State Political Parties Make Their Own Rules

[From article]
This cycle has seen the rise of Donald Trump, a candidate who doesn't fit the central casting mold. He is unusual and bold, brash and unapologetic in his statements. Yet he is not without precedent. We are witnessing the rebirth of the populists, nothing more.
The political structure with which most of us are familiar is in truth a relatively new thing. People think of primaries as full-blown elections. They are not. The word that appropriately precedes "primaries" is "party." These are party primaries, designed by political parties to choose the candidate behind whom the party intends to coalesce support for the real election – the general election.
For most of our nation's history, primaries were not the method of choice for determining nominees.
[. . .]
Parties can choose their nominees in whatever methods that state chooses – with a party primary election, a caucus or convention, or, as done in Colorado, with a decision by party leadership. As long as the established rules are followed, these choices are the business of the party, not the general public, who gets their say in November.
This is one of the reasons our founding fathers eschewed party structures, hoping instead for ideological constructs based on merit and competence, not on membership. In other words, they wanted the best candidate to emerge from among many by virtue of having been lifted above the others by a groundswell of public support.
[. . .]



There are those who believe that each of us should be empowered to make his own decisions – for good or ill – finding our path to success or failure depending on our own efforts. Government exists to ensure we have that freedom by protecting the rights with which we entered this world from infringement by those who would "stack the deck" through corruption rather than merit.
The other side views individuals as messy pieces within a larger collective. Individual liberty must be suborned to collective goals, as determined by a central group of planners, who presumably know better than you how your life ought to be lived. To these, government exists to establish the definitions of success and then ensure that people receive it equally.
Of course, these myopic "Solomons" never assign such restrictions to themselves, as that would be far too limiting for them to achieve their utopian goals, which thankfully makes them easier to spot, as their neon hypocrisy shines like a "vacancy" sign on a lonely nighttime highway.
[. . .]
Whenever we resort to absolutes to make sense of a circumstance that are anything but absolute, we are setting ourselves up to be either proven wrong in an embarrassingly public way or proven right at the cost of losing close friends and associates.
There is very little in this life that is all of one thing and none of another – and nothing illustrates this more than politics, where little is ever as it seems anyway.
The parties make their rules and choose their methods for determining a nominee. One candidate making more effective use of those rules isn't "cheating" or "stealing"; he is merely making more effective use of the rules, just as their opponent might've.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/what_we_sow_in_spring_we_shall_reap_in_fall.html

April 20, 2016
What We Sow in Spring, We Shall Reap in Fall
By Joe Herring

Cruz Makes Up "The Rules" As He Needs Them

[From article]
Does anyone remember the whole taking over the capitol thing? How they nearly recalled a sitting governor a few years ago? Remember the protesters fighting with cops, rounds of arrests in the rotunda, the drum circles and chanting? How about the midnight raids on citizens for supporting the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill”?
[. . .]
Another misconception sweeping the nation is that when state Republican parties disregard the voters and give all their delegates to Cruz, they are merely following THE RULES, and Trump is an idiot for not knowing THE RULES.
That’s what the Colorado GOP did, what the Tennessee and Louisiana parties are trying to do — and what many other states may do, all under the careful tutelage of Tracy Flick Cruz.
[. . .]
I keep asking someone to send me a copy of THE RULES that direct state parties to ignore the voters and pick their own slate of delegates, but no one can cite such a rule. So I read through “The Rules of the Republican Party” myself — and guess what? There’s no rule instructing state parties to ignore the voters!
[. . .]
The state parties are given a lot of discretion, so Cruz harasses and cajoles the local party until it awards all the state’s delegates to him. Trump keeps winning elections, and Cruz keeps winning sneaky procedural victories.
[. . .]



