Mitt Doesn't Have the Delegates - Yet

The one great thing about this four man race is that it's busting up the Establishment's Mittmentum, much to the chagrin of one Barbara Bush. You've got this from Real Clear Politics, where they try to project the delegate count through June:

So what’s the bottom line here? Romney ends up with 1,071 delegates, still short of the nomination.  Now, there are a few important caveats.  First, there are 114 unpledged RNC delegates, who can vote for anyone.  Second, there are another 86 delegates in states that have already voted that have yet to be allocated.  Romney will probably get somewhere between a third and half of these delegates.
So a brokered convention is still a long shot, but (1) note how long it takes Romney to get into range; and (2) recall that we’ve perhaps been too generous with Romney in our delegate allocations in New York, Texas and California, especially after the brutal March he is likely about to have.

Ok, what's really clear to me is that most of us are totally ignorant of all this delegate business. We have no clue  how all this works, they don't teach it in Civics. They didn't teach it back when they really did have Civics class. Why? Because they don't want you to understand how the game is really played. The masses go "vote" for their man, which has never bothered the Elite because their man has always been given the 1st class "Edward Bernays" PR that would make the masses flock to them. Thus, they rarely have had to employ the Party shenanigans of "rule changes" and delegate manipulation. Lest you think that the Elite are not aware of the delegate process, recall that Catherine Bliesh was a Ron Paul delegate in 2007 from Missouri and got put on a terrorist watch list for it. They'll always tell you of what they're afraid of. But here's the kicker, those 114 unpledged delegates are most likely Ron Paul people, as the libertarian brand of conservatives have been studying this Gordian Knot for a few years now and have been working tirelessly to take back the system.

From the Washington Times:

Ron Paul’s Georgia supporters succeeded in taking over a delegate-selection convention in a populous county on Saturday and nearly succeeded in another densely populated urban-suburban county.
The Texas congressman’s forces took over the DeKalb County delegate-selection convention in eastern metropolitan Atlanta. The mostly young, well-educated and well off Paul partisans nearly did so in Cobb County in northern metropolitan Atlanta, Republican convention participants in the state told The Washington Times.

Larry McDonald would be proud!

Newt is not to be trusted -Larry McDonald,
Patriot and Martyr for Liberty

In 1981 this writer asked Georgia Congressman Larry McDonald for an evaluation of the rising Republican star from his neighboring 6th District. His reply was surprising at the time. Newt Gingrich, he said, was a devious and ambitious politician masquerading as a conservative and not one to be trusted. Dr. McDonald said, to obstruct and to undermine support of conservative members of Congress for some of McDonald's legislative efforts. This was particularly disturbing since Rep. McDonald was the most conservative member of Congress by virtually all rating systems and would have been a natural ally of Gingrich if Gingrich were truly conservative.  -Devvy Kidd

If Paul is Unelectable, then who the HELL Is?

You may not agree with all this, but if we don't have it out now, the liberals most surely will in a contest with Obama (or whoever they might put in his place--don't discount that possibility.) This is a great piece by Evan Mazur that just goes down the line with our GOP candidates. Here are the choice bits:

"Ron Paul is unelectable". You hear it all the time from the mainstream media and "conservative" commentators. Ron Paul says the war on drugs is unconstitutional and a failure just like the prohibition of alcohol? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that the Federal Reserve, the Communist Manifesto's central bank of the 5th plank, is a failure and should be abolished? Unelectable!

...

But somehow the media, the pundits, and the blowhard commentators are very reluctant to call any other Republican 'unelectable', even if the truth is staring them right in the face. If they were to expose the other candidates' hypocrisy by comparing them to the Republican Party platform that supposedly espouses Constitutionally limited government, low taxes, and low spending, it might go a little something like this:

...

Mitt Romney said, 'We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them; I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.' Mitt Romney described his political views as 'progressive'. When asked if his MA health care mandate, which made up nearly 1/3 of of the state's $1.3 billion deficit in 2009, would be a 'good model for the nation', Mitt Romney replied "well I think so", and White House records show that Romney's health care advisers went on to help craft Obamacare. ...Mitt Romney is unelectable.

...

Newt Gingrich said the book that best defined him was Alvin Toffler's The Third Wave, which described our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.” Newt Gingrich repeatedly praised liberal champion Franklin Roosevelt as "the greatest democratic president of the 20th century and in my judgment the greatest president of the 20th century." Newt Gingrich said he would "reluctantly and sadly" support the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill of 2008. ...Perhaps Newt Gingrich should be considered unelectable.

...

Rick Santorum voted to increase the size, scope, and cost of the Department of Education by supporting the No Child Left Behind Act. Rick Santorum voted to support the Bush Medicare D drug expansion program, and I'll remind you that former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker referred to it as "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s." During the 2008 GOP presidential nominee process, Rick Santorum stated 'If you're a conservative there really is only one place to go.. Mitt Romney'. ...Rick Santorum is unelectable.

Read the rest..

Consider the wide support that Ron Paul is receiving from liberals and independents. I've heard some try to say this means he's a liberal too! What a joke. The man has principles that he's written tomes about. He doesn't stick his finger out and check the wind, he doesn't try to be a team player and help unconstitutional bills get passed. He's the only candidate talking about the brownshirt TSA army that has leaped from the airports, to the subways, bus stations, trains, and now at interstate weigh stations. He's the only candidate talking about your right to choose your own food and medicine. He's the only candidate that has homeschooling on his website as an issue and understands what it is (looking at you Santorum (100k, really?).  He is the only candidate on either side talking about how wasteful the drug war is. It's easier for a middle schooler to get pot than beer for a reason, it's called the black market. The facts are astounding on how failed the drug war is, but the defenders of the system will never call it out, because vast sums of money are made there and the government is tied into it according to several ex-CIA operatives. Anyway, Ron Paul has such a broad appeal that there is no way Obama could hold up to him in the general. That's why they're planning this Americans Elect Party as a back-up to split the vote for those who have been conned into voting for anyone besides Ron Paul and Obama. In fact, a guy tried to get me to sign a petition for Americans Elect in the Wal-Mart parking lot yesterday. I asked him who the petition was for and when he told me, I said no way! They're CFR! And then I ran off because I had things to do, yes I probably should have explained to him how banksters control our government's policy through a myriad of planning groups and think tanks, but I had to hurry through some errands.

Some of you will say his foreign policy makes him unelectable. But the man sat on the Foreign Relations Committee and heard the same intelligence everyone else did. No one asserts that he is stupid. Could it possibly be that Ron Paul is giving it to us straight? Could it be that those who are tied in with the Bailout Banks who stand to make enormous sums off of military action, might actually be pushing war for a reason other than your defense? If Newt, Ricky S, or Mitt cared one bit about your security, they would have dug to the bottom of this financial situation and discovered the Fed the root cause and be clamoring for sound money too. The fastest way to control a large population like the US is not through bombing us or terrorism, it's through making our money worthless and disrupting the means by which we can eat. If Newt, Ricky S., or Mitt cared about our national security, they'd start drilling the crap out of ANWR, but that's not going to happen because their masters at the Fed, and by extension the BIS, don't want that. Are we getting the picture here?? One of these people is not like the other.

So anyway, congratulations, conservative wing of the Bankster Party, through the years of corruption, you've managed to allow the true slime to rise to the top of your barrel. Don't be so surprised when the majority of us don't find the slime to be electable.

Update: Thanks to Herman Cain Forums! for this little gem wherein Rick Santorum says he will work to discredit this new movement in the conservative party.

Nick Allison Calls out the Newtster

Oh my is this soooo delicously good. If you like a good smackdown, check out this no-hold bar post from Veteran Nick:

by Nick Allison, U.S. Army Veteran

As the corporate media ramps up its frenzied, panicked campaign against Ron Paul and his supporters, long-shot Presidential candidate and life-long blowhard Newt Gingrich has decided to open his mouth and firmly insert his foot by insulting many of America’s military veterans. Probably a bad move. Just ask Dick Morris. The veterans and active-duty military personnel who support Ron Paul are not the people you want to insult.
Just last week Dick Morris made an ass of himself by claiming that “no true patriot could support Ron Paul.” The comment infuriated veterans across the country who support Dr. Paul and didn’t appreciate being labeled unpatriotic by a chicken-hawk draft-dodger such as Dick. A letter writing campaign was launched by cvrp2012.com and the results were brutal. While CVRP forwarded the letters from veterans to Morris’ inbox we have yet to receive a response or an apology from Mr. Morris.
Now, another chicken-hawk has volunteered himself as a target, so to speak. On CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer,” Mr. Gingrich had this to say: “I think Ron Paul’s views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”Here we go again.

