Friday, November 23, 2012

How Rand Paul can Win in 2016

Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh will try their best to derail Rand's presidential candidacy just as they did to Ron Paul. They will never mention him unless he becomes a threat in the polls, and if he does, they'll call him a nut, say he's anti-American for opposing the military industrial complex, and use other garbage pejoratives. Hannity will lament that Rand is the "only" Republican candidate he cannot support. Glenn Beck will fawn over neo-conmen like Santorum again. FOX News will commence with the usual combination of blackout and subtle ridicule. The National Review will extol the most fiscally liberal, pro-war candidate. These people are not stupid and know that Rand takes after his father... a lot. In fact, Limbaugh has already mocked Rand for his run-in with the TSA, and Levin has mentioned Rand in a tone of voice lush with hatred. Phony conservatives like Levin and Limbaugh influence many voters.

The 2012 Ron Paul campaign had way more grassroots support than any other. Ron Paul bumperstickers abounded months before the primary in each state, often as early as September 2011. Romney bumperstickers were only became evident in September of 2012. Ron Paul events routinely drew thousands. Romney was lucky to get more than several hundred.

But the grassroots support was not enough. The sheeple Republicans voted in the primary for the candidate the media said "could win": Romney. That is, the one who could win within the acceptable paradigm of being the world police and continuing unsustainable spending.

What's missing from the Liberty Movement is an elite media presence. But elite media presence requires support from rich, powerful people. The American Revolutionaries had wealthy financiers in 1776, and a good many of the wealthy elite, especially on Wall Street, need to be converted to liberty. Once this happens, it will be easier for a pro-liberty talk radio show host to become as popular as a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.

As far as candidates for talk radio go, perhaps the best hope for the urban areas is Peter Schiff, who has a radio show advancing a libertarian worldview. But we still would need a conservative Christian who will speak to middle America. Most people won't admit it, but Alex Jones has influenced many people to become Ron Paul Supporters, and guessing from the local scene, as much as 15% of all Ron Paul people were directed to like Dr Paul and liberty itself by Jones. Indeed, Jones professes to be a Christian, but he isn't quite conservative in the way he does things. His sensationalism and conspiracies may not appeal to most Republicans. We need someone who can speak to conservative social sentiments while also tactfully promoting liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy without any conspiracies or obsession with globalists. Tom Woods may be decent for a "Firing Line" kind of show on PBS if the liberal PBS would allow such a show, but as a radio host, Woods's keen intellectual mind may be too fast for the average person. Jack Hunter may not be gregarious enough for radio. We need someone. If Jones gains popularity, it would certainly help, but non-conspiracy people will be better able to sway undecided voters toward Rand.

As far as television, FOX News needs to reinstate Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedomwatch, and it needs to become as popular as "The O'Reilly Factor". A Buchananite Republican needs to get a show on some network, and maybe Lou Dobbs could lean more towards liberty. Stossel needs to be put on prime time more often. We need to win these little "elections" before we can win Rand the big one. I am confident that if liberty people have half as much time as the neo-cons, they will do just as well, if not better.

Print media is picked over by liberals and shallow moderates. The New York Times will never employ another Henry Hazlitt. In any case, every single copy of the National Review must be replaced with the American Conservative as soon as possible. Get your friends to switch. The New American, The Freeman, and Reason Magazine all need to gain prominence as well.

This is not to say that we can slack on grassroots efforts, as those will have to be stronger than ever to bring about a Rand victory.

Anyway, it seems impossible that we'll have representatives in elite media by 2015, in time to sow seeds for the 2016 presidential primary election. But unless we reach the masses on this level, we're finished. The Internet and word of mouth can only do so much. We must reach the sheeple.

The Other 1% is Politically Irrelevant?

One percent of Americans voted for Gary Johnson for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2012. Die-hards for freedom are about one percent of voting Americans.

After Obama's second victory, Left-liberals were quick to conclude that people who want more freedom are politically irrelevant. Granted, a liberal might construe social libertarian stances such as legalization of some drugs, immigration "reform", and even gay "marriage" as "acceptable" stances for freedom, with all others being completely irrelevant to the "progress"ive consensus.

It should be mentioned that Gary Johnson supporters were not the same as Romney supporters. They weren't going to put up with any candidate who supported the brown-shirtesque TSA, ominous legislation like NDAA2012, a growing welfare and warfare state, a falling dollar, etc. Both Obama and Romney never once claimed to stop any of these things, with Romney only seeming to promise to slow down government growth (except for in "defense" spending).

So, the other one percent, the Gary Johnson supporters, are they politically irrelevant? For the time being...yes. Johnson failed to accumulate the difference of votes between Romney and Obama in any state, not even being able to enjoy the status of spoiler that would be awarded by sarcastic reporters.

However, Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters can become politically relevant, but they must increase their numbers dramatically.

Several ways to do so are:
1. Talk to friends and educate them about liberty. Don't just vie for their votes given their existing, non liberty-oriented ideas. Maybe branch out to them on some liberty issue they support and then give them the full dose.

2. Organize outreach programs. Educational programs such as Foundation for Economic Education should take precedence. Hand out flyers in public places concerning liberty issues or ideas.

Political campaigns need to take a back seat for a while. There is no sense in running in elections to get votes from socialists and military worshipers, when neither have an appetite for freedom. Only in places where victory is possible, such as in Thomas Massie's congressional seat, should liberty candidates be given a lot of attention. This is not to say that third party candidates such as Gary Johnson who are severe underdogs should not run. They should run, but their campaigns should be un-apologetically pro-liberty. Nor should they consume all the time of liberty individuals or distract from winning people over to liberty philosophy.

People need to stop thinking campaign to campaign, and start thinking in the long term. If Gary Johnson die-hards could become at least 15% of the voting population, they could be able to sway enough fickle and lenient people to vote in many more liberty Republicans than the three congressmen and two senators* to be in the Federal government as of 2013.

3. Give up truly irrelevant things to make more time for liberty. Sports especially need to take a back seat, unless you're actually profiting from it like Peyton Hillis. When we have more freedom we can again indulge in such things.

4. Finally, giving up is exactly what the "progress"ives and poser neo-cons want Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters to do. Winning the hearts and minds may be difficult and perhaps even impossible given the loyalty institutions of socialism tend to ensconce from people who have lived with them. But perhaps, the reason we're here in the first place is that liberty people haven't been vocal enough to counteract the temptations of socialism (if doing were possible).

5. This talk of secession is nonsense. Not that secession is bad per se, but we simply don't have enough influence in any state government to commence with seceding anywhere. We might as well theorize about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. When we reach heaven (Lord willing), we'll find out, and when there is a heavenly atmosphere of liberty in a given state, we'll discuss secession.
___________________________________
*They are Amash, Massie, and Bentovolio. Walter Jones and Dennis Kucinich are helpful as well. The Senators are Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Tom Corbett Lies at RNC

According to PA Republican delegate Anthony Antonello of Pittston, Tom Corbett lied when announcing the delegates choices. There were 72 total delegates and 67 supported Romney. When announcing the allegiance of the remaining five delegates on the Convention floor, Corbett lied saying they supported "Paul Ryan", when in fact they supported Ron Paul! Antonello, Tom Boggia, Brian Dougherty, Tom Martin, and Thomas Brown all supported Ron Paul but had their positions misrepresented by the soulless Pennsylvania governor.

Lemmings in the GOP have said that Tom Corbett is "a good Christian man". I wish I could ask them whether they think he told a "good Christian lie".

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

2012 Pennsylvania Election Endorsements

Federal Candidates
President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
US Senate: Rayburn Douglas Smith (Libertarian)
CD 10: Phil Scollo (D)
CD 11: Lou Barletta (R)
CD 17: Laureen Cummings (R)

State Candidates
Attorney General: Marakay Rogers (Libertarian)
Auditor General: Betsy Summers (Libertarian)
State Treasurer: Patricia M. Fryman (Libertarian)
PA 120 Aaron Kaufer (R)
PA 119 Rick Arnold (R)
PA 12 Daryl Metcalfe (R)

US Congressional Candidate Endorsements Outside Pennsylvania
Kesha Rogers (D) TX -22
Kurt Haskell (D) MI -7
Justin Amash (R) MI -3
Kerry Bentivolio (R) MI -11
Art Robinson (R) OR -4
Thomas Massie (R) KY -4
Randy Weber (R) TX -14

Explanations
Gary Johnson, President -Why not choose the lesser of two evils in Romney? We believe Romney will be very similar to George W. Bush or fusion of Bush and Obama. We expect from him: unnecessary wars with Iran and Syria, retention of a significant amount of Obamacare, and increased overall spending largely due to increases in "defense" spending. Romney will expand TSA molestations, drones spying on Americans, NDAA 2012, and many other anti-freedom trends. Such incremental increases in tyranny and fiscal irresponsibility are the very things people are mad at Obama for. Romney has already shown a liking for strong arm tactics in his maneuvers to prevent Ron Paul from being considered for a vote at the GOP convention, and God knows what he'll be like once elected. Finally, for every neo-con warmonger such GW Bush, there follows a left-wing despot like Obama. Although Romney may be slightly better for the business climate today, in the long run he represents a temporary slowing down and not a reversal of detrimental policies.

Every four years, sages clamber for the American people to stop compromising and vote against a candidate who represents the establishment coterie of a political party which has had 150 years to be corrupted. And every year the mindless masses, due to a prisoner's dilemma mentality and fear, vote to keep out the major party candidate they dislike most. A lot of this is due to brainwashing in the media that accentuates differences between Republicans like Romney and Democrats like Obama, when functionally they are nearly identical. Obama maintained Bush's increases in spending, and George W Bush increased the benchmark of annual federal spending by more in his last four years than Obama has in his first four years.

Those voting for Gary Johnson know that they are voting for an honest man. Johnson is actually more qualified to run for president than Romney, having served two terms as governor instead of one, and having been named one of the most popular governors during his tenure unlike Romney.

Prior to becoming governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson started a business from the ground up which would eventually employ over one thousand people, and unlike Romney, he never received a bailout.

Johnson aims to solve all the problems of the day. He favors sustainable, sane levels of defense spending, and has a track record as governor of reducing spending and balancing the budget. Johnson knows how to say no, and has the backbone to veto all forms of excessive spending. His libertarian philosophy is conducive to a small government that permits maximum freedom for all. Thus, Gary Johnson is actually different from Obama in his preferred policies. Until the GOP and their talk-radio brainwashers allow the people a candidate such as Gary Johnson, they will not receive votes from anyone who is honest and fully informed, who also cares about fiscal well-being and personal freedom.

Libertarian Party candidate Rayburn Smith understands liberty and is a fiscal conservative. He will vote to curtail waste in the "defense" budget, and will oppose the burgeoning police state mentality and draconian measures such as NDAA2012.

Rayburn Smith's Republican opponent, Tom Smith (no relation), is an idiot who does not think for himself and believes the consensus among the Republican establishment is the only standard of truth. Case in point, Tom Smith deferred to Pat Toomey and Allen West on the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA 2012, without ever developing an opinion of his own on the subject. His only opinion seems to be conformity with the establishment. Tom Smith also stated that we must have a "balance" between liberty and security. Politicians only say that when they want to take away liberty, never when they want to allow more of it. It is clear that Tom Smith will not stand up for your freedom as long as he can use that ridiculous rationale for backing down. On the other hand, Rayburn Smith makes liberty a priority will protect us from tyrannical legislation.

The video below displays Tom the moron Smith's answer to a question on NDAA.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Letter to NuPo: Wilkes-Barre Walmart has Unbearably Long Lines

Many people are complaining about the excessively long lines at the Wilkes-Barre Walmart. One commenter reports "They have like 20 cash registers and only put on 3 cashiers."

Each line is at least five customers long on any given day. It almost feels like a welfare line, and to a degree it is, since many of the people pay with food stamps.

The Wilkes-Barre Walmart store manager ought to be replaced with someone who will not force customers wait a half hour in line. There ought to be a protest and a public awareness campaign to stop the idiot manager from making our citizens' lives miserable.

Hiring more cashiers would mean more local jobs and would probably encourage more people to shop at Walmart since they would not have to suffer the inconvenience of long lines. But the miserly manager probably cares more about pinching a few extra pennies by not scheduling an adequate number of cashiers, just to give a little more money to the Walmart corporation.

But if all Walmarts were similarly understaffed, it could mean lower prices across the board in addition to more profits. Thus, the cost of a lower price would not only be felt in sweatshops in Asia but also in the long breadlines at Walmarts.

However, other Walmarts, such as the one in Pittston, reportedly get by fine without such long lines, so the Wilkes-Barre one should be able to do so as well. Moreover, the Wilkes-Barre Target and Kmart always seem to have plenty of cashiers, and they seem to be able to turn profits.*

The Wilkes-Barre Walmart's scandalously long lines must be hard on cashiers too, because if there were more of them, they would conceivably get a break instead of having to constantly scan and bag items for impatient, grumpy customers.

The goal should be NEVER a longer than three minutes waiting time per customer: about the length of time it would take to wait behind a shopping cart packed with stuff that is paid for with a slowly-validated welfare card.
_______________________________

More Complaints about Wilkes-Barre Walmart's lines:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/walmart-wilkes-barre
https://foursquare.com/v/walmart-supercenter/4b4632f2f964a520d01926e3

*We do not know how much additional profit could be generated by under-staffing cashiers, and how much this additional profit would be used to lower prices nor the degree to which it would affect the overall price of items. However, if one Walmart has long lines due to insufficient cashiers and another has plenty cashiers, then the one with long lines is effectively subsidizing, to a degree, the low prices of the one with sufficient cashiers. This is not fair, and there should be a uniform sufficiency of cashiers among all Walmarts.

Monday, August 27, 2012

The Associated Press's Puff Piece for Romney

AP "reporters" Brian Bakst and Glenn Adams portray Ron Paul delegates as the lawless ones and Romney as the sophisticated peacemaker.

They do not bother to find out whether the Maine GOP actually violated parliamentary rules or whether complete removal of its delegates was justified, nor do they ask why the GOP has broken its own bylaws to depose rightful Ron Paul delegates.

After Romney lawyers got Ron Paul delegates unlawfully thrown off the ballot in Massachusetts, the rotten AP reporters, Brian Bakst and Glenn Adams, portray Romney as the compassionate peacemaker in their puff piece.

How could Bakst and Adams be so wrong accidentally? They must have been either biased toward Romney or paid to be so. Here is their ridiculous AP article:
A group of Maine Republicans supportive of Texas congressman Ron Paul for president have been ejected from the state's national convention delegation.
The Republican National Convention's credentials committee voted Friday to replace 10 of the 20 delegates after determining their election as delegates violated party and parliamentary rules.
In a peace offering [?!], Mitt Romney's campaign has announced plans to air a tribute to the libertarian-leaning Paul during the convention.

Ben Swann tells the real story:

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Aaron Kaufer releases Economic Plan

Candidate in the Pennsylvania State House in the 120th district, Aaron Kaufer, has released his economic called PA First. It advocates various tax breaks to draw small businesses to come to Pennsylvania and create jobs. These jobs would bring relief to an area with extremely high unemployment. Additionally, in order to protect the many seniors struggling to pay property taxes, Kaufer has proposed eliminating the property tax. A severance tax on gas drillers would serve to bring revenue to the region.

A Republican, Kaufer is endorsed by former opponents of Democrat Phyllis Mundy: Tim Mullen (Libertarian '10), Bill Goldsworthy (R '10), and John Cordora (R '06). Sources close to the NuPo say he is drawing support from many former Mundy supporters as well.

Kaufer hails from Kingston, and probably has the most support there. Some speculate that this is the reason Phyllis Mundy has recently allocated extra grant funds to that locality.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

'Hollywood Berater' Reviews Dark Knight Rises

"Too much in one film" might adequately sum up the plot of "Dark Knight Rises", which involves an apocalyptic scenario, a political coup, the dark knight rising, and a plethora of new characters, including a tougher, post millennial catwoman and a new police sergeant who looks up to batman despite in spite of what others say. Besides all the typical faults one finds in a modern action movie, "The Dark Knight Rises" has some redeeming qualities, yet is not the masterpiece people say it is.

Good News First
The film addresses some loose ends left by the Dark Knight, the previous film, the primary one being the lionizing of Harvey Dent and vilification of the batman.

It also represents a major shift from previous films. Non-superhero characters play a much larger role, which is actually refreshing. Superheroes and villains from most modern films seem as though they are the only forces that can steer the plot, as if they are omnipotent, and this gets old. But regular people have sort of a complementary role this film.

However, the superheroes retain their absurdly elevated Kung Fu powers and infinitely superior intellects from previous Christian Bale batman films. Bane and the bad guys seem to be a little too overwhelming, and makes the viewer feel helpless.

But the film portrays to a greater extent the human side of the batman and is perhaps more focused on Bruce Wayne.

Catwoman
The same could not be said of the catwoman; as we don't get to see much of her human side. She plays much more of a minor role than Michelle Pfeiffer's catwoman of Batman Returns. She also lacks that "indefinable charm of weakness" that Pfeiffer's character had, and we don't get to know much about what makes her tick--or hiss. Anyway, one of the redundant action scenes could have been cut to make more room for her.

Speaking of the ceaseless action, the suspense was too prolonged, and the audience could have used a few more opportunities to catch their breath via comic relief or breaks in the action.

Why so Serious?
It is interesting how Batman went from being a POW-BAM comedy of the sixties, to an artful Tim Burton film of the early '90s, to being a collection of brooding super-ninjas of the post millennial period.
Interestingly enough, a bat just whizzed by my head as I finished the prior sentence. We've had problems with bats in the attic here at NuPo headquarters, so today the exterminators came and implemented a contraption that makes a high-pitched sound that bats can't stand. Being roused by the sound, three bats came out of nowhere and were bounding about the air. Just like batman, they were drawn to darkness, seemed to pop out of nowhere, and performed aerial dive bomb attacks (at your writer).
These bat-like behaviors must have been the inspiration for the combat manoeuvers of Christian Bale's batman. I wonder how the next generation's batman will fight?


Regardless, the NuPo movie critics tire of super-serious super hero movies. The whole point of superheroes is that they're supposed to be theatrical, since we all know full well that superheroes aren't real. In a theatrical atmosphere, we can suspend our usual scrutiny and live in their fantasy world. But the modern batman series tried too hard to be realistic, and as stated before, left a bad taste of superheroes who were not human enough.

Speaking of 'why so serious?', the villain Bane is far less flamboyant or charismatic as was the Joker. We probably won't see anybody imitating Bane or dressing up like him. Bane resembles a hideous real-life action figure of a pro-wrestler and speaks with an irritating voice.

Political Implications (or lack thereof)
Rumor had it that the film had a politically conservative message. The movie mentions that the laws of Gotham had significantly reduced crime because they had "teeth" in them, which bespeaks of the modern "conservative" trend of taking away freedoms in order to further alleged security. Aside from that, no real political bias could be found. The villains were not similar to the Occupy crowd for many reasons, the foremost of which was that some of them were corrupt rich people, the very sorts Occupy opposes. Moreover, there were good cops who showed bravery, and cowardly cops too; Good rich people and bad ones, etc. No political agenda was evident.

Rated PG 13?
The movie should have had an R rating because of its excessive action and suspense which literally causes a pounding heart. There are some dark, disturbing concepts in the film, and a sort of concise, morose opining that the characters do which rubs off on the viewer in a weird psychological way. This film is definitely not recommended for anyone under 18, perhaps even under 21. Those with sensitive hearing may want to wear earplugs, especially when Bane speaks.

Conclusion
If you liked Christian Bale's previous Batman movies, you'll likely find this one fulfilling. Wait for it to come out on video, since it's a little much for a movie theater visit.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Michael Savage: Hypocrite or Sympathizer?

Anyone one who's listened to Michael Savage realizes that his beliefs are far more cacophonous than any John Cage piece. The question is whether his contradictions represent artful uniqueness like a John Coltrane album as he would have us believe, or the ravings of a sardonic con-man of the political establishment. This would lead us to the conclusion that he is an establishment figure who sympathizes with the liberty movement, or a cynical hypocrite trying to take advantage of its momentum without disposing people to support its representative, Ron Paul.

Here are a few of Savage's contradictions:

Donald Trump
Savage has deemed Donald Trump as his ideal, nationalist presidential candidate.

Savage has ridiculed Rahm Emanuel along with his brother Ezekiel for their beliefs on Healthcare.

Donald Trump contributed a significant amount of money to Rahm Emanuel's gubernatorial campaign, in addition to the campaigns of liberals like Harry Reid.
So Savage permits his ideal candidates to be donors to liberals.

Ron Paul
Before the election in August of 2011, Michael Savage had Ron Paul on his show, and seemed to enjoy listening to his positions on the Federal Reserve and banking.

During the election in early 2012, Savage called Ron Paul supporters anti-semitic for disliking the obviously Jewish-sounding financial institution Goldman Sachs, in spite of the fact that Michael Savage himself had bashed Goldman Sachs routinely in the past. Michael Savage, an ardent Zionist, called Ron Paul a Jew hater for his opinions concerning the Gaza strip. (Ron Paul's entire economic philosophy was developed primarily by two Jewish men: Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.) Savage actually stated that Ron Paul is a progressive who may want to raise taxes on the rich, an impossibility for anyone familiar with Ron Paul's belief in Austrian Economics and liberty. Savage equivocated Paul's desire to reduce the bloated "Defense" budget to calling for its elimination, and concluded that all fans of the "crackpot" Ron Paul were people whose minds have been made feeble by excessive use of marijuana. (Incidentally, Savage himself once smoked marijuana and also appeared to like Ron Paul when he had him on his show a few months earlier.)

After the election was well over with, a man called in and extolled Ron Paul on Savage's show, saying that the establishment wouldn't let a good man like Ron Paul get through. Savage agreed with him.
So before Ron Paul gained any traction, Savage liked him. As Ron Paul started to come close to Romney in some polls, Savage called Paul and his supporters anti-semites and nuts, and now that Paul has conceded the race, it's safe for Savage to like Ron Paul again. Many fail to realize that talk radio personalities can behave like politicians. Just as Romney tries to take both sides of some issues, so does Savage insofar as he can get Ron Paul people to listen without disposing any of his other listeners to like Ron Paul. Savage even stated before he went on a rant against Ron Paul that he lamented that his Paulite listeners might abandon him for doing so, similar to how Rush's Buchananite fans abandoned him after Rush attacked Pat Buchanan in 1996 in favor of Bob Dole. When it comes down to it, Savage supports establishment candidates such as Romney.

It's no surprise that Mitt Romney's Bain Capital owns a controlling interest in Clear Channel, Michael Savage's syndicator. They also syndicate Limbaugh, so may explain why both Savage and Limbaugh fervently liked Romney in 2008 and in 2012.

Savage portends to be an "independent", but when it comes to candidate endorsements, he is no different whatsoever from Rush Limbaugh, the quintessential waterboy for the Republican Party. Savage's opinions may differ from Rush's but his allegiances are exactly the same. For example, Rush believes Sarah Palin to be a female messiah, whereas Savage thinks she's a dopey cowgirl. Yet both adamantly advocated voting for McCain/Palin.

Maybe Savage's role is to convince moderates, independents, and other disenfranchised types into thinking they're being independent by voting for establishment Republicans. Savage's method is to state that Democrats are such raving Communists that our only hope is to get Bush/Romney type Republicans elected. This is not only a false dilemma but a Faustian bargain, as such Republicans will merely slow things down and not put things in reverse course.

Perhaps Savage must work within a paradigm of supporting establishment Republicans in order to keep his job and avoid being thrown off air by Bain Capital. Perhaps Savage is doing all he can to support freedom and maintain his job. By at least having Ron Paul on his show, he gave him some publicity. In the past Savage has even questioned the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He has compared the hostility the Irish had for the British with Palestinians' hostility for Israelis while discussing the film "Shake Hands with the Devil". Savage was very critical of the TARP bailouts and of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, saying he belonged in a Just for Men beard dye commercial. It is frustrating for his Ron Paul-supporting fans to hear such talk and then see him endorse Romney. Savage could have bucked his syndicator and endorsed the real conservative, Ron Paul, but he chose otherwise.

To be fair, Savage consistently takes some non-Ron Paul positions on his show. Savage has always warned of the "threat" of Iran, referring to A-mad as "The Hitler of Our Time". Ron Paul wants to enter negotiations with A-mad. Savage vehemently opposes legalizing drugs and associates proponents thereof with George Soros. Paul believes the federal government has no authorization under the constitution to enforce drug prohibition and believes people have the right to with their bodies what they please. Savage supports Gitmo; Paul opposes it. Savage supports the use of torture, Paul opposes it. Savage has also stated that if any terrorist attack were to happen, Obama would be responsible for not doing enough to prevent it. Ron Paul has stated that prosecuting crimes before they happen undermines the bill of rights and entails giving up liberty for alleged security. (Many may remember Ron Paul's debate with Gingrich on preventing terrorist attacks.) So it seems like Savage would have to compromise on these beliefs to support Paul.

A strange incident occurred when Savage called Ron Paul a communist. Libertarianism esteems individualism and small government, whereas communist strives for collectivism and big government. At first it may seem like Savage is a complete idiot for uttering such a statement. But the statement actually makes sense if one views the world only from a foreign policy perspective, with the Neo-con Republicans on one side versus the consortium of left-communists and libertarians who oppose US attempts to manipulate the world scene to benefit elite US businesses and banks. For example, a Neo-con would be concerned whether a nation like Iran had a ruler who defers to oil men and multinational corporations. He would also be harshly critical of nations like Venezuela and Libya who don't play ball with the big boys. An example of Savage following this line of thought occurred when he expressed contempt for Manuel Zelaya, a leftist president of Honduras who tried to steal the election in 2006. The nation's supreme court ruled that the pro-western Roberto Micheletti would take his place. During a presidential debate neo-con warmonger Rick Santorum echoed Savage's sentiment when he chastised the US for not "standing behind" Micheletti, because at the time the Obama administration seemed to favor Zelaya. Paul responded to Santorum by stating that the US shouldn't pick sides in other nations' conflicts and should instead pursue a broad policy of free trade with all nations. For failing to pick a side, Savage would probably label Paul in the same camp as the left-wing Obama administration which favored Zelaya: a communist. Anyone who opposes wars in the middle east, most of them benefiting only Israel, is a communist in Savage's mind. This is how the neo-con mind works: you're either with them or against them on foreign policy. Savage and his neo-con cohorts like Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are the fruition of the marriage between warhawks and Zionists which took place during the Vietnam era. Just as people like William F. Buckley believed in wars like Vietnam to fight world communism, Savage believes in action to topple Israel's adversaries and nationalistic or socialist opponents of the international business interests of elites in the US. Those who oppose eliminating these badguys are still called communists, just as opponents of the Vietnam war would have been.
Lately, it seems the conviction has gone out of Savage's voice. He now sounds insincere, like he's faking it and just wants to play nice. Maybe it's true that Savage really doesn't care that much about politics, and would rather talk about cooking or dogs as he so often does on his show. Perhaps the politics along with his "savage" persona are all an act.

However, Savage does have strong beliefs about some things. Consider this video of him ridiculing some people for filming on duty cops with their video cameras. Savage has always been very pro-police. He also has strong convictions when it comes to supporting moderates like Romney and Jerry Brown who want to grow the police state. Savage consistently advocates low taxes, which his beloved Romney would seem to deliver on, but as we stated earlier, Savage laughably posited that Ron Paul would raise them.

On other issues, Savage seems to be faking it. Savage is a strong opponent of Obamacare, but hasn't complained much about Romney's Romneycare. Savage endlessly complains about illegal immigration, but supports Romney who was endorsed by the open-border George HW Bush and who probably doesn't want to stop it. Savage and Ron Paul criticize Fed Chairman Bernanke while Romney has praised him. Savage is willing to compromise on healthcare, monetary policy, and illegal immigration for Romney but was unwilling to compromise his Hawkish views on Iran and the Palestinians for Ron Paul.

Perhaps it is true that Savage is a Zionist before anything else. Although many pro-Israel people supported Ron Paul, most pro-Israel people are not satisfied with just supporting Israel but insist on decimating Israel's rivals, most notably, Iran. Anything less is considered to be anti-semitic to such people.

Regardless, Savage's show along with others syndicated by Clear Channel such as Hannity and Limbaugh are unspeakably boring now that the primaries are over. They involve nothing but psychological techniques to get people to vote "No-bama" (Romney) in 2012 despite the fact that Romney is almost the same person. They say things like "Romney may have done x that was bad, but Obama did y which was worse, making Obama a hypocrite for insulting Romney." And "Look how the liberal media is unfairly criticizing Romney." It's all leveraging to rev up people to vote for one of the most boring, pro-establishment presidential candidates in history that they supported: Mitt Willard Romney.

Savage had to compromise somewhere, and chose to do so with any beliefs that might lead one to support Ron Paul. Insofar as he compromises, he is indeed a hypocrite. But it seems less likely that he is a sympathizer with liberty or Ron Paul because it was so easy for him to issue calumnies at Paul and endorse Romney, again. His sympathy seems to be superficial and probably geared toward getting listeners.

Savage will ride off into the sunset of retirement while obsessing over sparse terrorist attacks, raking in the dough, and supporting faux-alternatives to Obama, when he could gotten behind the Ron Paul Revolution.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Rand Paul's Endorsement of Romney was a Tactical Error

Many contend that Rand Paul's Endorsement of Romney was bad because it went against the principles of liberty. Given Romney's record and platform, this seems true.

But Jack Hunter and others say that although the endorsement may have violated Rand's principles, it was a practical decision that will help Rand Paul in 2016. This is far from being the case. Rand Paul will not have a chance in 2016 as long as the media remains populated by its current cast of characters.

Rush Limbaugh is a de-facto hired gun of the Republican establishment. He attempts to appear like a grassroots conservative, but when it comes to endorsing candidates, he often chooses liberal Republicans over constitutionalists. Limbaugh endorsed Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan in 1996. He favored the neo-con husks over Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. He used the carbon tax-supporting pseudo conservative Sarah Palin as a proxy to drum up support of the more obviously liberal John McCain. Even Christine O'Donnell, a so-called conservative favorite of Limbaugh, endorsed Romney in December of 2011 before any primaries took place. Although Limbaugh endorsed O'Donnell, he totally ignored constitutionalists Debra Medina, Peg Luksik, Sam Rohrer, and many others who ran against liberal Republicans in the primaries of 2010. And of course, Limbaugh admitted to carrying water for George W. Bush, who many consider a to be liberal.

Limbaugh stated this when the TSA assaulted Rand Paul:
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has been detained by the TSA at the Nashville airport. He set off the alarms and refused a pat-down, so they detained him. He sent his dad a note about it and it’s become a big story out there. Now, if this had been Ron Paul, you couldn’t really blame the TSA. You have to admit, Ron Paul almost sounds like an Islamic terrorist sometimes. ha-ha-ha Gotcha.
This is the kind of treatment Rand can expect to receive from Limbaugh in 2016. In the quote above, Limbaugh doesn't place Rand in same category as his father Ron--"terrorist"; however, he achieves an important psychological objective. He associates Rand Paul with mockery. He trivializes discontentment with the TSA and trivializes Rand Paul. Limbaugh has been known to use the same joking technique to associate Obama with the DC Snowstorm and earthquakes. In other words, the listener will have a subconscious negative association created from Limbaugh's calculated jest. Every time they think of Rand, they'll remember the TSA joke.

The rest of conservative talk radio was also against Rand's father. Laura Ingraham's thing was to never mention him. Sean Hannity said Ron Paul was the only candidate he couldn't vote for. Mark Levin, who already disliked Ron Paul, became hysterically angry with him after getting in an argument with supporter Tom Woods over the constitutionality of the Libya war. Michael Savage appeared to like Ron Paul at first, even having him on his show, but eventually reverted to calling him an anti-semite.

FOX News anchormen Bret Baier, Carl Cameron, and Chris Wallace all disdain Ron Paul as borne out by how they ignore him when listing candidates, roll their eyes at him when he speaks, and ridicule him for running. Ron Paul supporter Andrew Napolitano lost his show with the FOX Business network in spite of its high ratings. Newscorp is the parent company of FOX News along with the Wall Street Journal, which had a very strong pro-Romney bias and participated in the black-out of Ron Paul.

The National Review has put Marco Rubio on its cover and portrayed him as a conservative leader. Rubio is a firm supporter of the TSA and strong advocate for tyranny. The NR already has their man for 2016. (NR did put Ron Paul on its cover but only to ridicule him.) They will either ignore or ridicule Rand Paul. After all, the stark raving warmonger John Bolton writes for them.

Therefore, the most influential conservative media didn't favor Ron Paul and supported other candidates. For the same reasons they opposed Ron, namely his support of peace, non-interventionism abroad, and ending the Fed and drug prohibition, they will also oppose Rand. Even if Rand makes some political votes to appear like the tyranny-loving Rubio, the establishment would prefer to go with a solid supporter of tyranny in Rubio and not take a chance on Rand who may revert back to supporting freedom.

The so-called conservative media controls what the majority of conservative Republican primary voters think, because they control the information. Voters will seldom hear about Rand, and thus will suspect that he is obscure, unelectable, or "out there", much as they did with Ron. So even if Rand tries to win over Republican voters by endorsing Romney, Rush Limbaugh will nevertheless ignore Rand in 2016, and most of his listeners will only consider seriously the candidates Rush talks about, which will probably include Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio and not Rand.

Moderate Republicans will not want anything to do with someone like Rand to begin with, since their values lie elsewhere.

The primary thing Rand's endorsement has succeeded in doing is alienating would-be and former supporters who are anti-war, anti-Fed, and against the political establishment. This will probably not affect the liberty movement as a whole to a significant degree, but it will hurt Rand. Therefore, Jack Hunter, who has made some really good points in the past, is totally wrong that the endorsement of Romney will help Rand since Rand has alienated many who would have been his base...unless Hunter becomes more popular than Rush Limbaugh in media and can influence more conservatives to like Rand Paul. In that sense, we hope Hunter will do so and prove the thesis of this article wrong.
________________
Resources
Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment, Jamieson & Capella, Oxford University Press, 2008
A good book for those interested in techniques Limbaugh uses to manipulate his listeners. It actually proves that those who listened to him were influenced to believe George W. Bush was more conservative than people in the same demographic who didn't listen to him.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Election Results Maps for 2012 US Senate Republican Primary

Click on maps to view them in greater detail.





Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Letter to NuPo: Notes from Meeting about W-B City Parking Authority

This is a letter by Mark Robbins concerning the latest boondoggle by Wilkes-Barre City government.

1) Leighton met privately with some parking authority members prior to the meeting. When the issue of the Sunshine laws came up, Atty Murray Ufberg (Rosen Jenkins and Greenwald) provided a legal answer as to why it wasn't a violation.

2) Alan Wolstetter (Fox and Rothschild) showed up. Nobody knew if he was going to show or not. (J.J. Murphy's relative, Patrick Murphy, is an attorney at Fox and Rothschild.

3) Desman (Parking consultant firm) is supposed to give a valuation figure tomorrow (Wednesday). We will see if it is $20,000,000. My concern is consultants will often, in response for payment, tell you what you want to hear.

4) Wolstetter is still under the $10k cap imposed from the last meeting.

5) I questioned why, in the face of the report Josh Moyer wrote, they were still interested. I told them that once a deal was signed, the relationships between businesses and city parking will be altered forever. A private firm will not care to work with businesses. We are selling our city.

6) I asked to see the financials in regards to the $ 20,000,000 number. Apparently it was pulled out of a hat.

7) If there are no buyers, the city will have wasted $150,000 - $200,000 in money. That's a lot of money for a "no" answer.

8) Remember... 40 % of the fee ($8,000,000) will not go to revenue producing assets. It will go to retire debt. That is a brutal up front cost.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Luzerne County Libraries Reject Ron Paul DVD

A graduate from King's College reports that most libraries refused to put a DVD documentary about Ron Paul's first presidential campaign called For Liberty into their collections.

Accepted For Liberty
Wilkes University
Osterhout Free Library
Scranton Abington Memorial Library

Rejected For Liberty
King's College
University of Scranton
Hoyt Library
Back Mountain Library
Hazleton Public Library
Kirby Library (Mountain Top)
Abington Community Library (Clarks Summit)
Mahanoy City Public Library
Shenandoah Public Library
Lancaster Public Library (Duke St. location)

Below are his words:
I gave a copy to public libraries in Hazleton, the Back Mountain, Mountain Top (Kirby), and Kingston (Hoyt). The only public library in Luzerne County to accept the DVD and put it into their collection was the Osterhout Free Library in Wilkes-Barre.

I spoke with a librarian there who said that since I had donated to the other libraries so long ago (August 2011 or seven months ago) and since those libraries still hadn't put it out, they must have rejected it. When I called each of them up in December 2011 and asked why they hadn't displayed "For Liberty", they all said that the DVDs simply had not been processed yet. None of them would admit that the DVD I gave them was refused, which must have been the case.

It is a sad state of affairs that people in charge at the Hoyt, Hazleton Public, Back Mountain, and Kirby libraries are so anti-democracy that they refuse to accept DVDs that feature a political candidate they presumably don't like. Other libraries to reject it were King's College, Mahanoy City Public, University of Scranton, the Abington Community Library in Clarks Summit, the Lancaster Public Library on Duke St, and the Shenandoah Public Library.

In addition to the Osterhout, libraries to accept the Ron Paul DVD into their collections were Wilkes University and the Scranton Abington Memorial Library, and Wilkes even sent me a kind letter of thanks.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Tim Mullen: Ron Paul offers remedy for steep prices at pump

Below is a letter to the editor by Tim Mullen that was published in the Times Leader on March 27, 2012.

Ron Paul offers remedy for steep prices at pump

Mitt Romney is the latest candidate to join a long line of contenders to promise $2-per-gallon gas to the American electorate. Working in the candidates’ favor is the fact that the average American constituent is too unsophisticated to realize that the president has only slightly more control over gasoline prices than he does the weather. The American public is clueless as to how gunboat diplomacy and money printing have much more to contribute to fuel prices than the president’s wishful decrees. Neither our current president nor any Republican candidate other than Ron Paul has any will or desire to keep a lid on these two major contributors of inflated fuel prices

These candidates know that hell will freeze over before the soccer moms will give up their Escalades, Cherokees and Hummers and cram poor little Johnny and Suzie into the back seat of a Ford Focus to head off to practice.

What would many of our own local folks in Monroe County do with all the extra time if they couldn’t commute two hours one way into the city five days a week? Is it any wonder why most of the world views us as the most arrogant, wasteful and obese society on Earth. Factor in our gunboat diplomacy and SWAT tactics used in our quest to police the world and ourselves in search of terrorists under every rock, and around every corner, and we are also the most reviled nation in a good part of the world.

As a believer in the Libertarian philosophy, I am against excessive taxation. I do, however believe in user taxes such as the gasoline tax as long as the money is spent on transportation infrastructure. The individual can control some of the cost of this tax by his or her choice of vehicle. One needs to look no farther than Europe to see that its tax on gasoline has prevented urban sprawl. European cities are safe to live in and vibrant economically. Populations are kept concentrated, so mass transit thrives and is reliable. Efficient traffic circles are used instead of wasteful and dangerous traffic lights/intersections.

As our economy circles the bowl and awaits the final flush, many people have asked me if there is any hope this election cycle to turn the ship around.

Slim to none is my answer. Ron Paul -- the only candidate who believes in the Constitution, has any clue about the gravity of the economic situation, and knows that we can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman -- has been written off as a kook or ignored by the mainstream media.

Some of you may call me a cynic, others may call me an America hater. My record proves that I am neither. I tell it like it is. I am guilty of knowing a little too much about the world and how and why this country was founded. I don’t like what I see.

Tim Mullen

Kingston Twp.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Leighton Cohorts Falter in Primary

Leighton's cousin Bill Vinsko and J.J. Murphy's relative Patrick Murphy lost their Democrat primary elections.

It appears as though the house of Leighton is again unable break out from the political underworld of Wilkes-Barre City. Bill Vinsko, city attorney and cousin of Leighton, lost to Gene Stilp in the Democrat primary for the 11th Congressional District. Word had it that Democrat party elites had backed Vinsko. Interestingly, both Vinsko and Stilp were King's grads, but this was their lone similarity.

While Stilp seemed like an honest activist, Vinsko was more than complicit with all of W-B city's corruption; most notably, the contract he wrote between the city and price-gouging tow-truck operator Leo Glodzik. Although the contract mandates that logs be kept of each tow, they haven't been since it was written in 2006. Mayor Leighton has refused to enforce these provisions even after activist Mark Robbins went to the papers in 2011. All the while, Vinsko has looked the other way. Moreover, Vinsko has incorporated several businesses for Glodzik and was Facebook friends with him.

The Glodzik scam or "Cars for Cash" works like this: W-B City cops call him to tow a vehicle. He then charges outrageously high towing fees, which poor people can't afford to pay right away. Then, Glodzik charges high impounding fees, so that the person has virtually no hope of ever getting their car back. Meanwhile Glodzik guts the car and sells its parts. Each year, $50,000 of Glodzik's revenue goes to Wilkes-Barre city as mandated by the contract: a sort of legal pay-off. Glodzik is supposed to be prevented from price gouging people because the contract mandates that he charge industry standard and that logs be kept of these tows by city police. Glodzik lied to the Times Leader saying the flat rate of $200 he charged Mark Robbins for a rollback tow was industry standard, when it is actually around $80.* Robbins won a right to know request against W-B City Police and Glodzik, and according to Robbins, the records they produced did not match. This is the sort of baggage Vinsko carries around.

Stilp also had a modest but far-reaching celebrity status over his activism and opposition to the PA Legislature's pay raise vote. His demonstrations involved a pink pig prop, which he parlayed into a symbol of his campaign, even placing it as the background on his yard signs. If Stilp beats the emasculate "play it safe" dud Lou Barletta in the general election this November, hopefully he will continue with his opposition to corruption and not be a rubber stamp for the wantonly corrupt Obama agenda.

J.J. "the snake" Murphy is a former Wilkes-Barre City Administrator, and is said to be Leighton's top schmooze-artist. If his relative Patrick Murphy won the primary for attorney general and were elected, there would be absolutely no hope whatsoever of any W-B City Government corruption ever being investigated by the attorney general's office. Murphy lost primarily because his opponent Kathleen Kane (no known relation of W-B city controller Kathy Kane) received Bill Clinton's endorsement. It's amazing how simple-minded and sheepish Democrats are that they would be so affected by an endorsement from an establishment sleezebag like Clinton. Regardless, Kane probably also wouldn't investigate Cars for Cash, since even the Republican attorney general has hesitated to do so.

In 2010, Leighton lost to John Yudichak in the state senate primary 69% to 31%. We were told by an old resident of Wilkes-Barre that four or five families maintain political control over the entire city. Like modern Medici, their kind predominate in government offices throughout Wilkes-Barre and Luzerne County. But their political reach doesn't seem to go far beyond city limits, as these losses seem to attest.
____________________________

* http://nothingtonpost.blogspot.com/search/label/Bill%20Vinsko

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

NEPA Primary 2012 Endorsements

Update 4-26-12: Winning candidates are in bold and italicized.
______________________________________

Criteria: Being pro-liberty and/or anti-corruption.

Republican
President -Ron Paul
US Senate -Marc Scaringi
Congressman 11th -Write-in "Repeal NDAA"
Congressman 17th -Write-in "End the Fed"

Delegates Congressional District 11
Michael Harrison
Michael Anderson
Joe Zapach
Alternate -Holly Anderson

Delegates Congressional District 17
Trent Miller
Anthony Antonello
John Manko
Alternate -Greg Sheeler

Democrat
President -Write in "Randall Terry"
US Senate -Joseph Vodvarka
Congressman 11th -Gene Stilp
Congressman 17th -Write-in "Bring the troops home"
Attorney General -Kathleen Kane
_____________________________

Explanations

Ron Paul -Republican for President
The only true statesman besides Gary Johnson to run for president in 2011/2012. He has boldly opposed the military industrial complex and the warhawks who want to bankrupt America with unnecessary war with Iran. He wants to end the Fed, an institution which many economists believe is at the root of our economic woes and causes fincanical bubbles and other problems. He is also stranger to the lobbyist and friend of those who want sustainable government. Only his plan was found to actually balance the budget. He also polls better with Independents than Romney. Ron Paul offers better product differentiation than Romney, since unlike Romney and Obama, Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home, end the Fed, stop Homeland Security and TSA abuses, and initate policies to balance the budget. These are stances Ron Paul can deliver on that Obama and Romney can't due to being sold out to the same interests. But alas, the owners of media at its highest levels seem to have a strong hatred of him. It's amazing that so-called conservative talk radio hosts haven't put their differences aside and unanimously supported him.

Marc Scaringi -Republican for US Senate
Scaringi is the best candidate to balance the budget, and will likely vote 100% with Rand Paul in the Senate. He too offers a contrast with Casey that indpendents can find palatable, including bringing the troops home and ending drug prohibition. He has stated along with top US generals that the US should endeavor to AVOID war with Iran. He is thoroughly pro-life, pro-gun, and opposes redistibution of wealth. After vetting him personally, it is certain that he is against the: NDAA, "PATRIOT" Act, TSA, Homeland "Security", PIPA & SOPA, and Obamacare. He also wants to end the Fed and to balance the budget.

We chose Scaringi over Sam Rohrer because Rohrer unfortunately has flip-flopped on foreign policy, even once calling for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. He has been endorsed by Herman Cain who follows a Henry Kissenger foreign policy. It is a shame that Rohrer, someone who has taken radically pro-liberty stances such as being against drivers' licenses, would support a hawkish, morbidly establishmentarian foreign policy. Rohrer also favors drug prohibition. However, he opposes Homeland Security, REAL ID, the "PATRIOT" Act, and seems to be solidly pro-freedom on domestic issues. Because of superior name recognition, Rohrer also polls better than Scaringi, and thus has a better chance of beating the Toomey-esque Tom Smith and the liberal Steve Welch. There are legitimate reasons for voting for Rohrer, but the best man overall is Scaringi.

Joseph Vodvarka -Democrat for US Senate
Vovarka could be termed a "protest candidate" since he has a small campaign going. But Vodvarka has some really good beliefs, including being in favor of full gun rights and of auditing the Fed. His main theme is bringing manufacturing back to America, and withdrawing from international (and unconstitutional) trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Huffington was Moonstruck by Gingrich

Check out this post on the Ob Lure about Ariana Huffington's past support of Newt.

http://obscurelure.blogspot.com/2012/03/huffington-was-moonstruck-by-gingrich.html

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Letter to NuPo: Free Enterprise Delegate

Letter by David Decoteau, candidate for Delegate in the New 11th Congressional District.
I’m a registered Republican, and I’m ashamed of the GOP.

I’m a Republican, because Pennsylvania says I have to belong to one of the two major parties in order to vote in the Primary elections. Primaries are the most important elections, because after the primaries are over, Americans usually have a choice between who is the “least worst” of the two candidates. I’d like to have a say in that choice.

Since Pennsylvania makes me choose a party in order to participate in our electoral system, I chose Republican because in the old, and classic definition of the word; I’m a conservative. Conservative used to mean you wanted sound money. Conservative used to mean balanced budgets and spending within our means. Conservative used to mean you didn’t care what people did in their bedrooms; because it is none of your damn business. Conservative used to mean pro-small business. Conservative used to mean a foreign policy of non-interventionism. In other words, “Trade with all and entangling alliances with none” as our Founders intended.

However, today I find my definition of “Conservative” to be a bit of a throwback. When I hear a guy like Rush Limbaugh proclaim himself to be conservative, but then in the next breath advocate things like a giant military and government involved in all aspects of people’s private lives; I get confused. Same with the front runner Republican candidates. When Newt Gingrich gets a standing ovation in a room full of “Republicans” for advocating “killing all of American’s enemies” and Ron Paul gets booed for mentioning the Golden Rule (do onto others...), I have to wonder, who are these Republicans? They aren’t Conservatives as I understand the definition.

But I’m not one to just complain. If I don’t like something, I do something about it. So I decided to run for Delegate to the Republican Convention, so I could go to the Convention in August and tell the party that I think the Republican’s have gone off track.

But when I got involved, I’ve discovered that the GOP machine is even more entrenched and prohibitive than it was even 4 years ago. Redistricting is one reason.

Redistricting is the process of carving new lines around the state that produce areas that make up a district. In the 2008 election, our district (then district 10) was primarily the surrounding areas. This assured that the Delegate from this district would be representative of the area (a rural resident with rural sensibilities) Apparently this did not suit the GOP establishment in 2008, and as a result, new maps have been drawn. The new districts guarantee that rural people WILL NOT be represented in PA. Each district has been created to make sure a portion of the district includes urban areas. By doing this, the GOP can select and groom the Delegates they want to represent them at the Convention. The “Common man” no longer need apply.

The GOP has tapped some of their stars to become Delegates this year. John Gordner and other local elected people are running as Delegates. Isn’t this a bit of a contradiction from the intent of the Convention?

The Convention is supposed to be used to select the Republican Candidate for President and to help shape the party going forward. What new ideas will the party get by only allowing the most connected of their insiders access to the Convention? What improvement should the party expect if the only opinions they hear at their Convention are the ones they hand-picked during the Delegate election process?

If you are a Republican (like me) that thinks the GOP is out of touch with the people; send me to Tampa Bay to tell them for you. I’ll tell them to get back to the traditional Conservative platform. I’ll pay my own way. No tax payer expense will be incurred.

I can be contacted at superiorfirepower@mac.com I will send you an email with locations where I will be collecting my 300 signatures over the next 3 weeks. Or, we can make arrangements and I will stop by your location if that is more convenient.

You’ll know me because I’ll be the guy wearing the cowboy hat or the powdered wig.