It’s as if Cruz and Trump are playing different sports: Trump keeps belting home runs, while Cruz is berating the umpire until he calls a balk, then prances to home base, telling everyone he hit a grand slam.
True, there’s no rule explicitly disallowing a state party from rigging the delegate selection. There’s also no rule explicitly disallowing a state party from giving all its delegates to Kim Kardashian.
[. . .]
Cruz is Tracy Flick in “Election.” He believes he deserves to win, God chose him to win — and if he starts to lose, well, then he’ll cheat. Victory goes to the pushy.
Dear Lord Jesus, I do not often speak with you and ask for things, but now, I really must insist that you help me win the election tomorrow because I deserve it and Donald Trump doesn’t, as you well know.
Imagine what nightmare a Cruz presidency would be! This is now the second time Cruz has forced me to research something his supporters were lying about — the last time was on Cruz’s alleged eligibility to be president, despite being born in Canada. (He’s not a “natural born citizen,” but I enjoyed reading all those Supreme Court opinions!)

http://humanevents.com/2016/04/13/ted-cruz-tracy-flick-with-a-dck/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Ted Cruz: Tracy Flick With A D*ck

Ann Coulter

Wednesday Apr 13, 2016 3:48 PM

Democratic Party Elitism Eliminates Power Of the People

[From article]
The great American experiment is based on the revolutionary idea that power flows from the people not the government; the rights of people granted by the Creator, not the Divine right of kings.
Lincoln encapsulated that when he said:
…government of the people, by the people, for the people…
The Constitution defines a government where the people exercise power by electing -- and getting rid of -- politicians.
[. . .]
America is no longer a country run by a government of the people. Decades of fascist maneuvering by Democrats has destroyed the representational nature of American government and disenfranchised the people.



The elimination of people power began with the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the idea of the “living” Constitution; i.e., the idea that the Constitution means whatever 5 judges thinks it means rather than what the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution thought it meant.
[. . .]
the Court imposed on America its personal morality. A court that decides what it thinks the Constitution should mean is no different in nature than a monarch such as King George III;
[. . .]
Recently the Court has solidified its power by declaring that citizens don’t have the right to sue when politicians don’t enforce the laws passed by the people directly. Seven million Californians passed Prop 8 that declared that marriage was between a man and a woman. The fascist Democrat politicians of California, including Jerry Brown, refused to defend the people’s law showing that Democrats do not believe that power flows from the people. But if the people don’t have standing to demand that the laws they pass be enforced clearly the people, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, have no power.
Similarly, Eric Holder and Obama declared themselves above the law by refusing to enforce DOMA -- and encouraging state attorneys-general to do the same. Clearly, if politicians can pick and choose which laws to follow, the people have no power, since even if they manage to get laws enacted, the people have no assurance that their “rulers” will follow those laws.
Of course, Obama’s imperial presidency and his refusal to act as though there are any Constitutional restraints on his personal power also work to remove the people from the decision-making process.
[. . .]



The final step in disenfranchising the American people and making them subjects of a new royal class composed of government bureaucrats, judges, and politicians has been the rise of what’s called administrative law; rules created by unelected government workers that Americans must follow.
In America today, if Democrats think that men accused of rape on college campuses should be denied due process they need not pass a law, rather they only need an unelected and essentially unfireable government bureaucrat to write a letter to colleges threatening to remove all federal funding unless men’s due process is removed.
[. . .]
The elimination of people power helps explains why the Democrat agenda advances despite electoral wins by Republicans. While many Republicans are in fact more interested in the donor class than the people, the reality is that under the government described by the Constitution, Democrats could not just stonewall. To advance their agenda Democrats would have to compromise.
Gridlock is the result not of partisanship but of the institutionalization of Democrat power through the Courts and administrative law -- and of course Obama’s executive orders.
[. . .]



If anyone doubts that Americans are now controlled by their masters in government, they only need look at the fact that not only do government workers have job security, something the people don’t have in the Obama economy, but that they earn 78% more, on average, than the people. Liberals claim that that’s because government jobs require more skills than private sector jobs.
[. . .]
In the Soviet Union, the nomenklatura, the ruling class, was marked by its special privileges and its higher pay, just like government employees and politicians in America today. Following the money tells us who are the rulers and who are the ruled in America today.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/returning_power_to_the_people.html

January 16, 2016
Returning Power to the People
By Tom Trinko

Improving and Maintaining Relationships

Saying thank you and showing appreciation is a gesture that can transform your relationship, says Tracey (Pictured posed by models)

[From article]
We hear lots about the millions of pounds poured into studies on sex and love in a bid to make us happier in our relationships every year.
But here’s some key findings from the last year of research and how to make them work practically for you.
[. . .]
It’s not the amount of money each of you has that predicts the success of a relationship, it’s how you manage it.
A significant study by the Federal Reserve Board in the US found couples who have similar credit scores have a higher chance of making it long term than those who don’t.
The better your score, the better your chances. Which makes sense when you think about it.
Managing finances requires maturity, being able to resist instant gratification and planning for the future: all are also good relationship skills.
[. . .]
No surprises that communicating effectively and regularly once more turned up in research to be integral to relationship satisfaction.
But research by US psychology university professors (Drexel University) found couples who ‘sexted’ each other – sent sexually explicit or suggestive texts or photos – were more sexually satisfied than those who didn’t.
The professors found a ‘robust relationship’ between sexting and relationship happiness which is good news because 82 per cent of us sexted in the last year (though, sadly, not all were sent to our partner!)
[. . .]
Rather than berate your partner for not doing something/thinking something/behaving in a way you wouldn’t, accept that they’re different and allow them to be.
[. . .]
expressing appreciation through every day gestures – like making a cup of tea or actually saying ‘Thanks for doing that’ – meant more than grand declarations or expensive gifts and holidays.
[. . .]
expressing appreciation through every day gestures – like making a cup of tea or actually saying ‘Thanks for doing that’ – meant more than grand declarations or expensive gifts and holidays.
[. . .]
avoid the same old routine and do something fresh and different once a week.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3396009/Tracey-Cox-make-relationship-happier-10-simple-steps.html

The 10 things guaranteed to make YOUR relationship happier (including having sex once a week, being affectionate and saying thank you)
Tracey Cox says you can do simple things to ensure your relationship lasts
She believes communicating regularly is key for a happy partnership
Going out on dates and not holding grudges can keep the love alive
By TRACEY COX FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 02:52 EST, 13 January 2016 | UPDATED: 04:43 EST, 13 January 2016

Lawless Washington DC Bureaucracies

Sir William Blackstone

[From article]
Everything you really need to know about the Constitution (and that’s barely an exaggeration) -- why it is structured the way it is, what led to it, its purposes -- is found in pages 2 – 12 of the March 9 concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in the Dept of Transportation v Assn of American Railroads case. Although it received little media attention, Justice Thomas has provided us a masterpiece of constitutional thinking, explaining why “administrative law” -- the practice of delegating to bureaucrats the making and enforcement of rules with the force of law – is so profoundly unconstitutional.
[. . .]
The Constitution corrected several flaws of the English system including limiting the authority of the legislative branch by placing the Constitution – this written law of the land – over all three branches of government.
[. . .]
Professor Philip Hamburger and his brilliant book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Justice Thomas shows America is back to the problems that the Constitution was written to prohibit by writing a mini-treatise on the Constitution itself.
[. . .]
William Blackstone…. defined a tyrannical government as one in which “the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men,” for “wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty.”
[. . .]
vintage Justice Thomas -- plainly written, and just plain brilliant.
We have overseen and sanctioned the growth of an administrative system that concentrates the power to make laws and the power to enforce them in the hands of a vast and unaccountable administrative apparatus that finds no comfortable home in our constitutional structure. The end result may be trains that run on time (although I doubt it), but the cost is to our Constitution and the individual liberty it protects.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/a_littlenoted_masterpiece_of_constitutional_scholarship_by_justice_thomas.html

March 20, 2015
A little-noted masterpiece of constitutional scholarship by Justice Thomas
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

FBI Search Powers Increased By Proposed Rule Change

[From article]

Known as Rule 41, the existing provision generally allows judges to approve search warrants only for material within the geographic bounds of their judicial district.
But the rule change, as requested by the department, would allow judges to grant warrants for remote searches of computers located outside their district or when the location is unknown.

[. . .]

But the plan has been widely opposed by privacy advocates, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as some technologists, who say it amounts to a substantial rewriting of the rule and not just a procedural tweak. Such a change could threaten the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizures, they warn, and possibly allow the FBI to violate the sovereignty of foreign nations. The rule change also could let the agency simultaneously target millions of computers at once, even potentially those belonging to users who aren't suspected of any wrongdoing.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/fbi-s-plan-to-expand-hacking-power-advances-despite-privacy-fears-20150316

FBI’s Plan to Expand Hacking Power Advances Despite Privacy Fears
Google had warned that the rule change represents a “monumental” constitutional concern.
BY DUSTIN VOLZ

Who Is The Wall Street Wizard Hiding Behind New England's Soft Balls?

