Hundreds of North Carolinians – and one cat – have received incorrect voter registration information, according to the N.C. State Board of Elections. The information – an “official application form” – was sent by Americans for Prosperity, a national conservative group with a state chapter based in Raleigh.
Officials in Glasgow are investigating ten suspected cases of electoral fraud following the historic Scottish independence referendum on Thursday.
Colin Edgar of the Glasgow city council said that police were called in after ten occurrences of alleged fraud took place.
“We’ve had a number of suggestions over the course of the day that people have turned up at the polling station to vote and they appear to have voted already,” said Edgar. “So what’s happening tonight is we know which boxes those votes went into and we know the numbers on the votes, so the police have asked us to identify those votes, to take them away, keep them for evidence and hand them to them.”
Edgar said that fraud could have taken place because voters are not required to present identification at polling places in UK elections.
“Somebody turned up to vote, they gave their name, the presiding officer went to cross off their name on their list of voters to give them a ballot paper and found that their name had already been crossed off and a ballot paper already issued to somebody who apparently had the same name,” Edgar said.
“We contacted police straight away. The police asked us if we could recover the ballot papers, which we can because we know which box they’re in and we know the number on the ballot paper.”
Edgar stated that the ballots will be traced and secured before handing them to police. Each ballot contains an individual number, so staff members will be searching through the ballots to find the ten in question. If found, they will be separated from the hundreds of thousands of other ballots.
A spokesman for Police Scotland said the agency “takes the safety and security of the independence referendum extremely seriously and is working with partner agencies including local authorities and the chief counting officer to ensure the integrity of the ballot”.
Annabelle Bamforth is a New Hampshire-based writer focused on promoting liberty through new media and local politics. Have a tip? Contact email@example.com.
Organizing Patriot Effectiveness on the Ground, Maybe the JBS Can Help
September 15, 2014
The U.S. House of Representatives (house.gov).
September 30: Change It or Obey It? with Scott Bradley, PhD, Spokane Valley, WA.
October 2: Change It or Obey It with Scott Bradley, PhD, Great Falls, MT.
October 18: JBS Executive Dinner Presentations, Midland, TX.
September 16, 23, 30, October 7: The Constitution is the Solution Workshop, Grand Bay, AL.
September 20: Morality and Freedom with Rev. Steven Craft, Northampton, PA.
September 23: Who Owns Your Children? with FPE Executive Director Alan Scholl, West Jordan, UT.
September 26: Fighting Common Core: Round Two with Dr. Duke Pesta, Millburn, NJ.
September 27: No More Common Core Symposium with Dr. Duke Pesta, Vineland, NJ.
September 28: Fighting Common Core: Round Two with Dr. Duke Pesta, Hightstown, NJ.
October 4: Common Core: Dangers and Threats, Milwaukee, WI.
October 7: Immigration Invasion Video Showing, Flemington, NJ.
Unlawful and Immoral or Not, it’s OK When the End Justifies the Means: Can you say “dark money super PAC”?
|It may be all about race at the bottom of the food chain, but at the top it’s all about MOOLA for the anti-capitalist elite at the top! Wouldn’t it just be cheaper to rig the voting machines as the Republicans do?|
Can you say “dark money super PAC”
Last November, when the American Federation of Teachers wanted to slip a cool half-million into a last-second ad buy to support Marty Walsh’s Democratic candidacy for mayor of Boston, it had a New Jersey union front group (One New Jersey) hurriedly concoct a Boston union front group (One Boston). Now both front groups have agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a dispute with the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance for five different violations: failure to organize as a PAC, failure to disclose finance activity accurately, contributions made in a manner intended to disguise the true source of the contributions, receipt of contributions not raised in accordance with campaign law, and use of wire transfers. Still, it worked: Walsh won.