Mr. Gingrich, have you lost your damn mind? Ron Paul has more support among members of the military than any other candidate. In fact, he has more military support than all the other Republican candidates combined. By far.You have just indirectly attacked many of the people who serve, and have served, this country with your idiotic remarks. You claim that we are indecent because we support Ron Paul, a fellow veteran, and the only candidate running for President who actually supports and defends the Constitution. The only candidate who actually has a strong conservative record of protecting civil liberties. The only candidate who wishes to use our military for its intended purpose- the defense of our nation- rather than flying us around the world defending corporate interests.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Newt.
Do you know what I find to be indecent? I’ll be happy to share:
•A cowardly chicken-hawk, such as yourself, who never served in the military and avoided being drafted during the Vietnam Conflict, yet seems almost giddy with the prospect of sending my brothers to die in an unnecessary war with Iran and God knows who else.
•A serial adulterer, such as yourself, who now stands conceitedly at a podium and touts family values and loyalty.
•A lobbyist, such as yourself, who made vast sums of money from drug companies and government sponsored enterprises such as Freddie and Fannie and then went on national television and blatantly lied about it to the American people.
The list goes on, but unlike you, Newt, I have a real job to get back to.
In closing I would like to say that we, the growing number of war veterans and active-duty military personnel, as well as the millions of civilians who support Ron Paul for president don’t appreciate being labeled indecent by the Champion of Indecency himself.
While Newt is certainly entitled to his opinion, I’m not quite sure how attacking a large segment of the military is supposed to help his campaign. All publicity is good publicity? Perhaps. I’m sure he will get plenty of it.
On a personal note, I don’t really give a damn about being labeled indecent, unpatriotic or anything else for that matter. Perhaps I am indecent. My tendency to pepper my speech with expletives (like most Infantrymen) may be considered indecent by many.
I just don’t appreciate it when the labeling is done by a hypocrite and a coward such as Newt Gingrich. This warmongering politician has painted a large part of the military with his broad brush of stupidity and ignorance.
Stand by for the barrage of written statements by veterans that is sure to follow. You made this bed, Newt. And now you must sleep in it.
That is all, Sir. You may now go back to doing what you do best: looking smug, spewing pseudo-intellectual bullshit and attempting in vain to defend your horrible voting record and your reluctance to serve in your own dirty little war.

Disclaimer: As always, CVRP doesn’t claim to speak for all veterans. But we do speak for a large and ever-growing number of vets and active-duty troops who are tired of the lies and business-as-usual politics of the Washington élite.

Nick Allison served as a squad leader with 1-21 IN, 25th ID, US Army from 2001-2005, including a 14 month combat tour in Northern Iraq. He lives in Austin, TX with his wife, son and two dogs.

I highly urge you to check out Combat Veterans for Ron Paul, no other candidate has a grassroots site like it!

Newt Tried to Install Internal Passports on Us in 1998 - Guess Who Stopped Him?

I've had Jon Christian Ryter linked a long time here as I found his work on State Department memo 7727 identifying its authors. He's done a comprehensive piece on Newton Leroy McPherson Gingrich. That's his real name, ya'll. His mama was married to his daddy for three days for him to be legitimate. The back story there is pretty white trash stuff, and I don't down anybody for how they came into this world, but it would explain some of his issues. .

The question the American people—conservatives and liberals alike—need to be asking themselves is—do they want a man in the White House who has already tried, and failed, to impose an Internal Passport on them? The Soviets did it to the Russian people in 1917. The fascists in Italy did it in 1924. The Nazis did it to the German people in 1933, and Newt Gingrich tried to do to the American people in 1998.

Newt Gingrich Co-Sponsored Fairness Doctrine

In 1987, Newt co-sponsored the Fairness Doctrine, which was thankfully vetoed by Ronald Reagan.
Jerry Doyle lays on the smack - most satisfying with bonus info on Newt.

Newt Gingrich's Reverend Wright

I'm not just writing this post because Newt is supposedly leading in the "polls". I think it is instructive for those of you out there trying to figure out what is going on. How can a man who claimed to be the conservative answer to Bill Clinton in the 90s, turn around on a lame duck session and pass GATT, a law he himself claimed was not your average treaty, but would fundamentally shift power out of America:

Thank You Newt, for Ethanol Gas!

In case you might be wondering how Newt Gingrich spent his time out of office, here's this little nugget from the New American:

In addition to TARP,

Gingrich has also backed corporate subsidies of the ethanol industry for decades, and became a paid consultant of the ethanol industry after he left office. The Wall Street Journal noted April 27, 2011 that "Professor Gingrich says his ethanol support is grounded in his lifetime of studying history and intellectual problems, but what about that $312,500 from the ethanol lobby?... We've never suggested Mr. Gingrich has been bought off, though of course there wouldn't be an ethanol lobby to hire Mr. Gingrich if there weren't politicians like Mr. Gingrich willing to prop it up with taxpayer dollars, tariffs and mandates."

So if your fuel injectors quit and your gaskets get all leaky, thank Newt, for he wants you to have less and less gas mileage until you can't go anywhere but public transport. The trains await you, mundane!