Patriots director of player research Ernie Adams, left, and head coach Bill Belichick watch the team do drills before a game in 2009.
Photo: AP

It appears that Mr. Adams is somewhat like a lawyer. He scrutinizes the rules to see what the team can get away with, as lawyers advise their clients. If there are no rules prohibiting an action, they will do it. It is how the White House and the Attorney General of the US interpret the Constitution. Even if there is a law about what they do, their guide is, "What are you gonna do about it?" A lawyer for the city of Cambridge, MA once admitted in public that he advised the city manager how to act based upon the likelihood of being sued. If it is unlikely an illegal action will bring a lawsuit, do it anyway. Perhaps that is what Adams does for the Patriots.

[From article]
In the media guide, Adams’ job description is: “researching special assignments for both the coaching staff and the personnel department.”
People who have worked with Adams describe him as a master of the NFL rulebook and a football historian.[. . .]
“He is the black ops of pro football analysis,” DeGuglielmo said. “He is undercover and out of sight.”
One of the few interviews Adams has done was in 2008 with the alumni magazine of Northwestern University, where he went.
“The truth is, I’ve always preferred to fly under the radar,” he said in the article. “I just don’t need a lot of notice. I love what I do, and that’s enough. And there’s a lot of stuff about being in the spotlight that I just don’t want. Let someone else worry about the media and the second-guessing and all the pressure.”
Adams grew up in Massachusetts and became obsessed with football, reading Vince Lombardi’s “Run to Daylight” multiple times and “Football Scouting Methods,” by a Navy assistant coach named Steve Belichick. During his senior year at Phillips Andover Academy, he met Bill Belichick, who had just entered the school. He found out Belichick was Steve’s son and a friendship was born.
[. . .]
When Belichick shows a new strategy like playing with eligible and ineligible receivers to confuse the defense during the playoffs, many believe Adams is behind it. He also gets the finger pointed at him when the Patriots stray from the rules. All those taped signals from the “Spygate” controversy? Belichick admitted they were going to Adams for analysis.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/the-belichick-crony-who-secretly-runs-black-ops-for-patriots/

Meet the ‘black ops’ man behind the Patriots’ success
By Brian Costello
January 30, 2015 | 5:38p
New York Post

Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe Declares EPA Rules Unconstitutional

[From article]
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is unconstitutional because it violates the Tenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, according to a noted liberal Harvard law professor.
“In short, coal has been a bedrock component of our economy and energy policy for decades,” writes constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. “The [EPA's rule] demonstrates the risk of allowing an unaccountable administrative agency to ‘make’ law and attempt to impose the burden of global climate change on an unlucky and unfortunate few.”



http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/05/harvard-law-professor-epa-climate-rule-is-unconstitutional/

Harvard Law Professor: EPA Climate Rule Is Unconstitutional
12:57 PM 12/05/2014
MICHAEL BASTASCH

Poorly Designed Protocol Made Nurses Unsafe From Ebola

[From article]
The national nursing union is accusing officials of trying to “scapegoat” the Ebola-infected health worker in Dallas instead of acknowledging that hospitals nationwide are largely unprepared for the disease.
U.S. health officials are investigating what they call a “breach in protocol” that led to the country’s second Ebola diagnosis. But an official from National Nurses United warned Sunday that the larger problem in fighting Ebola in the U.S. is the lack of training and preparation at thousands of hospitals across the country.
"You don't scapegoat and blame when you have a disease outbreak," Bonnie Castillo, who leads the union’s emergency response unit, told Reuters. "We have a system failure. That is what we have to correct."
[. . .]
Out of about 400 nurses surveyed by the National Nurses United, 80 percent said their hospitals have not taught them about Ebola or how to admit a possible Ebola patient.
In an interview with CNN last week, Castillo also warned that few hospitals were adequately training their staff.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/220546-cdc-chief-accused-of-using-ebola-infected-nurse-as-scapegoat