This is a classic case of the way unions and other left-wing pressure groups operate to influence elections. The only anomaly: the union groups paid for a positive ad, rather than the usual attack ad. That may be explained by One Boston’s indication that it sought to influence “Women 50+,” who may be more susceptible to positive ads than negative ones.
|One Boston chair and treasurer Jocelyn Hutt, an infrequent voter who doesn’t
show up in state or federal databases of campaign donors. One Boston spent
$500,000 to back Marty Walsh’s campaign for mayor in Boston. (Source)
To illustrate the way these scams work, we provide a bit more background on the groups involved. One Boston is the kind of pop-up mystery group the Left often creates at the last minute in an election. Its life spanned only October 23, 2013, to January 7, 2014, but the big checks it cut for ads immediately raised the local media’s eyebrows and made them wonder what this strange beast was. Later, when the truth came out, the CommonWealth Magazine website sketched a portrait of One Boston:
Legally, One Boston was a 501(c)(4) or “social welfare” nonprofit. It disclosed only one donor, another 501(c)(4), One New Jersey, which in turn is a mysterious group. You can tell from One New Jersey’s website that it lives to excoriate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), but who or what is behind it is opaque.
It has no IRS tax filings available on Guidestar.org, but it does have a single IRS tax filing available on the Foundation Center’s site, and on that form you can find three names: Steve DeMicco, Brad Lawrence, and Steve Rosenthal—the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, respectively. Those names make it possible to peel back some of the mystery.
Rosenthal, as his Wikipedia entry notes, “is a longtime labor and political strategist.” His résumé includes founding America Coming Together, “a voter mobilization project aimed at defeating incumbent Republican president George W. Bush” that was “one of the largest voter mobilization campaigns in Democratic history.” He also spent seven years as political director of the AFL-CIO, where he was credited with “transforming” organized labor’s campaign operation into the nation’s “most effective.”
His One New Jersey colleagues DeMicco and Lawrence are also behind-the-scenes operatives who’ve worked together in Jersey politics since at least 1979. Their P.R. firm Message and Media has won the last three Newark mayoral elections and is one of the state’s most prominent political outfits, helping elect governors, senators, and representatives, often using union money to buy the air time for ads.
Message and Media also produced One Boston’s ad, but everyone kept mum about who had supplied the half-million needed for that. It was weeks after Walsh’s victory before the AFT confessed to the Boston Globe thatits coffers had underwritten the ads.
The final background data: every outside group that spent money to elect Walsh was revealed as union-backed, including SEIU entities, American Working Families PAC, Working America, etc. In fact, David Bernstein of Boston magazine estimated that more than 80% of all money for Walsh—both “inside” his official campaign and pouring in from outside groups—came from labor bosses.
The outside spending set a record for such money in Massachusetts, and the mayor’s race also set a record as the state’s most expensive municipal race ever. Why were labor bosses so keen to see Walsh beat Connolly? As the Boston Globe explains, Connolly “had several high-profile spats with the Boston Teachers Union in his six years” on the city council.
The Globe found that Walsh’s union backers poured $2.5 million via independent expenditures on his behalf, or about double the $1.3 million in outside support that Connolly received. To further clarify the two men’s critical difference: Connolly’s outside support came exclusively from national education reform groups.
Presumably the AFT will pay the $30,000 fine, even though it’s not named in the court documents, especially given that One Boston no longer exists. As Mike Antonucci of the indispensable Education Intelligence Agency blog jokes,
Actually, it’s a cheap gratuity – $30,000 on $500,000 means the AFT is only leaving a 6% tip.
The 169 aliens with homicide-related convictions who were freed by ICE in 2013 were booked out of detention facilities in 24 different states, with the largest number in California, according to information provided to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). ICE records show that these convicted killers were associated with 96 different cities and towns across America. The city with the largest concentration was Miami, with seven convicted murderers freed by ICE, followed by Los Angeles with six.
Red Points: Zip Codes of Released Convicted Murderers
Blue Squares: Final Book Out Detention Center for the Releases (Not all locations are exact)
View Full Screen Map
ICE provided the information to Sen. Grassley in response to concerns based on a CIS report revealing that ICE freed 36,007 aliens with criminal convictions in 2013, an occurrence that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) called “the worst prison break in history.” Sen. Grassley asked ICE for more details, particularly on the 169 criminal aliens with homicide convictions, including the reason for release, the location of release, and the zip code of the alien’s last known address.
