GOP refuses to seat Maine delegation unless they agree to “Compromise”?

Thoughts? We are a representative republic based on the United States Constitution. We the People control our Liberty and limit our federal government. The Bill of Rights protects our natural laws under God. These statements are not supported by either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. The process where the people vote in elections to choose a political party’s nominee(s) at a convention is broken. And yet we continue to participate in a system doomed to fail. And we attack anyone who points this fact out.

Where does this leave the United States? Dr. Paul is a “Constitutional” candidate. Any resistance to the elites’ chosen candidate will not be tolerated. In fact, it will be crushed as shown by this video and Newt Gingrich’s demise in the Florida primary. Whether this situation expands so that a brokered Republican convention will decide the GOP’s nominee is not the point. The point is that the presumed Republican nominee and the GOP will do anything to win the election. Mr. Romney has publicly stated that he will not follow the Constitution for declaring war and supporting the rights of the people guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. He developed the model for national health care and his position on abortion is uncertain. So we have a choice to make if the elites controlling our nation are successful.

1. We can sit at home and not participate.

2. We can reelect Barack Obama and allow the United States to collapse into Communism.

3. We can vote for Mitt Romney and take our chances with “the strongman” as outlined in the Road to Serfdom.

4. We can vote for another candidate who has no chance of winning the election: the protest vote.

Many readers are now thinking that these four options are not relevant if the elections are postponed or cancelled. That contingency will provide a completely different scenario with unintended consequences.

The only solution that will provide a future based in Liberty and our founding principles is a restoration of the Constitution and our founding principles. The first step is to admit the two party system has failed and to stop blindly accepting the crumbs of decaying freedom. Want proof? Both presumed nominees for the President of the United States have publicly vowed to circumvent the Constitution. There is no arguing this fact.

So what will you do? What will you do to fight for your country? When will you understand that the federal government is not the United States? When will you understand that “Liberty or Death” has two meanings: one for the patriot and one for the coward. There is no choice for me: I will not die because the loss of Liberty allowed “them” to come for me in the middle of the night. I will die for the restoration of Liberty. There should be no choice for any patriot.

David DeGerolamo

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Civil Unrest, Editorial, Elections and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to GOP refuses to seat Maine delegation unless they agree to “Compromise”?

  1. Peggy says:

    I am in agreement, my sentiments exactly

  2. tmedlin says:

    You should probably post the video showing this “Mr. Romney has publicly stated that he will not follow the Constitution for declaring war and supporting the rights of the people guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”

  3. Larry Porter says:

    These two videos of Romney tell anyone with a brain all they need to know about this man. The only thing, THE ONLY thing he will do is replace Obama. So have fun, those who will vote for anyone just to remove Obama. And when do you intend to begin the fight for your country?

  4. Hans says:

    May we return to the title of this post ?.

    IF the GOP is the club-of-right-wing-statists that sponsors the GOP convention

    THEN they should have authority to decide who is invited and who is excluded

    … the freedom of association and assembly.

    As I have no desire to participate in their two-party-charade, I am not offended by their requirements for participation.

    • David says:

      Then your position is that the elected delegates are at the mercy of the elitists controlling the GOP.
      Sounds about right to me.
      The hogs look mighty hungry today.

  5. tmedlin says:

    Why do you think the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party have been unable to field candidates that can garner enough support to get more of them elected? Is it their choice of candidates, their platform, or what? Also, what has happened to Ron Paul’s Repeal the War Powers Act legislation?
    Romney can certainly do more than simply replace Obama, unless you believe he is a Marxist, just like Obama -- electing him would certainly buy time for a credible candidate to be fielded in 2016.
    Frankly, all this talk about “fighting” seems like bluster, to me. I don’t see any “fighting” going on…hell, I don’t even see anybody protesting in the streets, just griping and complaining about our choices in the election. There’s nobody “fighting” for squat -- not in THIS country, anyway-just a bunch of people pecking away on computers -- armchair warriors, so to speak, complaining about others not “acting”. What are YOU waiting for?

  6. tmedlin says:

    Was just able to watch the first video. It seems to me that the coup to take over the GOP from the inside has failed. I don’t understand why Gary Johnson gets no respect, don’t understand why Ron Paul is the only one considered to be THE Constitutional candidate except for the cult of personality thing. Gary Johnson is the legitimate Libertarian candidate. Those that can’t stomach Mitt Romney should throw their support behind Gary Johnson. At least he doesn’t have the lying, anti-semetic stigma that Ron Paul has. He’s young, he’s been a very effective governor, so he’s got executive experience, not to mention he ran his own successful business. A strong showing for Gary Johnson might encourage people to vote libertarian next time…if there IS a next time. I don’t know if the Constitution Party managed to get on the ballot in all states, or not. That would also be an option. But I DO know this -- if you are trying to build a group of people, who love this country, love freedom, respect the Constitution, and want to return to the founding principles this country was built on, you don’t call them cowards, or unpatriotic, or anti-Constitution, or slaves to the 2 party system, just because they don’t agree with your tactics or strategies. When you do, it makes you sound like a wanna-be “strongman” referred to in Item 3 of the article…just sayin…

  7. Hans says:

    “What are YOU waiting for?”

    Thus spoke the armchair warrior princess …
    … pecking away on her computer.

  8. Donna says:

    Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there,
    eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters,
    and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle.
    Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.

    -- attributed to Heraclitus, unverified

  9. Donna says:

    that would be from the second “armchair warrior princess”….

  10. Donna says:

    So should I consider myself as the “other” and you as the “one” ? If we do not agree?

    • David says:

      I did not say I was the “one”. Maybe you are the one in a hundred. If your original premise is correct, then one percent of the population is part of the “one”. That means that three million people are “warriors” in the US. I have no problem being one of the nine. I have no problem being wrong. And I will not vote against the Constitution.

      What do we not agree on? Do you think the government in Washington is America? Or do you think that the people and principles that founded our country represent America?

  11. tmedlin says:

    Where is the answer to the question I asked earlier, oh followers of the one Constitutionalist, Ron Paul? What are the results of his fight to end the unconstitutional War Powers Act, the Act that makes Mitt Romney “evil” because he obviously is in support of it which translates into he’s against the Constitution? My point being, for those too obtuse to see it, is Ron Paul is NOT the savior! He’s had 30+ years to SAVE the country. If he’s the only Constitutionalist why has he not made the War Powers Act, and repealing it, a primary focus of his service in DC? I know you don’t want to hear anything against him. That fits right in the whole cult of personality with Dr. Paul AND Barack Obama. Once again, Ron Paul isn’t going to save this country, Mitt Romney is not going to save this country, but Barack Obama with an unencumbered next 4 years could damn sure do enough damage to this country that we NEVER get it back.
    And Hans, I’m not the one on the computer, day in and day out thumping my chest like I’m the only person, or group of people that are fighting for this country and that everyone else who disagrees with me is a coward, a fool, a pawn, not a patriot. 20 or 30 people sitting around in a circle jerk every couple of months, convincing themselves that they are the only people who are fighting for this country may make them feel superior. If that is what gets them through the night, fine. But they are NOT saving the country doing it. It’s going to take a lot more than 20 or 30 people to right this ship, so the sooner the day after day of insults stops, the real work can begin…and I’m not even a member of the Henderson County “weak” Tea Party!
    We can lose the war, by helping Barack Obama stay in the White House. I’ll not be part of that. I’ll just keep working to remove Obama, and YA’LL can “fight”…shut down Bank of America or some such other “occupy” crap.

    • David says:

      I revised the article to say Dr. Paul is “a” Constitutional candidate. Of the three (Obama, Romney and Paul), he is “the” Constitutional candidate with a 100% Constitutional voting record in the House. I did not list voting for Dr. Paul as one of the options:

      4. We can vote for another candidate who has no chance of winning the election: the protest vote.

      I would ask that we go back to the intent of the article which was the GOP violating their own rules to eliminate delegates elected by the people from attending the convention.

  12. tmedlin says:

    David, I would like to apologize for the over-the-top attack (the circle-jerk comment, for example). As you know, I have been ferocious in my defense on you on several occasions, and I tend to be equally ferocious when we disagree, even Dorothy had to smack the Great Oz :). I guess I keep coming back to ncrenegade, because we agree on the ultimate goal, even if we disagree about the tactics. There are, without a doubt, seriously tough times ahead, and we need each other to restore this country. As far as the GOP and their rules -- I have no say, am not a member; it was an interesting try on the part of the Paul delegates, but they probably should have known that a coup would not be allowed. In the future, I suspect their support will go to the Libertarian Party, which will certainly get a boost in November…unless Obama is re-elected -- then we are SCREWED!

    • David says:

      No apology necessary. If people always agreed on everything, we would become an apathetic and stagnant country. I have no intention of being the Great Oz, earthly king or a dictator. I want to point out that I am not endorsing Ron Paul with this article, I was merely pointing out that the GOP is disenfranchising the delegates elected by the people’s votes in the primary. What is worse: voter fraud at the polls or voter fraud by a political party? Both are evil in a representative Republic and must not be tolerated.

      We will never win if we agree the premise that the means justifies the end.

  13. Hans says:


    “As far as the GOP and their rules – I have no say, am not a member; …”

    … which was entirely the point of my initial comment
    … before you went off on a rant about keyboard warriors
    … and ‘invited’ me to take a humerous poke at you

    • tmedlin says:

      actually, my rant wasn’t directed at you, Hans (I’m not THAT stupid :). It was at the final paragraph in the article, and directed back at Larry’s question.

      • David says:

        The final paragraph was not directed at anyone: it was meant to point out that if we lose our Liberty completely, we will be waiting as Pastor Niemoller pointed out:

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
        Because I was not a Socialist.
        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
        Because I was not a Jew.
        Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Comments are closed.