consequences of that is that the adage "all politics is local," then is irrelavent.

It is unfortunate that change comes slowly. This immigration fight has been years and years developing. I liken this now to a flood. After the flood has begun we have to wait for the worst to happen before we can repair the damage. It is very evident that neither party, after nearly three decades, that neither party has any desire to curb immigation, legal or illegal. So, we need to overcome that while trying to overcome power brokers in both parties simltaneously. History says that it s not likely at all to happen in one election cycle. I have to accept realism. Thus for our purposes, we may have to watch it become worse (as a flood) while we return concensus of opinion to the common sense of our forefathers. Best we might achieve on immigration is NO AMNESTY on immigration, I pray for that daily.

We must become a democracy again controlled by voters, as the national debt has risen so has costs of running a campaign, on both sides. Ever wonder if that might be related. In terms of big money, big contributors it is significant if not related.

Chloe, I think it is about politics. I have friends that are advocates of either party, a few politicians of both parties show some sense that they are serving the public good. But, they get to Washington and it becomes a pressure cooker of having to serve the party ahead of the public or your re-election is nothing but a dream. Probably taught to both parties by Johnson.

Someone on this thread mentioned rising from the ashes. Because of scars left on many from wounds from either party, prejudices exist. It is America that has to rise from the ashes. A friend of mine, one a dem and one a rep, watched the Tea party develop. Neither the dem or rep was comfortable. We watched the Occupiers develop, neither the dem or the rep was comfortable. Both sides are consumed with self interest, it seemed.

The point made evident to me became that for a new wave to return control of common sense to America then the new wave would have to project little if any relationshhip to either major party. That probably means politicians that have never served under one political banner or the other unless that politcian is near mystical in crowd pleasing. We do not need one of those either, history would indicate that mystical people in politics beome dictaters.

All that said, I do not object to one of the existing parties becoming the new leadership if they will or can. However, because of the aformentioned prejudices, I do not beleive that can be achieved, prejudices will prevent consensus of opinion.

Your responses are anticipated cheerfully.

---

I think you are right about getting regular people in that have little or nothing to do with either parties. But it is not going to be easy with these new RNC rules in place. Plus, there is complete control over the media, so that is another area that WE the PEOPLE need to figure out how to work around if we want to give our grassroots candidates exposure.

61 Days to Fight!

Go here:

http://www.alipac.us/f8/61-days-figh...7/#post1302020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chloe24

I think you are right about getting regular people in that have little or nothing to do with either parties. But it is not going to be easy with these new RNC rules in place. Plus, there is complete control over the media, so that is another area that WE the PEOPLE need to figure out how to work around if we want to give our grassroots candidates exposure.

---

Yikes, you do ask the tough questions - had me laughing at myself for a moment. Laughng at myself because I do not even use the "new medias" I really never anticipated needing them, faceebook and twiiter. I still think the telephone and especially the cell phone are wonderful communication tools.

What have we learned recently about getting attention? From my perspective, I've seen that noise gets attention. Tea partyers and ocupiers both used it. Worked well for some time, but the energy dissipates, evaporates. I've seen that happen before in some things that I've been a part of. Tea was more successful than Occupy. Just my perspective developed from distant observation.

I'd begin somewhat quietly, building to a crescendo in due time. Build with a few committed beleivers, ones who would stay involved through the daily ups, and the downs, then begin as an audible whisper once the core group had agreed on direction. If that direction was sensible, all always committed to integrity of the message, the wave will attract others and additional talents needed to advance the cause. In other words, learn to crawl before standing up to walk. Noise will have its place when organization is effectively effecient enough to emerge as a deveolped infant.

Media loves to report two things in general, bad news, and good news. Or failure and successs. Having achieved some level of success prior to being noticed in my opinion would be beneficial.

I have a couple ideas about getting attention when the time came, but those are premature, others may have better ideas or experiences to draw from. For instance, I beleive that you have been closer to the "arena" than I, I woud be certainly looki to you to lead me in many areas, or you or others to lead if we were to be a part of the original core group. This would be decided by the organizers, core group, but a core group willing to share responsibilty and success.

Now, I tossed out some thoughts, yours are....and anyones thoughts and ideas?