First, it must be noted that the original ICE document enumerating the 36,007 releases indicates that the count of criminal aliens with homicide convictions is 193, not 169. It is not clear why ICE did not provide information to Sen. Grassley on all 193 homicide-conviction releases.
ICE states that 154 of the 169 aliens with homicide-related convictions were freed because of a court order, leaving nine releases that were at ICE’s discretion. This contradicts an earlier ICE statement saying that about one-fourth of the releases (or about 48) were discretionary.
Some of the court-ordered releases are the so-called Zadvydas cases, where ICE must release or anticipates being ordered to release an alien because the alien’s country refuses to cooperate in the deportation process. Others are likely the result of a Ninth Circuit ruling allowing for bond hearings for aliens whose detention lasts for six months.
ICE says that the discretionary releases were due to “eligibility for bond” or “deteriorated health or advanced age”, without providing details or numbers.
ICE does not specify how many, if any, of the homicide convicts have been removed from the country. It states that only 131 have been issued a final order of removal, and that one of the freed convicts was granted voluntary departure. That individual is the only one that ICE says has left the country. This gives the impression that the rest of the homicide convicts who were freed are still at large somewhere in the United States.
ICE’s response follows on an internal audit report on ICE’s botched case management that resulted in the release of 2,226 detainees in February 2013. Most of those releases occurred in Texas and Arizona.
The following is a listing of the cities and towns associated with the freed aliens with homicide-related convictions in 2013, which are shown in red on the map. ICE also provided a list of the detention centers from which the aliens were released, which are shown in blue on the map.
Cities and Towns Associated with Convicted Murderers Freed by ICE in 2013
(Note: This list is derived from the list of zip codes provided by ICE that were associated with the criminal alien’s last known address. This information was not available for every released alien. In addition, there could be more than one convict associated with a zip code.)
By: Barry Donegan Aug 13, 2014 via benswann
In Tennessee, 53-year-old ballot access laws place significant and unique burdens on independent parties, thus limiting their ability to be recognized on the ballot. As a result, third-party candidates have traditionally listed themselves as “independent” on Tennessee ballots, as ballot access requirements for independent candidates are much more reasonably attainable than for representatives of a political party. However, the 2012 lawsuit Green Party of Tenn. et al. vs. Hargett et al. rattled the restrictive rules, as a federal judge decided that the requirements placed on independent parties were unconstitutional. Ultimately, US District Judge William Haynes Jr. ordered that the Green and Constitution parties be listed on the ballot in 2012 and, through another lawsuit, in 2014.
Activists with the Libertarian Party of Tennessee have launched their own lawsuit in an effort to get the party’s gubernatorial candidate Daniel Lewis listed on the ballot alongside his party identification in the 2014 general election. As it stands, Daniel Lewis is set to be listed on the ballot as an independent. In 2013, Libertarian Party state house candidate Jim Thomasik made history by successfully suing to have himself listed on the ballot by his party identification.
The restrictive ballot access laws set two different qualification standards for major and minor parties. The Republican and Democratic parties can remain as statewide parties, allowing ongoing ballot access without collecting signatures, as long as one candidate receives 5% of the total votes cast for governor over a four year span of time, which has always happened. In order to be considered a statewide party, independent parties, on the other hand, must have attained 5% of the total votes cast for governor in the most recent election, which is not possible during off-year elections in which a party might have attained recognition on a ballot that does not include a governor’s race. Since third parties rarely attain ballot access in the first place, Tennessee’s independent parties have not had an opportunity to develop in a way that would enable them to achieve 5% of votes in gubernatorial races.
Another complication was pointed out by Courthouse News Service, “Tennessee Code Annotated 2-1-104 requires minor parties to obtain the signatures of 2.5 percent of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election of governor, to be recognized and appear on the ballot.” This means that, before an independent party can even attempt to achieve the 5% benchmark in a gubernatorial race, it must, in the exact same year, orchestrate a nearly-impossible petition drive by acquiring what could be over 40,000 valid signatures of registered voters in a limited amount of time. The Libertarian Party’s recently filed lawsuit, Lewis v. Goins, requests for the court to affirm the previous rulings that found these ballot access restrictions unconstitutional.
A Davidson County voter, Patricia Gilmore, also signed on to the lawsuit and offered a comment on it in a statement released by the party, “In this broken election system that apparently values dollar bills over individuals, people are losing their natural rights to free expression via association. A closed ballot, which fiercely restricts access to only two parties, does not allow voters the ability to freely associate with any party that best represents their interests, as opposed to special interests. Very few voters have the time and ability to research every candidate in every election and are discouraged from voting by the distinct impression that they may only associate with parties Bad and Worse.”
Another voter who signed on to the lawsuit, Bonnie Tyndall of Williamson County, pointed out, “Archival recordings of the Tennessee Legislature debating this issue in 1961 show a legislative intent to force alternative party candidates to run as independents, so that voters would not know that they are associated with a political party or with which party they were associated. The law made it nearly impossible for new political parties to form.”
Given the precedent in recent cases, it is likely that Lewis’ case will prevail, and he will be listed on the ballot by his party identification, giving Tennesseans a Libertarian Party option in the gubernatorial race for the first time in history.
An academic look into the driving forces behind American Federal policymaking concludes that the average citizen in the United States has “essentially zero” influence over the direction of government.
According to the report, even when a majority of Americans wants the government to do something, it is powerless against the influence of “economic elites” – the corporations, people and monied special interests that drive nearly all U.S. policymaking.
That information comes courtesy of a preliminary study draft prepared by Princeton University’s Martin Gilens and Northwestern University’s Benjamin Page. A final version of their report is due later this year.
The researchers culled public opinion data from nearly 2,000 surveys and polls taken between 1981 and 2002, juxtaposing the responses of median-income Americans against those of “fairly affluent” (90th percentile of income) Americans. Then they compiled information on the policy preferences, year by year, of Fortune magazine’s “Power 25” corporations, as well as the ten industries not on that list that had spent the most money on Federal lobbying. Then they compared each group’s policy preferences with the actual policy outcomes that took shape over that 21-year period.
What they found was that the average American citizen has virtually no voice in shaping Federal policy compared with the “economic elites.”
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule – at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
…When the alignments of business-oriented and mass-based interest groups are included separately in a multivariate model, average citizens’ preferences continue to have essentially zero estimated impact upon policy change, while economic elites are still estimated to have a very large, positive, independent impact.
Interestingly, the study finds that the economically powerful often have policy interests that (incidentally) overlap with the policy interests of average Americans.
“It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites,” the authors wrote. “Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government… Ordinary citizens, for example, might often be observed to “win” (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policymaking, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail.”
Turning their attention to monied interest groups (i.e., lobbies), though, the story changes dramatically:
But net interest group stands are not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens. Taking all interest groups together, the index of net interest group alignment correlates only a non-significant .04 with average citizens’ preferences! …This casts grave doubt on David Truman’s and others’ argument that organized interest groups tend to do a good job of representing the population as a whole.
The takeaway is that the interests of “economic elites” and interest groups always trump those of individuals, whose chief power over government is the voting process. The interests of powerful groups can and sometimes do overlap with those of average citizens, producing policy outcomes that please both groups. However, when those interests diverge, it is the elites who nearly always win out, and the people who nearly always lose.
By: Rachel Blevins Aug 12, 2014
Running as a Libertarian candidate, and attempting to defy the two-party system is not an easy task in the United States, and Robert Sarvis is one candidate who knows the many obstacles that come when running for a third party.
In addition to being a current candidate for the U.S. Senate, and a resident of Virginia, Sarvis has had experience as a lawyer, teacher, software developer, businessman, and politician.
In his time running as a third-party candidate, Sarvis has found that he has been excluded from the major debates that are known for putting candidates in the spotlight.
Although he only needed 10,000 signatures to have his name included on the ballot, Sarvis gathered 19,000 signatures from registered voters.
Despite the voter support, Sarvis told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that his exclusion from the debates was influenced by the demands of his Republican opponent, Ed Gillespie, and his Democratic opponent, Senator Mark Warner.
“It’s incredibly frustrating,” said Sarvis. “It’s one thing to run in a fair process and lose. It’s another thing to see the candidates of the two major parties use the process and try to rig it in their favor.”
Sarvis’ proof that both Warner and Gillespie campaigns pressured debate organizers not to invite him came in the form of an email. In it, a representative of James Madison University’s Student Government Association responded to an inquiry about Sarvis’ participation in the debate, saying, “Both campaigns had stated that if Mr. Sarvis were to be invited to participate in the debate their chances of agreeing to accept the invitation was unlikely and actually committing was even less likely.”
In response, Sarvis called his opponents’ actions “intellectual cowardice,” and he said he thinks it is “pathetic that a sitting senator would do this.“
Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington, acknowledged the fact that “there is political space for libertarian ideas in this country,” but also said that while Libertarian candidates do have difficulty getting into debates, it is an extremely important factor on Election Day.
“It’s hard to draw much attention to yourself if you’re not part of the debates,” said Farnsworth. “The two major parties tend to agree that Democrats and Republicans should control the discourse. The biggest challenge for the Sarvis campaign is something that is totally out of his hands.”
The increase in popularity in the Libertarian movement has even caught the eye of The New York Times’ Robert Draper, who wrote, “Libertarians, who long have relished their role as acerbic sideline critics of American political theater, now find themselves and their movement thrust into the middle of it.
“For decades their ideas have had serious backing financially, intellectually and in the media,” wrote Draper. “Today, for perhaps the first time, the libertarian movement appears to have genuine political momentum on its side.“
The following two tabs change content below.
The 17th Amendment has seen to it your state legislatures have lost control of their US senators as well. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is the poster child for this treachery.
We share below the extensive list of many individual states with evidence presenting this betrayal of the Republican Party rank’n file conservatives by the Party leadership and their monied sponsors. But then, the Marxist guideline of “the end justifies the means” which in this instance is not a moral outcome, but acquiring booty from criminal means. That applies to either Party, no?
Whatever the outcome, unless you’re duplicitous (“following orders”), loyal to Party before Country, you’ll be putting your family and neighbors on the losing side of liberty. Of course you realize that your govt pension cannot be paid without taxes from the masses.
If politics has been your only career, you better stay there, you wouldn’t make it in the competitive marketplace where failures are not overlooked.
In Interview: Mitt Romney Admits “They Had To Steal Republican Nomination” From Ron Paul
Given what has come before it in the film — Romney’s defeatism in the
debates — the scene leaves the impression that perhaps in his heart of
hearts Romney never really believed he could win.
That also seems the message of one of the last scenes of “Mitt,” the day after the election,
when Romney addressed staff at his Boston campaign headquarters. The
old lack of confidence came out again as Romney suggested he never felt
comfortable in the race. He passed on something someone at headquarters
had told him: “In some ways, we kind of had to steal the Republican
nomination. Our party is Southern, evangelical and populist. And you’re
Northern, and you’re Mormon, and you’re rich. And these do not match
well with our party.”
For those that live in a cave (or are Fox News Viewers), there was rampant Election Fraud that took place during the 2012 Republican Primaries. Below is a complete timeline of that fraud:
ELECTION FRAUD 2012…
-Significant Evidence of Algorithm Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections.
-2012 Election RIGGED – This is going Viral http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBx__69pkpY&feature;=related.
-Ron Paul – Fraud Victim in 2012.
-Nevada Election Fraud Proof In 5 minutes, Nevada GOP Caucus Fraud Voter Rights Violated.
-What Happened to Ron Paul’s Vote in Nevada?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZfKfaqczE&feature;=related-Ron Paul: Vote Rigged Against Him In Nevada?
-Voting fraud against Ron Paul Victory in North Dakota – Super Tuesday Night 03/06/12.
-GOP voter fraud against Ron Paul 2012 – Clear Evidence.
-Alaska Election Fraud Confirmed Ron Paul Camp Cries Foul 2012 Election Caucus.
-Ron Paul 100% proof of Maine Election fraud! Ben Swann Reality Check WXIX FOX 2/15/12http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYXVaUWSiA&feature;=related.
-Maddow: Proof Ron Paul Was Robbed In Maine.
-Ron Paul Openly Calls GOP Election Fraud.
-Ron Paul Talks About Election Fraud on Columbia, MO Radio 03/16/12.
-Ron Paul: Their Shenanigans Won’t Stop Us.
-Rachel Maddow “I’m delegate shenanigans worried”.
-“Rig a state convention if you have to, I mean that’s what insiders do” – Chris Todd, MSNBC.
-Admit It: The Elections Are Rigged.
-Iowa Caucuses RIGGED! Cover up Ron Paul Win!
-Ron Paul Won New Hampshire Rigged 88% Poll on CNN.
-Ron Paul wins 90% of the vote in a poll in Birmingham, Alabama.
-This is what happened when I tried to cast my vote today… – Ron Paul 2012.
-Voter Fraud in Alabama? Memory Cards Switched!
-Delegate Vote Anomaly In Alabama VERIFIED!
-Ron Paul Ballots in Idaho Thousands Missing.
-Ron Paul Supporters Observe the Vote at Kansas Caucuses – March 10 2012.
-Vote Fraud at the Iowa Caucus – Eye Witness Call to Alex Jones.
-Iowa vote was a fraud Ron Paul Won that one.
-Iowa Vote Count Observer Claims Fraud Helped Romney Win.
-CONFIRMED: Voter Fraud Found in 8 Precincts’ in Iowa Caucuses! 1/19/12
-What do you mean the numbers don’t match?
-Iowa Caucus STOLEN from Ron Paul?
-New Voter Fraud Dead People Voting South Carolina – Zombies Voting?
-Dead People Receive Ballots in NH Primary.
-Ron Paul Wolfeboro NH reported voting fraud 1/10/12.
-RON PAUL VOTE FRAUD NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT SUTTON PT1.
-MORE Ron Paul Election Fraud 3-24-12 GOP Vote Rigging Hidden Cam.
-Ron Paul Election Fraud ADMITTED Hidden Cam Bryan Spencer St Charles GOP.
-GOP Election Fraud Against Ron Paul at Missouri Clay County 3.17.12 • Must See •.
-Voter Fraud Declared at Christian County, Missouri GOP Caucus.
–Breaking News: Athens-Clarke County, GA Republican Delegate Fraud.
-Ben Swann – Ron Paul Supports got evidence of Election fraud – Missouri and Georgia.
-Ben Swann Explains Missouri Delegate Election Fraud Reality Check Ron Paul.
-Missouri Caucus Rigged Fraud, NO Camera’s Allowed Ron Paul Mitt Romney Voters Election St Charles.
-Reality Check North Dakota Caucus railroaded to give majority of delegates to Romney?
-Fraud Charges Filed Over Puerto Rico Primary in San Juan Supreme Court.
-Goldman Employees Donated $1 Million to Obama Campaign.
-Goldman Sachs’ $1 Million Man: Mitt Romney’s Ties To A ‘Toxic And Destructive’ Bank.
-Illumination: the Secret Religion – Goldman Sachs.
-Just How Corrupt Will The United States Voting System Be In 2012? – VIRALIZE
-Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Romney Supported by Talk Show sphere).
Professor Murray Sabrin admits Ron Paul MEDIA BLACKOUT by the Federal Reserve.
-Ballot Box Switcheroo?
-Ron Paul delegates sabotaged by surprise slate full of Santorum delegates at Congressional Assembly.
-2012 Wyoming Republican State Convention – Erroneous ballots cast purposely.
-Mitt Romney Caught Giving Free Sub Sandwiches For Votes! IT’S A FELONY!
-Voter Fraud Revealed Against Ron Paul – Interview with an Arizona Congressional District Delegate.
-Charlie Cheater: all relevant data found so far. | Peace. Gold. Liberty | Ron Paul 2012.
-Romney Passing Out FAKE Ron Paul Slates At Nevada Republican Convention – 5/6/12.
-Oklahoma GOP continues national trend of disenfranchising Paul supporters.
June 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm
As one who worked as a judge in the primary of Texas, in Austin, yet in
a highly Old-Guard-GOP Neocon area, I can attest to the FACT that at
least 66 percent of those who voted Republican voted for PAUL.
I will, to my last day, know and state that the GOP actively flipped the votes for Romney and against Paul.
-Police assault and arrest Ron Paul supporters in Louisiana (VIDEO)