CDC chief accused of using Ebola-infected nurse as ‘scapegoat’
By Sarah Ferris

10/13/14 10:15 AM EDT

Senate Rules Changes Won't Prevent Delays

[From article]
Senate rules provide other ways beyond the now-curtailed filibuster to obstruct nominees. Hearings can be boycotted. Routine procedural approvals can be withheld. New Capitol Hill ambushes can be plotted, perhaps with tactics not yet seen. For a truly motivated minority, losing one weapon means it’s time to pick up another.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/22/209495/new-senate-rules-wont-cure-all.html

New Senate rules won’t cure all the delay and disharmony
BY MICHAEL DOYLE
McClatchy Washington Bureau

November 22, 2013

Respect for Constitution and Laws Essential for Democracy

[From article]
What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure. They can be changed, of course. But only by significant supermajorities. That’s why constitutional changes require two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states. If we could make constitutional changes by majority vote, there would be no Constitution.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-democrats-outbreak-of-lawlessness/2013/11/28/3184b6f2-579b-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?hpid=z3

An outbreak of lawlessness
By Charles Krauthammer,
Published: November 28, 2013

Eight Deep Thoughts

EIGHT THOUGHTS TO PONDER
 
Number 8
Life is sexually transmitted.

Number 7
Good health is merely the slowest possible
rate at which one can die.

Number 6
Men have two emotions :  Hungry and Horny .
If you see a gleam in his eyes,
make him a sandwich.

Number 5
Give a person a fish and you feed them
for a day. Teach a person to use the
Internet and they won't bother you
for weeks, months, maybe years.

Number 4
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday,
lying in the hospitals, dying of nothing.

Number 3
All of us could take a lesson from the weather.
It pays no attention to criticism.

Number 2
In the 60's, people took acid to make the
world weird. Now the world is weird and
people take Prozac to make it normal.

And The Number 1 Thought

Life is like a jar of Jalapeno peppers--
what you do today,
might burn your ass tomorrow.


- - - and as someone recently said to me:
"Don't worry about old age --
it doesn't last that long."

Five Rules of Propaganda

Think about how many people you know who use these techniques. The first one that comes to mind is a Boston FM radio talk show host, lawyer, former Cambridge, MA City Councilor Jim Braude.

Here are five basic rules of propaganda, courtesy of Norman Davies in his extraordinary book "Europe: A History":


* The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.

* The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.

* The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends.

* The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.

* The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

Cambridge City Council Rules, Unruly Enforcement

Cambridge City Council Rules, Unruly Enforcement

[Published online April 17, 2006
print edition April 19, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle.]
http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/opinions/x731193587

Letter: Council vote a little fishy
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Apr 17, 2007, 05:41 PM EDT
Cambridge -

“City Clerk Margaret Drury said that as long as none of city councilors realized
there was not a quorum, or a majority of members present, or called for a quorum
beforehand, the vote stands.”

“Drury also [said] the City Council’s voting procedures had never been
questioned in the past.” The most cooperative city employee is wrong twice.
(Erin Smith, “City Clerk: Don’t question councilors who missed vote,” Cambridge
Chronicle, Apr 12, 2007.)

Erin Smith correctly notes more is in play here than Robert’s Rules. The City
Council’s rules require a quorum. Rule 5 states, “The Mayor shall declare all
votes. [...] The mayor shall declare the results, but no such declaration shall
be made unless a quorum of the City Council has voted.”

It is wishful thinking to say the council was never questioned in the past about
rules violations. The clerk verifies my belief that city councilors and city
employees ignore public comment. During several meetings, a few citizens openly
challenged the council about having less than a quorum present. Once the mayor
threatened to have me removed when I noted that there was no quorum.

In many letters to the council, I pointed out the frequent anomalies on voting
(most recently my letter in the April 9 agenda). On that day there was no vote
on a motion to table an item. It was tabled without a vote. There are frequent
violations of City Council rules on suspending the rules. I detailed the
violations dozens of time.

It is clear that city officials hear selectively, see selectively, speak
selectively, and worst of all, enforce rules and laws selectively. That is the
major problem resulting from nine councilors being intentionally ignorant of the
rules of running a meeting. The City Council rules mandate that the meetings be
run by Robert’s Rules. It is a recurring problem with one-party government.

The mayor admitted on April 9 he is now taking classes on how to run a meeting
after being a councilor for 18 years. It is never too late to learn.

ROY BERCAW, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA