What the lamestream media told you
Mitt Romney has clinched the Republican nomination for president with a win in the Texas primary.
The Associated Press delegate count shows that Romney surpassed the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination during Tuesday's primary. Early returns show Romney posting a big win in Texas.
What they neglected to tell you
The Associate Press's delegate count is at best an educated guess, and at worst pure speculation.
Here are the facts:
1. Mitt Romney has 591 legally bound delegates. The rest of the delegates are up for grabs, and it's anyone's guess who they belong to.
2. Ron Paul has been getting the majority of delegates in most states, and if crowd enthusiasm is a metric of delegates (which it has been thus far), Ron Paul is extremely likely to win the majority of unbound delegates in Texas.
3. Even if Mitt Romney miraculously got all of the bound delegates, he still would be far from clinching the nomination. The numbers just do not add up, it is mathematically impossible (not astronomical, impossible) For Romney to clinch the nomination at this point. There aren't enough total bound delegates available.
In summary, the AP and all the media outlets who listen to them are either complete idiots or liars. Mitt Romney has not clinched anything, in fact he is so far from clinching the nomination, that Ron Paul may very well have the majority of delegates.
Now, moving onto Texas:
*The delegate allocation system for Texas according to 2012 rules are as follows:
Texas delegate breakdown:
155 total delegates
44 at-large delegates
108 congressional delegates
3 automatic delegates
At-large allocation: Up for grabs, completely unbound.
Congressional district allocation:
As Rule 38, Section 8 of the Republican Party of Texas rules describes, delegates are allocated to candidates in proportion to that candidate's share of the statewide vote.2 There is no threshold for receiving delegates. However, there is a threshold to receiving the assignment of particular delegates. If a candidate does not receive 20% of the vote statewide, then that candidate is not eligible for congressional district delegates unless he or she receives at least 20% of the vote in any given congressional district. All that really means is that a candidate under 20% statewide and 20% in all congressional districts will gain statewide, at-large delegates to "fill out" their allotment of delegates. Meanwhile, candidates, say Mitt Romney, well over 20% both statewide and on the congressional district will gather the assignment of the most delegates from the congressional district level as a means of completing the full allocation based on the overall statewide vote while the candidates further back will be assigned at-large delegates.
Election of these delegates will take place at the state convention on June 7-9.
Automatic delegate allocation:
The three Texas automatic delegates are free to pledge themselves to a candidate of their choosing. The national committee positions are elected to four years terms at one of the state conventions held every two even-numbered years. Those positions are term-limited after two consecutive terms. That means that committeeman and RNC legal counsel Bill Crocker -- serving since 2004 -- will be replaced in his role as committeeman at the state convention. Committeewoman Borah Van Dormolen was elected in a runoff in 2009 and is still in her first term. The party chairperson is elected every two years and can serve no more than four consecutive terms. Current chair, Steve Munisteri, was first elected to the post in 2010. He will be up for reelection at the state convention but will not be term limited.
(excerpted from http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2012/05/2012-republican-delegate-allocation_29.html)
For the real delegate count for the 2012 election, see this site: http://thereal2012delegatecount.com
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Julian Assange vs. The World: Views on Justice and Morality
When morality is decided only with those with the power to enforce justice, justice becomes a perversion, just as absolute power corrupts absolutely. To say that right and wrong can only by those with the power to do so, is to remove all intrinsic meaning from "justice" save for the exchange of power itself. Assuming the exchange of power to be the rightful appropriator of justice as the statements condemning Julian Assange's actions explicitly connote, morality is reduced to no more than the primitive imposing of the ruling party's interests by force, and with the case of the United States, military budget, technology, strength, and strategic authority.
Particularly since Julian Assange's leaks have targeted corruption dealing predominantly with the U.S. military-industrial complex, to write off his role as a mere "actor" and his actions as "wrong", is to demonstrate a disturbingly superficial conception of human ethics, as well as a pitifully naive understanding of the United States government, their actions in the Middle East, and impact of our military presence globally. These are issues that need to be addressed, and our own government failed to address them.
Julian Assange is not a criminal or a saint, he is an inevitability, the natural response to a nagging need for transparency in governments and corporations worldwide. If he did not create Wikileaks, someone else would have, so I would further note that scapegoating him only demonstrates your ignorance of human nature, particularly regarding the reactive nature of humanity. The same type of vigilantism that created Wikileaks, that created Occupy Wall Street, that created Anonymous, that created the Ron Paul movement and the Tea Party, that created every single fictional and factual superhero that we have had throughout history. They are all projections of human nature, and part of the great jigsaw of humanity that we all are part of, down to the core of our very DNA.
Particularly since Julian Assange's leaks have targeted corruption dealing predominantly with the U.S. military-industrial complex, to write off his role as a mere "actor" and his actions as "wrong", is to demonstrate a disturbingly superficial conception of human ethics, as well as a pitifully naive understanding of the United States government, their actions in the Middle East, and impact of our military presence globally. These are issues that need to be addressed, and our own government failed to address them.
Julian Assange is not a criminal or a saint, he is an inevitability, the natural response to a nagging need for transparency in governments and corporations worldwide. If he did not create Wikileaks, someone else would have, so I would further note that scapegoating him only demonstrates your ignorance of human nature, particularly regarding the reactive nature of humanity. The same type of vigilantism that created Wikileaks, that created Occupy Wall Street, that created Anonymous, that created the Ron Paul movement and the Tea Party, that created every single fictional and factual superhero that we have had throughout history. They are all projections of human nature, and part of the great jigsaw of humanity that we all are part of, down to the core of our very DNA.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
J.P. Morgan and the Fed
I think a lot of people don't realize that even before government bailouts, investment firms would bail out banks and corporations in order to protect their own investments. J.P. Morgan together with Rothschild loaned out huge amounts (3.5 million ounces) of gold (not money, gold!) in order to get us out of the panic of 1893, and Morgan joined with a coalition of bankers in order to get America out of the panic of 1907. Morgan's actions in the 1893 and 1907 panics directly resulted in the creation of the Federal Reserve, as summarized in the following (cited) excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Vowing to never let it happen again, and realizing that in a future crisis there was not likely to be another Morgan, banking and political leaders, led by Senator Nelson Aldrich devised a plan that became the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[15] The crisis underscored the need for a powerful mechanism, and Morgan supported the move to create the Federal Reserve System."
See that last part? Morgan *supported* the Federal Reserve System? Do you know why? The logic is obvious: Because the central bank is controlled by the Federal Reserve System, there is no more need for greedy investors like Morgan to protect their investments, and thus they can reap all the benefits of risky investments, but without all the risks! The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it takes all the risk out of the bank and investment firm system, allowing greed to run rampant, bad investment do go wrong, and if worse comes to worse, the benevolent Fed will bail all the big boys out at the 99%'s expense!
It's the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world, where the people at the top benefit most, and the common people who lack the pockets and connections for investments, get their faces shoved in the dirt and silenced with petty welfare benefits. What I don't get most, is that Occupy Wallstreet folk are expecting the government to save them from greedy banks and the corporations. Help us? The Fed is the one that reinforced greedy investments, created corporate monopolies, and encouraged economic inequalities in the first place! J.P. Morgan wanted the Fed to be created, and we can be sure that he did everything in his power to ensure his role in creating the Federal Reserve System protected all of his risky investments long after his death. J.P. Morgan, an incurably greedy scumbag to the very end!
"Vowing to never let it happen again, and realizing that in a future crisis there was not likely to be another Morgan, banking and political leaders, led by Senator Nelson Aldrich devised a plan that became the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[15] The crisis underscored the need for a powerful mechanism, and Morgan supported the move to create the Federal Reserve System."
See that last part? Morgan *supported* the Federal Reserve System? Do you know why? The logic is obvious: Because the central bank is controlled by the Federal Reserve System, there is no more need for greedy investors like Morgan to protect their investments, and thus they can reap all the benefits of risky investments, but without all the risks! The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it takes all the risk out of the bank and investment firm system, allowing greed to run rampant, bad investment do go wrong, and if worse comes to worse, the benevolent Fed will bail all the big boys out at the 99%'s expense!
It's the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world, where the people at the top benefit most, and the common people who lack the pockets and connections for investments, get their faces shoved in the dirt and silenced with petty welfare benefits. What I don't get most, is that Occupy Wallstreet folk are expecting the government to save them from greedy banks and the corporations. Help us? The Fed is the one that reinforced greedy investments, created corporate monopolies, and encouraged economic inequalities in the first place! J.P. Morgan wanted the Fed to be created, and we can be sure that he did everything in his power to ensure his role in creating the Federal Reserve System protected all of his risky investments long after his death. J.P. Morgan, an incurably greedy scumbag to the very end!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)