August 31, 2012

RNC Fraud!

A friend of mine, named Chad, said "This is exactly what happened in Germany 1933.

Massive, massive, MASSIVE election fraud.

There are not enough courtrooms or lawyers or judges on the planet to handle the potential caseload.

And I sincerely hope EVERY liberty-minded person, Paul supporter, every liberty-minded Romney supporter, every liberty-minded Obama supporter, and every anybody-supporter...stands up and fights this with every ounce of their energy...or it is curtains for the "free" Republic of the United States of America."


It could not be said any better.


A top comment on the video said "I don't like Obama at all and probably disagree with more of his policies than Romney's. However, for the sake of the future of the GOP, I intend to prove that this GOP cannot survive."

The RNC changed the rules to ensure they do not get any radical Ron Paul people voting again.


 "Delegate: RNC Rule Change Would Have Silenced Reagan in ’76"

How, in good conscious, can I vote for a party that does such a sham? I cannot. Here are my choices, write in Ron Paul an essentially opting out of the vote and not vote for any republican elsewhere, vote for Gary Johnson who is pro murder/abortion, so really not an option. Or vote for Obama, also pro abortion, kissing everything I stand for goodbye, and solidifying the collapse of our now unsustainable economy as we know it. Not to even mention all the fraud in the financial sector where NOT ONE PERSON was ever sent to prison, with this congress in charge. I guess I can go find an independent pro-life candidate. 

This is the choice the RNC has left us. Ugh!!!!!! I guess I will work on my penmanship.

In a thread that was discussing the RNC Fraud, one person said: "The delegate selection rules (which were put into place by the RNC and known by all the campaigns) were originally put into place to stop a non-establishment candidate from winning however RP was able to game it anyways and now the establishment is in panic. All of there shenanigans at the convention this year, their delegate suppression, their cheating, their magical rules changes, etc. all of that wasn't for this year. Mittens had the most delegates and would have likely survived a floor fight, but it was for the future. They want to eliminate the chance that anyone other than their handpicked do-boy can get selected. It's the suppression of grassroots in the RNC."

Even Michael Steel, former RNC Chairman, said: "What the Republican National Committee did to Ron Paul was the height of rudeness and stupidity for this reason: Why would you alienate an individual who has the ability to attract a new generation of voters, who are already skeptical of your institution but are willing to at least listen through the vehicle of this individual and the words that he is saying? Why would you alienate them, get on the floor and not let them speak? Not have his name go up on the board and see the number of electoral votes that he receives? This is crazy!"

So essentially, Ron Paul Won!! If the other side has to cheat, that is.

Of course, they want a revolution all over AGAIN. I always said that Ron Paul cured my apathy about elections and politics, RNC is now trying to restore it. God help us all!

"Revolution is not what is scary, tyranny is. And tyranny unopposed, is downright terrifying. And that's all I'd like to say at this time. :7)"

Then I watched something that added some clarity as to what I should do:




Yes, I completely agree. I am not going anywhere and no one else should. We will just keep voting for liberty minded Republicans. Period. The RNC will change from within.

bit.ly/RNCFraud

26 comments:

  1. Obama is a fraud and a criminal. Romney is a fraud and a criminal.

    If I were American I'd write in Ron Paul in November and take a photo of my ballot for proof.

    I hope every delegate that was rightfully elected and then wrongfully cheated will continue to fight this astoundingly blatent corrupt system , defrock the puppets that work it and dethrone the oligarchs that rule them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why is 'absolute' banning abortion your top priority?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because I am a liberty mined individual. Individuals needs protecting, especially the innocent ones that cannot defend themselves. If a man kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach he would be charged with attempted murder. If a person takes a vacuum to a pregnant woman, and rips a baby to pieces, its legal. It doesn't even have to be a doctor that does it anymore. They are doing it, allowing it, for any reason. Even because the baby is a girl. It is wrong. It is where I stand. Stop murdering babies! 53,000,000 is far too many. The quota is met.

      Delete
    2. Hi again, Dan,

      I don't want to go to far down this road, since the "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" arguments are out there for everyone to examine; however, I would like to probe your thoughts on the matter from a little different angle, if you don't mind.

      First, some preliminary comments... You use the phrase "innocent ones" to describe the embryo/fetus/baby; yet your faith tells you that no one is "innocent" -- that everyone is born depraved and deserves hell, thanks to Adam and Eve, correct?

      Of course, it will probably come as no surprise to you that I consider the doctrine of Original Sin (or as it could be called, "collective guilt") philosophically incoherent, scientifically untenable -- not to mention perhaps the most extensive and monsterous example of racism ever concocted, since it holds ALL humans, i.e. the entire human race, guilty, from birth -- not because of any particular crime any one of these "individuals" may have, in fact, actually committed, but just on the basis of being human.

      It's hard to conceive of a doctrine that's more fundamentally anti-liberty than that. One would have to engage in an awful lot of evasion to call oneself "liberty mined [sic]," while choosing to subscribe to such a doctrine.

      As Rand writes, and you no doubt reject: "To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code." (Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, p. 136 )

      That being said, how does any Christian justify calling those he or she believe to be depraved, wicked, guilty -- "innocent ones"?

      To be consistent with your Christian worldview, shouldn't you really be saying in your comment above something like, "The wicked, guilty and depraved need protecting, because they cannot defend themselves." (Of course, although it seems to me that this approach would be more consistent with your world view, it would also open up other problematic issues for you, as they pertain to facts of reality. But discussion of those problems as I see them, can wait for another day.

      (Forgive me -- if you detect a little arrogance or snippiness in my writing today -- it's just me getting carried away with a little bit of attitude; or perhaps for some Christians, my tone would indicate "wickedness")

      (continued)






      Delete
    3. Ydemoc,

      >>You use the phrase "innocent ones" to describe the embryo/fetus/baby; yet your faith tells you that no one is "innocent" -- that everyone is born depraved and deserves hell, thanks to Adam and Eve, correct?

      Yes correct. But they are still innocent to the situation. It does not take any stretch to see which is the aggressor in this situation. We need to be the bullies bully. Protect the ones that are NOT the aggressors, but the humble. Any liberty minded individual, Even Ayn, would agree.

      >>It's hard to conceive of a doctrine that's more fundamentally anti-liberty than that.

      So one should not be protected from aggressors? How is that liberty?

      >>That being said, how does any Christian justify calling those he or she believe to be depraved, wicked, guilty -- "innocent ones"?

      Babies are innocent in being attacked and their bodies being ripped into pieces. They did nothing wrong to deserve that treatment, other then being unwanted by a minority.

      >>or perhaps for some Christians, my tone would indicate "wickedness"

      Welcome to the club. I get the same way with Atheists. Swimming in mud gets us dirty at times. Occupational hazard? :7)

      Delete
    4. Hi again, Dan,

      Thanks for responding, again, to my lengthy posts. I’m afraid this is another long one, although I think I may give it rest after I post, at least for today. But I’m sure you’ll respond with something that pulls me back in... at some point.

      I wrote: “You use the phrase "innocent ones" to describe the embryo/fetus/baby; yet your faith tells you that no one is "innocent" -- that everyone is born depraved and deserves hell, thanks to Adam and Eve, correct?”

      You responded: “Yes correct. But they are still innocent to the situation.”

      Do you mean to say that, in your view, this innocence obtains as far as the “situation” goes, as far a baby being aborted is concerned? Setting aside my view on abortion for a moment, I do not see how such innocence can obtain if, fundamentally, Christians consider a fetus, embryo, or baby, vile, depraved, and unworthy of life in the first place. Such fundamental depravity would seem to be the controlling factor, overriding any particular “situation.” The only way around this would be to drop the overall context, i.e., that of an evil, depraved being coming into the world, and not even being deserving of that!

      Let me draw an analogy: Let’s say in 1943, a vile and depraved Nazi happens to be standing by a tree, studying the Bible. He’s the only thing that stands between me and my family’s freedom. Under normal circumstances, he’s not doing anything in that “situation” that would warrant my sneaking up on him and killing him in order secure freedom for me and my family. However, since he’s a Nazi (the most fundamental issue in play), evil and depravity would already be obtaining in that situation. Yet you seem to be saying that, because, in your view, that although the Nazi, like the baby, is evil, the situation would warrant my sparing his life. Am I missing something here?

      (continued)

      Delete
    5. Straying a bit from the topic at hand, I believe your Bible states in Matthew 26:23 - 24: “Jesus replied, ‘The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.’" NIV

      Would you agree with Jesus and say that it would be better for Judas had he never been born?

      And in other places in the Bible, it talks about people being better off if they’d never been born. Would you concede that, according to your world view, that some aborted babies might be better off having never been born?

      Moving on, you wrote: “It does not take any stretch to see which is the aggressor in this situation. We need to be the bullies bully. Protect the ones that are NOT the aggressors, but the humble. Any liberty minded individual, Even Ayn, would agree.”

      From Rand’s writings, she was clearly in favor of human beings, (in this case, women), having the right to do with their own body what as they sees fit. And, don’t hold me to this since she spoke for herself on the issue, but I think she would clearly consider the aggressor under such circumstances to be anyone who prevented a woman from doing what the woman sees fit with her own body. So it would first be a matter of properly identifying not only rights, and if they can be abridged in this case, but also who the aggressor is, and then responding accordingly. I don’t think “Pro-life” advocates have adequately done so, nor have they made their case.

      As Rand wrote: “Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html)

      ... with a right being: “...a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html)

      (continued)

      Delete
    6. I wrote: “It's hard to conceive of a doctrine that's more fundamentally anti-liberty than that.”

      You wrote: “So one should not be protected from aggressors? How is that liberty?”

      I would maintain that the concepts “liberty” and “aggressors” as you are using them here, are detached from their proper foundation; you are applying them while ignoring that which gave rise to such concepts in the first place. I was trying bring this out for you, somewhat, with my questions about a woman on a deserted island.

      I wrote: “That being said, how does any Christian justify calling those he or she believe to be depraved, wicked, guilty -- "innocent ones"?

      You wrote: “Babies are innocent in being attacked and their bodies being ripped into pieces. They did nothing wrong to deserve that treatment, other then being unwanted by a minority.”

      Dan, but this makes no sense to me. According to your world view, they deserve hell, and many of them could grow up to go there if they aren’t saved, right? So within your world view, why not rejoice that they are going to heaven? (I think you may have answered this for me before, actually, but I don’t remember your answer and really do not feel like going back through my text clippings to find it right now. So treat it as a rhetorical question if you so desire.)

      Thanks.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    7. Yea, those Ayn quotes were disturbing to say the very least. Just yet another thing she is wrong about.

      I will rant for a minute so walk with me. Why on earth are you "humanists" for killing the preborn? It just doesn't make any sense. That cute little baby could be the one man, or woman, that rights the wrongs in life. Could be the next to discover the plant in her back yard that cures 99.9% of all cancer. Although the humans in charge here wouldhave herkilled since themoneyis in the treatment and not the cure. I digress. It boggles the mind that the baby you're murdering could be the next Nye, Sagan, or Einstein that makes humanity vastly inproved or convinces all of us that Christianity is immoral and we all agree, essentially eliminating all religions. Or the the guy that discovers that being gay is genetic.

      Speaking of questions, Sye asked, if we DO discover that being gay is genetic would it be fully justified to abort such babies to eliminate the gays? Any pro choice takers for that question?

      Delete
    8. As far as I know, it's only xians and muslims whose holy books call for the deaths of homosexuals who would likely want those babies killed.

      Speaking of Rand...I also like the one where he goes after the creationists.

      But at least, he does show that scientists and theologians can get along.

      Delete
  3. Moving on, let me ask you this: If you were stranded on a deserted island, say, with others from a plane or a boat crash, and a women you found yourself stranded with either became or was pregnant -- what, if any, action would you take against her (or your fellow castaway, a doctor) if you found out (a) the doctor, was going to perform an abortion on her, with her permission of course (b) you found out after the fact that the abortion had been performed, say, earlier in the day?

    Let's change the scenario a little: Same desert island, same woman. She has sex with a fellow castaway. The next morning, she tells you she (c) is going to take a "Morning After Pill" that she has in her luggage, or (d) you see her about to take the pill (e) or you learn after the fact that she took the pill. What action would you take against her in each of these scenarios.

    Finally, what about this scenario on the same island with the same woman. Because she's a trained doctor, you learn she's going to give herself an abortion. What action, if any, do you take against her?

    When you describe the action you are going to take against her, would you please provide the basis upon which you would be taking such action?

    Off-topic, and on a lighter note: Are you a sports fan, Dan? What sports and teams to you enjoy following? I seem to recall you saying last spring that you were off to watch some game or something. Just curious. Perhaps it can serve to provide us with some common ground, somewhere. For example, I loathe the Lakers, but I hope Steve Nash wins a championship, someday.

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ydemoc,

      >>(a) the doctor, was going to perform an abortion on her, with her permission of course

      First, they do not even have to be a doctor these days. So that part is a moot point. But I would beg and plead and convince them to allow me to raise the baby as my own.

      >>(b) you found out after the fact that the abortion had been performed, say, earlier in the day?

      Pray. God's will to have that baby aborted.

      >>The next morning, she tells you she (c) is going to take a "Morning After Pill" that she has in her luggage

      Refer to (a), pleading for her humanity to surface.

      >>(d) you see her about to take the pill

      Ask her to give me 10 minutes to talk and pray with her.

      >>e) or you learn after the fact that she took the pill. What action would you take against her in each of these scenarios.

      Ask her if I could pray for her, with her, and witness to her.

      >>Finally, what about this scenario on the same island with the same woman. Because she's a trained doctor, you learn she's going to give herself an abortion. What action, if any, do you take against her?

      Speak to her about the Hippocratic oath she took as a Doctor, and how much of a hypocrite it is to do such a thing. ;7)

      >>When you describe the action you are going to take against her, would you please provide the basis upon which you would be taking such action?

      Scripture, of course. You want verses?

      >> Are you a sports fan, Dan?

      More individual, then team. I was track and field (Hurdles, pole vault, and a swimmer, also life guard and rescue swimmer in the military. Swimming, if anything, is my sport.

      Grew up 30 minutes from Chicago. So Bears, Bulls, Cubs, Blackhawks.

      More geek, then sports fan these days. Too much drugs. That entire Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire fiasco took the wind out of me. Football same thing. Cubs/Bears will always have a soft spot for me though. Miss the days of Payton, Singletary, Perry, Fencik, Mcmahon. (the shuffling crew) lol

      Had more purity and talent back then. Maybe it is just my sentimental feelings to my growing up, and family.

      >>What sports and teams to you enjoy following?

      Hockey mainly, Blackhawks. Loved watching Esposito, Hanson brothers (slap shot), Doug Smith, or the Boogeyman (Derek Boogaard).

      Maybe that is why I like dancing with the Atheists now. :7)

      Other sports cannot compare.






      Delete
    2. Hi Dan,

      Thanks for your most recent reply. I must have been posting while you were posting. I read a little. Like I said though, I don't think I'll address it right at the moment.

      Regarding your sports teams? Interesting. As a life-long Suns fan, I felt like I'd lost my favorite pet when the Bull's beat the Suns back in '93 on Paxon's shot.


      Ydemoc

      Delete
    3. Speaking of sports, I do look for gems. Humble gratefulness is good to see in these times.

      Delete
  4. Dan, still pretending to be "pro-life" even though he sees nothing wrong with biblegod having babies killed:
    Because I am a liberty mined individual. Individuals needs protecting, especially the innocent ones that cannot defend themselves. If a man kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach he would be charged with attempted murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Dan,

      Thanks for your responses.

      A few thoughts:

      1) Nowhere in your replies to my desert island scenarios did you mention resorting to the use of force in preventing the woman or the doctor from participating in the abortion. Why is that?

      2) In those same desert island scenarios, you did not speak of punishing the woman or the doctor for participating in an abortion, which you maintain is “murder.” If stuck on that island for the rest of your life with these folks, would you attempt to levy some kind of punishment against the woman and the doctor for what you clearly hold to be crimes?

      3) If, as you maintain, abortion is “murder,” if you had your way, should all women who have an abortion and all doctors who’ve participated in performing one, be treated as murderers? As such, should they be thrown into prison, perhaps even given the death penalty for their actions?

      

4) In your most recent reply, you talk about the potential of embryos and fetuses -- being born, possibly growing up to be innovators, discoverers, etc. Sperm that never fertilizes an egg, also has this same potential. Would you be in favor outlawing condoms, male fertility tests, masturbation, etc, since such actions would be destroying a potential? If not, why not? In answering, don’t forget the standard you seemed to be invoking (at least, in that particular question), i.e., that of potentiality.

      

5) This is kind of a wacky question, but would you lie and tell someone you WERE NOT a Christian if doing so would keep a woman from having an abortion? How about if doing so would save your own life, or your family’s life, e.g., like in a hostage situation? (I can paint a few situations, and I’m sure you can imagine a few yourself, where such a scenario might occur.) 



      6) Another scenario: A Jewish girl named Nesse is raped and impregnated by a Nazi while interned at a concentration camp during World War II. This same Nazi guard participated in the gassing and/or shooting in the back of the head, Nesse's entire family. This Nazi also raped Nesse's mother and sister many times before he murdered them. Two months later, Nesse is freed from the concentration camp. Should Nesse be forced to carry this fetus to term?
 Or would you leave that decision up to her and not force or be in favor of any such law forcing her to carry that fetus to term?

      I’m sure I’ll have a few more comments/questions next time ‘round.

      As for Derrick, I wish him the best. He’s a fantastic player. I was watching when he sustained that devastating injury, and was surprised to see him even in the game at that point, since the Bulls had the game locked up. Some say that the injury would’ve happened eventually anyway, but I don’t know about that.

      Hopefully, he’ll be able to get back to the way he once was, and have a long, successful career.

      Until next time.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    2. Ydemoc,

      Your comment was lingering in my inbox. My self proclaimed OCD wants to clear it, address it.

      1) Because that is what God instructs. Is it against our laws?

      2) Humanity is an endangered species. In danger of going into eternity without God. Yes, I would try to get everyone to agree that it is against our laws. To make it a law.

      3) Be treated as murderers? If illegal? Sure, then it would be.

      4) Sure, outlaw it. (Genesis 38:9-10) I am an advocate and a believer in Christian Reconstructionism, after all.

      5) I lied about my wife's weight to my own Dad, (who actually asked what it was!), a short time ago. (I'm conditioned in avoiding his shallow judgmental attitude) But I don't think your scenarios apply as breaking commandments to do so, do you? I am a sinner, I do sin, I feel it hard when I do. It pains me. I seem to try and rail against God all the time, and try to get Him against me, and no matter what I do He throws grace at me and my family. I am humbled by that love.

      6) I would ask to adopt the baby into my home. Why answer one tragic event with ANOTHER tragic event? THAT is illogical and mean yo both the woman and child. No, it is God's will that the baby arrives. Mine too. If God is to bless wombs, then that baby should live. Besides, I know a great preacher that was a result of a rape. I am so grateful for that woman, so we can be blessed by that boy to grow as a wonderful man. Such a strong mother to carry to term, with that knowledge.

      Delete
    3. Hey Dan,

      Thanks for responding to my questions. I certainly can relate to that "desire to respond" thing. In fact, I sometimes hope that when I post, people take their sweet time responding to my comments -- certainly not all the time, but just *sometimes* -- so that I don't feel as if I, too, then have to respond back quickly.

      But lately, I've realized that these comments will (most likely) always be here for me to respond to, so what's the rush?

      So I just wanted to let you know that I try not to make to big of deal out of timely responses. People will respond when they respond. Or not. No big deal.

      On top of all that, it's your blog, so...

      But anyway, again, thanks for responding. And this will have to be one of those times that I take my time responding. (Although I must say, on first glance, you've given some thought-provoking answers.)

      Thanks again.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
  5. Nice quote from Genesis. I'll be sure to make a note that you believe approximately 95% of males in America should be put to death for masturbation. Of course if you believe in a punishment other death, you would be contradicting that quote from Genesis. Not to mention that keeping 95% of the male population imprisoned would be impossible without a massive expansion of government spending.

    Of course that was only taking into account the male population, if we add on to that all females who use birth control that's, 99% of all females imprisoned or executed, depending on what you feel like the punishment should be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should all be put to death because of all of our wickedness. So that specific point was moot. All I am saying is that if we listened to Scripture, God's plan for humanity, we would be much better off. Now, we are in a hot mess and we can only hope for Christ's return to right all these wrongs and rule and make this place paradise again. God may restore His instructions anyway, when He returns. We should have followed God, is my point, now we need a reboot. That day to come, I believe, will be sooner then later. To outlaw "spilling seed" at this point is pointless. We were in the realm of hypothetical, not reality. Look up the term if you need to.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, just came across this...What verses in Genesis (or the rest of the bible for that matter) speak against masturbation?

      Delete
    3. Keyn, start with Matthew 6:33 and go from there :7)

      Delete
  6. Yep, democracy is for sale. Too bad none of us can fucking afford it. At least in Canada, I hope it's not as bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the very least our founding fathers were smart enough create a government that is NOT a democracy. We have, at least, that going for us.

      Delete
    2. I am glad our Founding Fathers also thought ahead.

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>