"Public opinion in the country is everything" - Abraham Lincoln.
In 1887, eminent thinker Wallace F. Campbell, writing in The North American Review, introduced the often-used term of today: The Court of Public Opinion. As cataloged by the Library of Congress, Campbell wrote: "It is commonly supposed that courts, juries, and counsel constitute the proper tribunal ordained by the people for the trial of alleged criminals. It has remained for the author of the "Court of Public Opinion" to assume that such is not the case, and that the machinery of justice exists merely for the purpose of automatically registering the prejudiced decision of a self-constituted tribunal ... a trial court whose judgment is infallible, and from whose decision no appeal lies, is a very unsafe tribunal for the people of this country to adopt." Campbell may well have had the wisdom to envision what could happen 136 years later - and be talking about President Biden's and the Left's relentless campaign to send former president Trump to jail. Attorney General Merrick Garland and his aggressive prosecutor Jack Smith are expending all federal resources to build a case that, under the right circumstances of a biased jury and a sympathetic bench, could result in a judgment that might appear infallible, as Campbell said. But the eminent thinker warns that such an outcome would be hard for voters to embrace. Indeed, the proceedings in the classified documents case are well underway. Judge Cannon has already set a trial date of May 2024, just six months before the next U.S. presidential election. Some conservatives complained that such a date is too dangerous for President Trump. What if he is found guilty of at least one charge? Democrats could not contain their glee. Running against a "criminal" would be the surest way to return President Biden to a second term. But the Democrats could be miscalculating big time.
0 Comments
In roughly the past fifty years, the term “continuity of government” has been used with increased frequency describing how the United States of America, a constitutional republican system of government, contains internal mechanisms to protect the executive branch in the event of crisis, attack or disruption of leadership by adversaries.
The term ‘continuity of government‘ became much more common in the aftermath of 9-11-01 and the thunder shock of an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC. Within the very brief discussion period that led up to the 10-26-01 Patriot Act [pdf here], literally a structural reform of the entire domestic terrorist apparatus that created the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), a bill only debated for a few weeks, the baseline was the enhanced ‘continuity of government‘ in the event of an emergency. As we have exhaustively outlined on these pages, the outcome of the Patriot Act was to create a system where every American was now viewed by our federal government through the prism of the citizen being a potential terrorist threat. The federal government aligned all of our institutions and systems accordingly. DHS was created to monitor American behavior, the TSA was created to scan American travelers, and the FBI was enhanced with resources to conduct surveillance despite our Fourth Amendment protections within our Constitution. Instead of the U.S. Govt protecting U.S. citizens from foreign threats, the Patriot Act changed the mission of government to protect itself from potential citizen threats. In essence, We the People became the suspects, and all of the constitutional viewpoints within the FBI and Dept of Justice were modified to create monitoring systems. IS THERE A JUDGE ANYWHERE IN THE US WITH THE COURAGE TO SAY THAT THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES?7/21/2023 Who is the emperor? The cabal that is prepared to do anything, no matter how unconstitutional, no matter how evil, to destroy Donald Trump. That would be Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray, and Jack Smith. Of course, this trio of thugs has many cohorts willing to do its dirty work.
What kind of dirty work? The kind that has made judges, the mainstream media, and most members of Congress fear being canceled. The left's method of coercion is well known. Cross us, and your career is over. Read Alan Dershowitz's book, Get Trump. The elites who believe they are uniquely entitled to run the country will cancel you, harass you, ruin you by any means necessary. They will go after anyone who dares to deviate from their party line. American culture has become a cesspool of abject cowardice. And by design, now that the elites — our stable of Ivy League legacy grads who grew up knowing they would run the world without having to really know anything — are in charge. We are living in a dystopia of their making. It's all about leverage; everyone has some kind of leverage on everyone else, so people do what they are told. That is how Jeffrey Epstein got away with his obscene abuse of young girls trafficked for the pleasure of his rich pals for decades. Think Sound of Freedom and the fact that the U.S. is the number-one consumer of child porn and abuse. Why does the left fear this film? Hmmm. Modern warfare has evolved into what is now termed Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW).
