Donald To Get Trumped By Rules Committee?

The GOP is working very hard not to suffer a self inflicted wound but if they repair the damage done the cure will likely fracture the party.

You see, the Republicans do not trust you, the voters, and they set rules so that they can select who they want to run for the presidency. Last cycle they imposed rules that were specifically designed to keep Ron Paul out of the process. Even though they have had four years to change it they have not done so.

If things ended today Donald Trump would be the only candidate, under the Romney rules of four years ago, who qualifies for the nomination.

The rule they wrote to exclude one they did not desire will likely force them to accept one they do not desire.

Here are some excerpts from the linked article. They come from people who will sit on the rules committee. I will translate them so you will know exactly what your task masters are saying:

“I’m not a big fan of the eight-state threshold. I think that’s an artificial number,” said David Wheeler, a rules committee member from South Dakota. “It was designed to prevent Ron Paul delegates — their votes from being counted. I don’t think it’s necessary to do that this year.”

Interpretation: We used this process to deny a candidate and his supporters from having their voices heard because we, your elitist masters, did not want Ron Paul’s delegates to be counted. Your vote means nothing to us.

“We don’t want to give the impression that we are leaning one way or the other in support or trying to hold somebody else back,” said Sandye Kading, the other South Dakota delegate on the rules committee.

Interpretation: We definitely are leaning for anyone but Trump but we don’t want it to look like that so we will play games and tallk about fairness and placate his supporters but we do not favor him and want anyone but him so much so we might all vote Democrat if Trump wins.

“They’ve created these goofy, bogus primaries out of whole cloth,” said Haugland, who argues that conventions are largely irrelevant if the party’s delegates are meant to slavishly follow the results of primaries and caucuses.

Interpretation: We have these primaries and it gives people the idea that their vote matters. We should not be bound by their votes and delegates should be free to vote for whom they want regardless of the outcome of the primary contests. The primaries are bogus because we should have the final say and not have to worry about the results of some sham elections. We know what is best for you.

The news today discussed the Democrat Primary process and their super delegates. They are delegates that are not bound to any election result or candidate. These are used to ensure the party picks the nominee and not a bunch of rube voters.

It appears as if the Republicans have their own process to disenfranchise voters in their party.

If the Republicans change the rules to keep Trump from getting the nomination then all hell will break loose and the party will pretty much be over. Millions of people will sit out the November election and the Democrat will win. We will have a Socialist as our president if this happens.

The party will scream that it is not right and that vows were made to support whomever the nominee ended up being. They will say these things without seeing the irony in what they are doing with their rules change.

But that’s alright. You have no say in the matter now shut up and go vote for whom we tell you.

Just for transparency, I am not a Trump supporter (or anyone else right now). I am listening and watching and I will decide by the time my primary rolls around. Having written that I do not want to see him screwed by the party. If he wins then he should be on the ballot and there should be no rule changes or games played to manipulate the process.

If that happens I see a few possibilities. Trump runs as a third party candidate and the Democrat wins. Millions od disenfranchised Republican voters stay home in protest and the Democrat wins. None of the candidates is deemed worthy so a person who never ran or one who dropped out is selected by the committee. In that case people stay home and the Democrat wins.

Playing games with the rules is what got them in this mess. They changed them to harm Ron Paul and now they want to change them to harm Trump and to avoid a problem of their own making. They had four years to do it but then again, no one knew a guy like Trump would run.

Or take the lead.

Or might actually win.

Now they are scrambling to undo the damage they caused.

And these people want to lead us.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Why I Would Not Sign The Petition

There is a petition that is circulating to allow people with concealed carry permits to carry inside the arena during the Republican Convention. The Secret Service has said no guns will be allowed and they have the authority to do that. I do not agree with their authority and think their ability to institute such a ban undermines government.

The people with permits have passed very extensive background checks that involve all sorts of government agencies. People with permits have been vetted better than any politician the secret service protects. By banning the firearms the Secret Service is basically stating that government can’t be trusted.

Perhaps they are onto something…

The Secret Service is like the rest of the government. They are not against guns they are against YOU having them. If you are SS or law enforcement (other government people) then they are fine with you carrying a firearm. Who knows, maybe they are worried they will have to work harder and have less time for booze and hookers…

So by now you are confused. If I feel this way then why would I not sign such a petition?

It is quite simple. While I believe in the absolute right to keep and bear arms, meaning that you can carry them as you see fit (assuming you are a law abiding citizen), I also know that this event is a private event and the event organizers are in charge of the security and what takes place there. They have as much right to disallow guns at their private event as law abiding citizens have to carry those guns. But it is their event and they get to make the rules.

Your neighbor has the right to say you can’t carry your firearm on his property as do private businesses across this nation.

If you do not like the rule then don’t go there. Many people with carry permits will not patronize any establishment that does not allow firearms. That is their right and they are free to do so (and it is a position with which I agree). There are plenty of firearm friendly businesses where people can spend their money.

If the Republicans do not want people carrying firearms then that is their right. If you don’t like it don’t go.

I find it strange that the people who claim to be pro Second Amendment would have a problem with law abiding people carrying firearms and perhaps that says a lot right there.

In any event maybe those who have tickets should just not show up. Sell the tickets at a profit (if that is legal) or keep them to prevent others from attending. That will push the numbers down.

The petition will not have an effect since the SS has the final say no matter what but at least the RNC could come out in support of the idea..

In the long run though, it is a private event and those running it can do as they see fit even if they do sound like the anti gun folks on the left…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

No Good Deed

A liber do-gooder found out the hard way that no good deed goes unpunished.

Some woman went to help and advocate for refugees because, you know, the racists hate them and do not want to help them. They are all angels and should be met with open arms (and open borders) so they can receive taxpayer handouts and live the life they deserve.

She showed up to help those little angels and they robbed her blind. The darlings took all her belongings from her car and anything she was carrying. It was all recorded and the video at the linked site shows her scrambling around demanding her phone and belongings be returned to her.

Refugees have been let into European nations by the tens of thousands and they have returned the generosity by assaulting and raping women, robbing people and causing civil unrest. They have complained about the freebies they are getting, the food they are served and the places they are GIVEN to live.

I guess this liberal found out the hard way that these folks are not fit to be in civilized nations and that they have no respect for people or property.

At least she was not raped or murdered.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

The Apple Does Not Fall Far

Barack Obama is a big government big brother liberal progressive left wing fanatic who believes in government control over the lives of private citizens. He was raised by communists, studied and uses Rules for Radicals, and he violates the Constitution nearly every day. In short, he is un-American and the kind of person the Constitution was designed to stop.

There is a case before the court right now dealing with an Apple iPhone that was used by a few terrorists who shot up San Bernardino. It seems the feds are unable to crack the encryption on the phone, a claim I find preposterous, so the FBI wants Apple to write the code to crack the phone. The problem is, the code would affect all iPhones and make it easier for the government to demand a phone be accessed in the future.

Maybe Obama should ask the Chinese or the Russians to get the data from the phone. These countries seem to be able to hack into our government on a regular basis. Better yet, maybe the government should ask Apple to teach it electronic security…

I doubt the issue at hand is the phone itself. I am sure the highly paid people at the FBI (or perhaps the NSA) could get into the phone. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that the same government hacking into systems all over the world can’t get into a phone? No, this is about setting precedence that would force companies to build backdoors into devices that government could use when it wanted to obtain data.

Obama recently made his views known when he discussed the issue. He believes that PRIVATE companies should not be able to build items government cannot access. That is the basic idea behind what Obama said. Now he laced it with sugar coating by discussing child pornography and such things because, well no one could oppose such common sense things.

Then he got to the real reason. You see, government needs to access your electronic items so it can be certain you are paying your taxes. Obama thinks that without the ability to access phones people will be walking around with Swiss bank accounts right on their devices.

As if most people have the ability to get one. But the rich certainly have them (I would not be surprised to find out many politicians had them) though I suspect they would not be foolish enough to keep that info on their phones.

While Obama thinks no citizen should have absolute privacy he carries an electronic device paid for by the taxpayers that has all kinds of encryption on it to keep it from being hacked. And while Obama thinks government should have the ability to access your information he certainly supports YOU going to jail for accessing anything held on the government’s electronic media.

They work for us but they act like they own us. Their information is very important to them so much so that Hillary Clinton set up a home brew server to route all her communications through other than government channels.

Instead of worrying about some citizen keeping a Swiss bank account on a cell phone perhaps Obama should concern himself with government officials who are hiding their misdeeds from the public.

People have a right to privacy and that right should not be infringed upon because the government can’t access data it wants. But if the court agrees with government and allows this violation of our rights perhaps we should be afforded the opportunity to redact things before they get to see them.

You know, just like they do when citizens request information…

The apple does not fall far from the tree and in the case of Obama it is a rotten apple that fell from the tree of communism.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Woman Beater Urges Violence Against Trump Supporters

Woman beater and alleged musician Chris Brown is a violent thug coward who believes in violence to get what he wants. It appears as if Brown follows the Obama philosophy of a good brawl when necessary (or getting in their face or bringing a gun if they bring a knife, take your pick of Obama violence) to achieve what is desired politically.

The Chris [Brown] and black lives matter (except when they don’t) crowd see violence as a means to achieve political success, you know, like they do in third world dictatorships.

He [Obama] warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’ ” he said. A donor yelled out a deep accented “Don’t give in!”

“I won’t but that sounded pretty scary. You’re a tough guy,” Obama said.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.” Fact Check

I know Donald Trump has stated violence is appropriate when dealing with violence** but I don’t recall him ever asking people to be violent for the sake of being violent or to push an agenda. Trump said he felt it was appropriate that his supporters fought BACK.

As for Brown, he wants retaliation for an incident in which a man at a Trump rally sucker punched a protester in the face [an act Trump did not condone] as he is being led out by police. Brown thinks this is getting out of hand and he wants blacks to show up 40 and 50 deep to Trump rallies and then dare people to punch. If the guy punched without provocation then he deserves to be prosecuted but if Brown’s response is deemed appropriate then we need to relook at all of it.

How many anti Trump folks have committed violence toward Trump supporters? Should Trump supporters line up 40 or 50 deep and inflict violence on those people? Look at how the anti Trump morons acted in Chicago. Their threats of violence and assaults on Trump supporters led to the event being cancelled and those who attended to see Trump fearing for their safety as Chicago’s finest kept their distance (I am sure they don’t support a guy like Trump either so they won’t protect his supporters).

Brown is a coward who beats up women for kicks. That is about the only fight this coward could ever hope to win, unless of course he had others, 40 or 50 deep, in front of him for protection. Did you notice how Brown, like most liberal pukes, wants others to commit violence in his name? Funny thing though, liberals like to talk about the violent people on the right when all the mass shootings and riots are done (or incited) by liberal dindu nuffins like Brown.

The only way Brown would lead the way is if he were attacking women, because you know, it makes gangstas tough if they can beat up a female. Guys like Brown don’t like to attack folks who might punch back.

So follow Brown if you want but keep in mind that most people are not going to stand around and let you attack them.

In other words, be careful what you ask for.

**The Blaze is owned by Glenn Beck so the take will be anti Trump even though the actions show nothing that would appear to be inappropriate.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline