I will not spend time on much prose. These two articles convey what needs to be done and yet one more reason why. First, that further confirmation about the man who could be, if elected, free America’s final president.
In Beltway Confidential, at the Washington Examiner:
by Philip Klein, Senior Editorial Writer
Over the weekend, Politico broke the news that Mitt Romney had tapped Mike Leavitt, the former Utah Governor and HHS Secretary under George W. Bush, to lead the transition effort should Romney win the presidency. This is a very worrisome signal to conservatives holding out hope that Romney will live up to his promises to fight for limited government if elected. As Ben Domenech details, Leavitt is one of the few Republicans who has been actively campaigning for governors to implement Obamacare’s health care exchanges at the state level. Conveniently enough, his consultancy group would profit from such an expansion of government because he has won contracts to set up the exchanges.
Though a lot of the reaction to the Leavitt appointment has focused on support for the key component of Obamacare, it’s worth noting that as governor of a very conservative state, Leavitt expanded government and fought efforts to cut taxes. As governor of Utah, Leavitt received a “D” in the Cato Institute’s 2002 fiscal policy report card – the same grade as Howard Dean that year, making him “one of the most pro–big government governors.” According to the report:
Leavitt has shown time and again that he is to the left of his party—so much so that he was nearly defeated during the Republican nominating convention in 2000. The legislature has on many occasions pushed pro-growth tax policies, only to have them rejected by Leavitt. Last year, the legislature passed a $25 million tax cut that included income tax relief. Leavitt insisted on a tax cut one-fifth that size… The only two taxes that he has reduced were the sales tax and the unemployment tax. Leavitt is a big spender extraordinaire. During his 10 years in office, real spending per capita has risen by nearly one-third. He backed a massive $2.6 billion highway construction bill and hiked the gas tax by 5 cents a gallon to pay for it. In 2000, Leavitt backed a 7.4 percent hike in school spending, the largest increase since the early 1980s. He says improving education is the “keystone to our state’s success,” but he opposes voucher reforms. He does deserve credit for dealing with the budget crisis this year without asking for major new taxes, and he has finally slowed spending growth, but he did agree to a cigarette tax hike. The budget nonetheless faces a $175 million shortfall for 2003. Leavitt has also become known in Washington as “Mr. Internet Tax.” As head of the National Governors Association, he lobbied incessantly for a federal law to allow states to tax out-of-state Internet companies. It is ironic that one of the most conservative states in the union has one of the most pro–big government governors.
Leavitt, in short, was exactly the type of Republican the Tea Party was founded to oppose, and he’s playing a key role in planning a potential Romney presidency, and as the Politico reports, “already, plugged-in Republicans from Washington to Salt Lake City are buzzing that Leavitt could make his own transition next January into the job of White House chief of staff or as a-Valerie Jarrett like personal counselor to a President Romney.”
In DailyPaul, presented in its entirety due to its brevity, I suggest clicking over, to review comments:
The federal laws are as follows:
11 CFR 100.2(e): ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2… ) Defining a national convention as a “Federal Election” for the purpose of electing a candidate for federal office. Which states:
“(e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.”
42 USC 1971 – Sec. 1971. Voting rights: ( http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/sec-voting-rights-19251307 ) Which states:
“No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President”
The Republican party is a private party. A legal voter/delegate is also considered a private party. These private parties are separately governed by numerous federal and state laws (depending on their location).
The Republican National Convention; however, is a federal election made up of multiple private parties which serve to nominate a candidate for the office of the Presidency (which is a federal office position).
The Republican National Convention itself is a federal election bound by federal laws.
These two federal laws alone SHOULD prove that no state law or private party rule can force an individual to vote against their own free will for any federal election. Period!
*** EDIT: ***
After receiving some insightful legal information, I have concluded the following:
Under 42 USC 1971(e) the word “vote” includes all action necessary to make a vote effective.
It appears that it would be easy for one to argue in court that any “threat, coercion, or intimidation” they incurred; interfered with ones right to “vote as he may choose” and undermined their effectiveness to “vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President”.
Delegate binding and affidavit coercion could be argued as undermining ones “effectiveness to ‘vote’.”
This undermining of ones “effectiveness to ‘vote'”, has been argued and won in multiple supreme court cases. The following is one of the latest cases:
Morse v. Republican Party of Va. – 517 U.S. 186 (1995) ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-203.ZO.html )
Gasp!! Does that mean that if this were to happen and Romney were prevented from gaining the 1,144 votes necessary for nomination, then Ron Paul would therefore become the nominee? No. But if he would, it would be so much better than succumbing to the candidate that those national saboteurs who gave us Obama now want.
Actually, the candidate who would likely be seen as the classic compromise acceptable to enough present Romney and Paul leaners on the convention floor would be Newt Gingrich. Gingrich, unlike Romney, has promised to reverse Obama’s Marxofascist, globalist Executive Orders, including all the “Czar” appointments and his Agenda 21 and EPA EO’s.
Huh, why do you suppose Mitt Romney has not promised to do the same?
If you are really wondering that and you have read much in Gulag Bound, what does that say?