Even the leftist wonks at Wikipedia have summarized the evolution of warfare fairly well, in re-stating the generations of warfare concepts developed by military analysts and historians including William S. Lind, Terry Terriff, and Robert Steele:
To my way of thinking, Fifth Generation warfare centers around Information and denial of information. That could include: intelligence, counterintelligence, propaganda, civil affairs, psychological warfare, C4CI, lawfare, targeted harassment, and war as an extension of politics, i.e. political dirty tricks or outright political warfare. Thousands of Americans were severely punished for bravely resisting the Covid psyop.
If you were one of those people who always diligently wore an ineffective mask, got the experimental vaccine and boosters, or performatively practiced social distancing, you really owe an apology to those who stood up for civil liberties during Covid and must commit to being smarter and braver in the future. The Covid years mark what was arguably the greatest encroachment on personal freedom and bodily autonomy in the history of our country. The government decimated the American economy by forcibly closing businesses. It enacted unethical and anti-science mask mandates and government employee vaccine mandates, even though the Covid shots do not prevent people from spreading or contracting the virus. Many counties and cities made life for the unvaccinated as uncomfortable as possible, with some prohibiting them from dining in restaurants and going to the gym or entertainment venues. Meanwhile, private businesses and schools had their own social distancing, vaccine, and mask requirements, with even many churches bending the knee. It was at least somewhat reasonable to wear a mask or social distance at the very beginning of Covid because there were so many unknowns about the virus. Yet the insanity lasted for years, well after it was clear the response to the virus was causing more harm than good and studies showed the lockdowns were futile, cloth masks were not effective, and the vaccine was causing serious injuries. Abraham Lincoln at the height of the Civil War was asked if he thought the Lord was on his side. Lincoln responded, "My concern is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on God's side."
God’s blessing of America, like many things God does, is a partnership arrangement. For those who love our country and all for which it stands, when called to pledge our allegiance – we stand, we remove our hats, we silence our conversation. We place our hands over our hearts and we promise yet again our loyalty – as we should – to the essential intangible qualities of a free land entrusted to our care by God Almighty. Regardless of the polarizing strains of identity politics that some promote, the vast majority of Americans still hold to the reality that we are "One Nation Under God," and that, as our Declaration of Independence states, we are "...endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights... among them, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." A minute or two with the headlines of any newspaper, or the first two minutes of any news channel, are enough to tell us that we need something beyond ourselves to help us. Whatever we are doing on our own, is doing little, if anything to stem the tide of cultural divisiveness, racial disharmony, pervasive political corruption and unceasing violence. We need something beyond ourselves – to help us, to save us – to bless us. Lots to complain about, and my friends are doing a lot of that. This article brings the complaint to a point. The author argues persuasively about the reason Republican's won't prevail in the ESG debate. We agree on many issues; however, I would only disagree on the outcome, because it is still in process. ESG has a principle; it's wrong, it's destructive, but they sure believe in it. Republicans today lack the unifying principle on which our party was formed.
I would condense this reason into "the Republican party lacks the unifying principle and the understanding of the principle." For instance, the Christian Right are all about abortion, the Never Trumps are about Never Trump, the MAGA guys are into Only Trump. The big-gov R's are into using government to enrich themselves and their shareholders. They all lack the principle. The left unifies under an evil banner, and the right eats its young. Rural America is vital to the survival of this nation. It matters not only for the food and natural resources it produces, but as a source of inspiration, and indeed the best hope for the recovery of our constitutional republic.
The 2020 presidential election results map clearly shows that a conservative stronghold exists in most rural parts of the country, especially in the South, Midwest, and many Rocky Mountain states. Rural America is not the hinterland of New York City or coastal California. And yet mainstream media have largely ignored the vision and insights of rural communities for decades. How the Founders envisioned the future of America still matters. Many of the leading Founders believed in a rooted lifestyle based on land ownership and saw the republic as a mosaic of individual families pursuing happiness as moral, capable, and independent-minded citizens. Owning land was once a dream that most Americans sought to achieve, and the driving force behind it was the need to be independent from the control of others. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Madison, farmers all, and all currently vilified, would have been appalled at the degree to which Americans have now forsaken the cardinal lesson of rural life: the need to be self-sufficient. From the voices of Big Tech, large corporations, wayward governments, and the modern consumer culture, Americans are told what to think, buy, and believe. But it wasn't always this way. What happened? After reading the entire 75-page transcript of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) testimony to congress, a testimonial that almost no one in the mainstream news has written about, issues surrounding the document search against President Trump take on some new context.
The NARA officials are essentially professional DC bureaucrats with a mission to look out for the best interests of the DC system they support. It is very clear from their opinion; Donald Trump was considered an outsider to the DC system of government – and that baseline established the framework for why and how NARA took such extreme processes with President Trump. From the transcript, one NARA official says, “I am storing 555,000 cubic feet of classified national security information. To put that in perspective, the white boxes that many of you have seen in your offices, that is a cubic foot. It holds about 2,500 pages. Another way for me to describe it, a typical stack area that we store records in a Federal records center can hold about 100,000 cubic feet. And that is a room that is about roughly the size of a football field. So you are looking at five and a half football fields floor to ceiling shelving.” President Trump did not turn over the letter left to him by President Obama, nor did President Trump turn over the 27 letters exchanged between himself and North Korea Chairman Kim Jong-un. NARA was looking for these along with other documents pertaining to President Trump engaging in discussions with other foreign leaders, and NARA was angry about the perceived lack of respect shown by Trump toward their endeavor. However, when you take the current DC establishment system, look at the history of the Trump administration engagement in foreign policy, then overlay that dynamic with the gatekeeping responsibilities outlined by NARA, what you may discover is an entirely different prism through which to view the DC motives. Since Jack Smith and his prosecutors dropped a multicount federal indictment against President Trump, multiple grounds have surfaced warranting dismissal of the embarrassing prosecutorial sideshow in South Florida.
Already, Smith’s indictment faces multiple legal challenges. The Presidential Records Act, the big red elephant in the room ignored by Smith, at 44 USC §2205 (3), gives a former president unrestrained access to the presidential records which he declares to be his and gives his designated agents also access to such records. Yes, the National Archives can take control of those records, after consultation with the former President, and any disagreement on the designation of a record is to be resolved by a United States District Court in a civil proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. But the Presidential Records Act simply does not create an exception prohibiting the former President’s access to records marked as secret, classified, or confidential. Under the Presidential Records Act, Trump, even as a former president, has all the access he wants to all his presidential records, even those which may have been classified, and may give such access to his designated agents. End of story. The Espionage Act, even if it controlled over the Presidential Records Act, which it does not, does not apply to records that have been declassified by a president, who has an absolute right to declassify any document he wants. This is Trump's secondary argument against the “Espionage Act” charges, that he in fact declassified all documents in his possession before leaving Washington. But Trump doesn’t even need that argument, because the Presidential Records Act (PRA) trumps the Espionage Act on the topic of classified materials. Trump can take and designate what he wants, classified or not -- and give designated agents access to records - classified or not. Plus, the notion of Trump spying for a foreign power -- the original heart of the purpose of the Espionage Act -- is beyond ludicrous. Since Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis officially jumped into the 2024 GOP presidential primary, the Republican Twittersphere has devolved into a giant cluster of insanity.
Take a trip to your favorite right-wing account, and you’re likely to find an untold number of tweets trashing either former President Donald Trump or DeSantis, accompanied by a lengthy explanation of why his or her preferred candidate will be the one to take down Joe Biden in the 2024 general election. The back-and-forth between Trump and DeSantis supporters — which continued into Memorial Day, a day when we’re supposed to honor those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedoms — has largely lacked any real substance. The insults thrown around have become so petty and personal, it feels like watching an episode of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” While it’s completely understandable to be on the lookout for a potential nominee given Biden’s disastrous presidency thus far, overzealously focusing on a primary we won’t be voting in until February, at the earliest, distracts from current issues and plays into Democrats’ hands. There will be plenty of time between now and then to decide who becomes the 2024 GOP presidential candidate. But that time is not right now. At this given moment, we have highly-politicized U.S. intel agencies targeting conservatives and protecting Democrats, federal departments and left-wing nonprofits interfering in our elections, an establishment trying to drag us into World War III, major corporations glorifying gender dysphoria, so-called “red” states acting like blue states, leftists indoctrinating and “trans-ing” children, a Congress spending taxpayer money like drunken Marxists, a wide open southern border, Democrats attempting to destroy the Supreme Court, an inflated economy, and a dying military. We are now enduring the usual competing ads from another primary election. A trend has developed in Republican primaries that sees candidates call each other "RINOs" (Republicans in Name Only). An incumbent GOP candidate insists that his challenger is a RINO. The challenger says the same thing about the incumbent. Republicans argue over who are the "real" RINOs. These accusations appear in local races as much as congressional and Senate contests. Even the RINOs appear to oppose the RINOs.
Some commenters implore both sides to stop using this term because it is easy to make and impossible to prove. But is it really impossible? Only some of the accusing candidates are lying. RINOs do appear in many races and sometimes win. They stop key legislation or join with Democrats to create oppressive new levels of government bureaucracy. They repeat Democrat talking points. They denounce conservative elected officials while providing momentum for Democrat efforts to derail conservative initiatives. It takes only two or three RINOs to derail a bill or nomination when a legislative body is held by a slim majority. Their presence at all levels of government demoralizes the Republican base and depresses GOP voter turnout. Many GOP voters have simply given up because GOP officials appear to carry out the same policies that the base has voted against. But should we give up? Not if we understand certain RINO characteristics that make it easier to identify them before we vote. No one characteristic is always decisive by itself. Written by my brother Bob regarding Memorial Day and our family history. We have both delivered this talk at Sacrament Meeting on Memorial Day weekend.
When I was growing up there was no doubt in my mind that America was an exceptional country. We were taught in school, in the home, and in the community that this was a country founded on an idea. The idea that God granted us rights that no man could take away, that individuals were free to choose the path of their life for themselves. The only country in the world that was founded that way. A person could come to this country from anywhere and become an American. We were taught history in school, and it was OK to talk about the founders of this country praying, or to talk about them repeatedly saying the hand of divine providence was guiding them. We didn't pretend that divine providence meant something other than help and guidance from God. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we are taught, and the scriptures tell us, that this is the Promised Land and this mysterious higher power is called God. This is an exceptional country with an exceptional constitution; in fact the oldest constitution on the earth. The Lord himself tells us in Doctrine and Covenants: 101:80, “I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” and says in D&C 98:5, that the constitution “belongs to all mankind”, and then he tells us in D&C 101:77 that it “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” Alexander Hamilton, famous as the originator of The Federalist papers and author of fifty-one of the essays, said: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interest.” Nothing is judged more severely by our culture today than assertions of biblical male and female absolutes. It may be possible that we are in the final progression of God giving our culture up to first “sexual impurity” then “shameful lusts” and finally a “depraved mind”. And throughout all of this, true human sexuality has been the prime target. The enemy turns everything on its head, evil is good, good is evil, and truth is exchanged for a lie. This exchange is found most deeply in the attack on human sexuality, for it strikes us at our core. God designed the human being as male and female, created for a relationship, and each with unique purposes. And yet, this forms the focus of our current controversies. Ponder how many of our burning issues are rooted in a contrary view of God’s design: pornography, abortion, adultery and unmarried sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, LGBTQIA+, transgenderism, pansexuality, personal pronouns, gender dysphoria and identity, etc. Additionally, we have human sexuality issues that are being used as political and social hammers such as male toxicity, #MeToo, ERA, pay equality, gender roles and quotas, glass ceilings, harassment and so on. Human sexuality is at the core of all of this, and nothing seems to provoke a more visceral hostility. But we must stay true to the Word of God, or we are lost in a fickle sea of emotions and power struggles for control and significance. Of the critical forces aligning themselves in our culture today, this may well be the most perilous of all, for when we mess with man’s fundamental design, everything becomes radically skewed. Every one of the treasonous bastards you see in this photo (except Christopher Steele) took an oath of office as a United States federal employee. If you are unaware, here is the oath everyone of them knowingly signed and should be held accountable for violating.
The oath “I, { name }, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Who takes the oath? This oath of office for federal employees applies to all people involved with the federal government except for the President (the office has its own oath). So, Supreme Court justices, members of the House of Representatives the Senate, and even the Vice President all take the same oath. Furthermore, all civilian employees and government officials take the same oath prescribed by the constitution as the military (differs only in that it includes allegiance to the chain of command). No more and no less. Let’s break it down a little... In the news recently was St. George Mayor Michele Randall’s new policy to stop allowing the public to present spoken comments at city council meetings. Balancing the public’s right to be heard with the government’s ability to do its job is a delicate task.
It begs the question, can Local government entities limit public comments at their public meetings? After reviewing Mayor Randall’s reasoning, I am not sure she will be successful with her edict. But different elected officials handle this situation differently. A couple of years ago, the Weber County Commissioners answered that question with pizazz. According to them you see, it depends on the definition of the meeting room you are confronting the public in. This may sound silly but last year the Weber County Commission changed the definition of their meeting room in order to legally limit public comments they felt were keeping them from doing the people’s business. The change, which essentially limited public comment, was deemed constitutional and supported by our County Attorney.** How could this be possible? Imagine someone told you that in the run-up to a U.S. presidential election, the FBI tried to undermine a candidate at the behest of the opposing campaign by cooking up a false narrative of collusion with Moscow.
And let’s say this conspiracy implicated not just the FBI but also the White House, Justice Department, and CIA — and that nearly the entire corporate press went along with it, gleefully spreading the false narrative that this candidate was a Russian agent, running story after story of fabricated nonsense in a coordinated effort to ensure the opposing candidate won. In normal times, you’d scoff at such an outlandish story, dismiss it as the plot of some half-baked Tom Clancy novel. That could never happen in America, you’d say, where we have free and fair elections, the rule of law, and so on. And anyway, the media would never allow it to happen. They’d be too invested in exposing the conspiracy and claiming, rightly, a Watergate-type story of their very own. But you’d be wrong. All of that really happened in 2016, recounted in all its jaw-dropping detail in Special Counsel John Durham’s 306-page report, released Monday after nearly four years in the making. The big takeaway from the report is that the Obama-era FBI launched a full investigation of the Trump campaign, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, in the summer of 2016 despite having zero evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia. Whether they know it or not, most local political parties have a great deal of power. Almost all of the people we vote for have been selected and, where allowed by law, endorsed by a local political party. Most of the people who are appointed to boards and commissions in your county have also been approved by local political parties. In most places, these local political parties determine who runs our communities. However, when local political parties do not exercise their real power, the void is filled by special interests.
One of the principal roles a political party has, at least in theory, is assuring the public that its candidates have been screened in some valuable way. Anyone can put her name on a ballot, but what do we know about her? Can we know if she is competent, decent, sane? If she has been approved by a party, people have met her, worked with her, asked her questions. The question is, does a political party have a responsibility to choose candidates who are ethical? Or, to put it the other way, what is the responsibility of a political party when someone it chooses acts unethically, not in a minor way, but in a serious way? Several years ago, a nearby state's Republican party chair chose not to run for re-election, and his stated reason for this decision was, “I’m tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is." He also felt these "nuts," as he called them, had lost the party too many elections. The chair's concern is not about ethics, of course, but about the competence and sanity of selected candidates. Although he seems more concerned about losing elections, he at least seems willing to resign rather than misuse his prestige to support candidates he feels are unfit for office. My old Grandpa said to me, “Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a whipping.
I don’t carry a gun to kill people; I carry a gun to keep from being killed. I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil; I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the World. I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government; I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government. I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry; I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared. I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone; I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon. I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man; I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love. I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate; I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate. I don’t carry a gun because I love it; I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me. Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.
Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order. The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed. In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude. We have all heard the common talking point from the left that conservatives are destroying democracy. The response to this claim is the same time and time again: “We’re not a democracy, we’re a constitutional republic!” This leads us to ask an important question: Are there any differences between the two, and if so, why do they matter?
The answer is simple: There are profound differences between a democracy and a constitutional republic that are crucial to every aspect of American life. These three quotes from the Founding Fathers remind us to defend our constitutional republic with all our might. Alexander Hamilton stated, “Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.” Hamilton recognized the first of three harms of a real democracy. Democracy excludes the minority’s rights. It reminds me of the classic saying, “Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch, but a republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” April 22, 2023 – Orem, Utah I arrived at Convention 2 ½ hours early to get credentialed and help distribute flyers providing information and promoting certain desired outcomes to the arriving delegates. I was shocked when I was told, after allowing my drivers license to be scanned, I wasn’t in the database as a delegate, so I was sent to the HELP DESK. After rounding the corner, I stood in a line for 20 minutes before I made the desk. Once there, I waited for another 10 minutes and was told there was no one from my county to help me. Eventually I was led away from the HELP DESK to a dark corner where my county secretary was waiting to help. I was eventually found on the database (thank you Weber Party Secretary) and issued my credentials (unfortunately, because of the delay, I was unable to fulfill my earlier volunteer commitments). There are ~5,000 delegates in the whole state, a relatively small database to manage. When I made this observation, I was told by a nice woman, sorry, I am a volunteer. I understood her frustration and reminded her, as a delegate, I was a volunteer as well. Once in the Convention Hall, I found a seat in my county’s designated section. I was not surprised to find my county’s section as far from the stage as possible (see photo at top). As long as I have been involved with the Party, my county’s designated section has always been as far from the stage (and microphones) as possible. I have reasons to believe why this is true but will save that discussion for another time. Upon arriving, I immediately tried to locate the microphones. My repeated questions to the convention authorities, regarding where the delegates can speak, were received with blank stares. Eventually I was told there would be 4 microphones, two in the middle of the Convention Hall and two in the back (near our county section). I was ecstatic as I planned on getting to that microphone on a couple of occasions. UTGOP State Convention April 22, 2023
The TRUTH BEHIND the proposed amendment "Constitution Article XII, Sec. 1: Precinct State Delegate Allocation Methods." A rather large county has challenges allocating delegates based on the current criteria in our state Constitution. That current criteria uses a definition of “Republican strength” based on the actual voting record for registered Republicans in past elections to determine apportionment. For this large county to address its allocation challenges, they desire to change the definition of “Republican strength” in our Party Constitution. This will have an adverse effect on our Party as a whole. The challenge our Party has right now, and the reason why there is so much divisiveness, is our Republican Party lacks real strength! The kind of strength that comes from a cohesive embrace of our shared values and principles. Without a clearer understanding of what makes us Republicans, many joining our Party get the R behind their name but lack a credible understanding of our policies, principles, and platform. In this respect, we have lost our way. Should this constitutional amendment pass, the allocation of delegates based on a watered-down definition of “Republican strength” will only make matters worse by requiring party registration as the only criteria, rather than a proven allegiance to our Party by embracing our platform and voting consistently for our candidates. This means if the Democrats register Republican (as they often do) the allocation of delegates could be determined by Trans-Republicans rather than those committed to the Party and its platform. This amendment cannot pass. The large county in question must find a solution within its jurisdiction and governing documents to address their issue. Leave the rest of us out of it. Vote NO on this amendment at State Convention. “In most societies it is understood that members are required to be of honorable charter and reputation…an organization or assembly has the ultimate right to make and enforce its own rules, and to require that its members refrain from conduct injurious to the organization or its purposes.” (RRofO p. 643 line 6 – 10)
Any member found guilty of “tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work, is properly subject to disciplinary action, whether By-laws make mention of it or not.” On a rare occasion you will run into a presiding officer who, for whatever reason, ignores a member making a motion or moving an Appeal. There are a couple of things that might be done in that situation, but the first one is to get the motion processed. In this unprecedented period of continual falsehoods against America, the full armor is the defense of faithful everyday Americans who are besieged and attacked by this lunacy.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So, when Ron DeSantis, Florida’s conservative Republican governor and likely presidential candidate, said recently we need to put on the “full armor of God,” the media looked at him like he was crazy—or from another planet. But his supporters gave him a standing ovation. As secular liberals, most of the press have no familiarity with the phrase, its origins, theology, or importance. They are bigots against religion and unschooled in what used to be the norms of American life, churches, and culture. The press and nearly our entire elite ruling class, in academia, sports, politics, media, business, and culture are biblically illiterate and have no idea what the Jar of Nar (John 12:3) refers to; where the road to Emmaus (Luke 24: 13-35) led or who travelled on it; or even what happened in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26: 36-46). Let me brief them on the context, content, and significance of the “full armor of God,” which are, of course, the words of St. Paul, found in Ephesians 6: 10-18. Yes, that is a book in the New Testament. |
AuthorBill Olson Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|