Billionaire Westgate CEO Says he’ll Have to Fire Employees if Obama is Re-Elected and Obamacare Taxes Implemented

David Siegel, the Billionaire CEO of Westgate, sends letter to his 7,000 employees telling them that if Obama is re-elected, the Obamacare mandates and new taxes on companies and the wealthy will force him to have to layoff many of his employees.

This reminds me of the Papa John's CEO coming out recently and saying that they will be forced to cut back and raise prices because of Obamacare.

Some have said that these CEO's are threatening their employees with being fired if they do not vote against Obama. They are not threatening anyone, they are just telling the truth! They are not telling anyone they have to vote for Obama or else. They are just letting everyone know about the dire economic situation they are in and letting people know the FACTS of how increased taxes hurt businesses and lead to layoffs. The truth is that you cannot keep trying to tax companies and job creators without the companies and job creators eventually having to pass the taxes on in the form of higher prices or layoffs.



From ClickOrlando.com:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) - 
 
Surprise. David Siegel, the resort CEO who is building the biggest private home in the country, really, really doesn't like President Obama.

And while Siegel hasn't sent any money to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, he has gone a step farther to support him.

On Monday he sent an e-mail to all 7,000 employees of privately-held Westgate Resorts, many of them in the battleground state of Florida, warning them their jobs are at risk if the president is re-elected.


"The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration," he said in the e-mail.

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he says in the nearly 1,400-word e-mail. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

Siegel doesn't mention Romney's name anywhere in the e-mail, and he writes he "certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose." And he insisted Tuesday that he wasn't threatening to fire employees if Obama is re-elected. But he proudly stands behind the e-mail.
"I wanted the employees to know what the situation is, and not listen to campaign commercials but hear it from the horse's mouth," he told CNNMoney.

Read Rest of Story Here: http://www.clickorlando.com/news/money/CEO-emails-7-000-employees-Defeat-Obama-or-else/-/1637116/16920074/-/15i6cfhz/-/index.html

American Freedoms May be Lost Forever – Chuck Norris Issues Warning

American Freedoms May be Lost Forever – Chuck Norris Issues Warning

http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2012/09/america-may-be-lost-forever-chuck-norris-issues-warning-2452574.html

Chuck Norris Gives Mitt Romney His Support Over Obama
And Warns American Of Where Our country is Headed If We Do Not Change Direction. (See Video)
Chuck Norris Our Great Country & Freedom is Under Attack, We are A Tipping Point & Quite Possibly Our Country As We Know it May Be Lost Forever.


Chuck Norris' dire warning for America - 2012
http://youtu.be/7ud3pK5Wa90




Chuck Norris Fact No. 39: "Chuck Norris stared evil in the eye and it went into hiding."

America's favorite action star is doing just that this election -- calling on evangelical Christians across the nation to join him in crushing the creep of socialism under President Obama.

Norris and his wife, Gena, have filmed a public service announcement, unveiled exclusively at WND, wherein the two urge Christians to help save the country in November.

"We are here to talk about a growing concern we all share," Chuck Norris explains. "If we look to history, our great country and freedom are under attack. We're at a tipping point and, quite possibly, our country as we know it may be lost forever if we don't change the course in which our country is headed."

Gena warns that voter apathy among evangelicals in 2008 may have contributed to Obama's election in the first place.

"With our country at a crossroads, Chuck and I have asked ourselves what we can be doing to help support this great country we're blessed to live in and how we can encourage our like-minded American brothers and sisters to unite and let their voices be heard," she said. "It is estimated that in the 2008 election, 30 million evangelical Christians stayed home on voting day and Obama won the election by 10 million votes."

Chuck cautions Christians about the cost of doing nothing while the nation spirals into a state of socialism from which there will be no return.

"We know you love your family and your freedom as much as Gena and I do," he says in his appeal to Americans. "And it is because of that we can no longer sit quietly or stand on the sidelines and watch our country go the way of socialism or something much worse."

Gena urged Christians to register and cast their votes on Election Day to ensure "our voices will be heard."

Chuck recalled the cautionary words of great patriots on the subject of preserving liberty:

"As Edmund Burke said, 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men and women do nothing.'

"Our great president, Ronald Reagan said, 'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same.'"

Likewise, Gena noted, "President Reagan went on to say that 'You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.'"

Chuck Norris concludes the announcement by encouraging Americans to close ranks and defend their great nation "for God and country."

"Please stand with us," he urges. "Let's unite for God and country. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. See you at the polls."

Norris has been writing a weekly column exclusively for WND since Oct. 23, 2006. The star of "Walker: Texas Ranger" and some of the biggest action pictures ever, Norris has also reached a new generation as part of the Internet craze for one-liners usually labeled not as jokes but as "facts."

In "The Official Chuck Norris Fact Book," Norris gives readers not only his favorite "facts," roundhouse-kicked by the man himself, but also the stories behind the facts and the code by which he lives his life.

In his bestselling book, "Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America," Norris provides real solutions for solving the nation's problems, moving the country forward and changing its course for the better.

Read more: http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/chuck-norris-dire-warning-for-america/

EXPOSED: Republicans for Obama Led by Racist Convict Bishop L J Guillory

Many conservatives will be holding their nose to vote for Romney because Obama MUST go, but I don't know of ANY conservative or Republican who is going to support (or campaign for) Obama. There are people out there like that though (some of it has to do with race based voting), and they are pretty much NUTS! I mean seriously, it takes a nut job to say they are Republican and be for Obama at the same time.

When I heard about "Republicans for Obama" I was not surprised to find that the president of the organization (and probably the sole member of this group) was a nut job who I happen to already have exposed recently.

Bishop L J Guillory, the President of Republicans for Obama is (in my opinion based on facts) a Racist Convict trying to Con People into believing his delusions. He likely uses money donated to his "non-profits" to pay for his many lavish trips to Hollywood. He has an infatuation with the Masons and he believes that Mitt Romney is part if a plot by the illuminate.

I first heard of Bishop L J Guillory when he came to Jasper, TX last year to defend council members who were getting recalled. The council members were getting recalled for hiring Rodney Pearson as the new police chief even though Pearson was at the bottom of the candidate qualification list, and Pearson even lied about having a criminal record. Guillory of course claimed the recall was a result of racism, even though I interviewed black residents in Jasper who were in favor of the recall due to the fact that Pearson was not qualified and was hired in a backroom deal. 

Guillory is the self titled "Ombudsman General." According to officials in Jasper, Guillory was wearing a badge and posed as a Department of Justice Official. After some investigating, I found out that Guillory spent 7 years and 7 months of a 15 year sentence in prison in California. His past criminal history includes charges of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, and even trying to prevent/dissuade a witness to testify.  Guillory has told me that he is innocent and was actually granted clemency but he rejected it. This turned out to be false because, in reality, court records show that Guillory unsuccessfully tried to get out of prison by appealing his case. The court rejected Guillory's appeals and said that Guillory was rightfully convicted by a jury.

Guillory claims to be a Republican, but he has publicly praised Obama and has posted up on his blog personal pictures of him with radical liberal Democrats like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

He claims to be a Bishop, but he has no religious degree (fake degrees do not count) and he is not connected to any church. He got his ordination certification from an online website where you type in your name and print out the certification for a few bucks. He uses the term "Bishop" likely to get people to trust him, but his actions certainly contradict what he professes. I discovered that Guillory has Sex Parties and Strippers at "his" house in California. Guillory is even on video bragging about it! See video below:



Guillory spends his time running an organization (Ombudsman International aka Save America Foundation) that he claims is meant to help people, but I do not know of anything that his organization has accomplished. Guillory shows up to situations where black and whites are involved and he pulls the race card and acts like some kind of government official who is there to fix things. in one situation, a black student stabbed and killed his white teacher. Guillory showed up defending the murderer and of course pulled the race card. Guillory was kicked out of the courtroom and was banned from the premises. In the video I posted above, Guillory even claimed to have lowered crime in the the top ten cities most crime filled cities in America!

Guillory spent time in prison and (I think) he used that time to think about how he can con people by claiming to help people. I believe his purpose is to use the guise of helping people as a way to get himself on the news and to get money to fund his lavish lifestyle. He uses his causes as a way to meet and to mingle with Hollywood celebrities. I do not know of any job he has, besides traveling the country stirring up trouble and mingling with celebrities as the Ombudsman General. With no financial source, I wonder if he is using donations to his "organization" as his personal financial source. He seems to be the only member of his organizations and it is registered as a non-profit, so he really has no oversight and pays no taxes.

I also believe that he also gets money from suing people. Everyone who speaks out against Guillory (including myself) has received the threat of Legal Action by Guillory unless we apologize and remove bad (factual) info about Guillory from online. When I first exposed Guillory I was threatened as well, butI did not back down from posting the truth about Guillory. In response, Guillory posted on his blog that I am a racist, part of the KKK and went on to attack my bother by calling her names. He did not respond to the facts I presented and only responded by making a baseless accusation or racism and calling me names. This man is a fraud and a complete nutjob. Yep, he fits right in with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

The U.S. Must STOP Sending Money to Egypt and Libya IMMEDIATELY

Following yesterday's 9/11 anniversary Muslim Terrorist attacks on American Embassies in Egypt, the U.S. must immediately stop sending our American Tax Dollars to these countries, and ALL other countries who support terrorist.

Heck, we probably GAVE Libya the WEAPONS that KILLED OUR AMERICANS over there!

We cannot even pay for our own countries activities. Why are we funding these American Hating Country's activities?

Obama has been called out already for sympathizing with these murderers so I will not hold my breath waiting to see if he will do the right thing and stop sending OUR money to these countries.

Several Conservative Lawmakers have come out already demanding that these countries be stripped of funding immediately, Hopefully this picks up steam.

Obama Sympathizes With Muslim Murderers Who Attacked U.S. Embassy in Libya on 9/11 - Romney Condemns

President Obama has disgraced the office of the Presidency. His sympathetic reaction to the Muslims attacking our embassies and also his non-action to immediately secure and protect the embassies and demand justice are a slap in the face to all Americans on the anniversary of September 11, 2001. Did I also mention that we helped and supported these countries attain freedom from dictators? They hate us, why should we help them and send them money? Why should we remove one dictator just to replace him with terrorist Muslims who hate America?

On the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Muslims in Egypt and Libya attacked our U.S. Embassies killing 4 Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya, John Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the Benghazi Libya attack. These Muslims were mad that Americans have freedom of speech and one American made a video trying to disprove Allah and Muhammad. This video hurt their feelings so the Muslims killed Americans.

In response, Mitt Romney strongly condemned the attacks with no strings attached or justification given for the attacks.

Obama though, when he said that the murders were wrong, seemed to sympathize with the Muslim terrorists and also justify their actions by going beyond just condemning the murders and also stating that it was also wrong to talk bad about the Muslim religion. Obama's U.S. Embassy even went as far as to CONDEMN Americans for instigating the attack by talking back about the Muslim religion.

First of all, Obama disrespected our constitutional right to freedom of speech. Second, he seemed to make it seem that he understood and sympathized with the Muslim murders because, well, the Muslims only murdered because they got their feelings hurt. I suppose Obama thinks that we should not have the freedom of speech if it hurts someone's feelings. Third, these are murderers! We should strongly condemn them and swiftly act to stop them and bring them to justice and let them know that this is not tolerated. Fourth, Obama is being hypocritical and favoring the Muslim religion. Obama says it is not nice to talk bad about the Muslim religion but Obama and his Democrat Party disrespect Christianity ALL the time. Also, these Muslims don't want to hear bad stuff about Allah of Muhammad but they turn around and talk trash about and disrespect Christianity. Why hasn't Obama condemned Muslims or Democrats using speech to talk bad about Christianity? It is a hypocritical double standard. This flawed ideology is spreading to America too. Atheists and Liberals are constantly complaining and filing lawsuits against Christians because the Atheists and liberals have hurt feelings over Christian businesses or Historical symbols like the 9/11 memorial cross left standing after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (which the atheists want torn down).


According to The Blaze, this is how the U.S. Embassy in Cairo Egypt responded:

How did the U.S. embassy respond? By apologizing to the rioters for hurting “their religious feelings“:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others"

According to WSJ, Mitt Romney has made this Statement about the Attacks:

"America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We'll defend, also, our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion.'' "Apology for America's values is never the right course."


According to JSBRADIO, this was the Statement from President Barack Obama that has made so many people mad:

"I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."

Evidence Shows RNC Rigged Vote on Rule Change at Republican National Convention 2012?

Witnesses say that Teleprompter scrolled "the ayes have it" even before the voice vote was taken. Also, video of the rule change vote at the Republican National Convention shows that the vote seemed to be a toss up with no clear winner and yet the ayes were immediately declared winners. This declaration was drowned out by loud booing. Also, before John Boehner called for the vote he asked if there were any objections and there were clearly people who objects and yet John Boehner said there were none.

Other witnesses say that they were purposely held up in the Convention Bus so that they would miss the vote in the rules committee. Also, news outlets reported that Romney had two of the rules committee delegates removed and replaced with delegates who would vote for the Romney Rule Changes. These committee delegates being held up ad replaced prevented a minority report because there were not enough committee members.

Why even have a convention and send delegates to vote if it is all just for show with no debate allowed and no roll call vote allowed to determine which side actually won the vote?

I am voting for Romney because Obama must be defeated, but these kinds of stunts are not acceptable and should not just be ignored. These kinds of stunts will tear the party in two and allow Obama to be re-elected.

A couple of days ago I wrote an article about some very bad changes that were trying to be made to the Republican Party Rules. These bad changes were an attack on grassroots conservatives and would divide Republicans and damage the Party at a time when unity is required. One of these changes would allow the Republican Nominee to pick who National Delegates are instead of the States. This would not only take power away from the state, but it would also allow the presidential nominee to decide what is in the platform by picking delegates that agree with him instead of the districts and States picking delegates to represent their values. Another of the rule changes would allow the handful of RNC members to change the Party Rules between conventions with no checks and balances and without approval from the delegates.

A compromise was offered, but then it was discovered that the compromise did not fix all of the issues and instead only addressed one issue. This compromise was being pushed as a way to distract conservatives from fighting against the other bad rule changes.

The compromise did distract some delegates, but even so, there were still many delegates who were going to vote against the rule changes because of bad changes like the power grab and centralization of power of allowing the RNC to change Party Rules between conventions. That brings us to the question of whether or not the vote was rigged in favor of the rule changes.

Below are emails I recieved from two witnesses at the national convention. Also below is the video showing the vite being too close to call but immediately called in favor the the rule changes...

What do you think?

From National Delegate Jeremy Blosser:

It was a complete and utter railroad on all issues before the convention.
No votes were seriously taken--the teleprompter included "the ayes have it"
and that's how it was always read.  It was so obvious that by the end
people were just laughing at it.

The VA bus was hours late, so Morton Blackwell missed the rules meeting
entirely.  People on the bus reported it drove around the block and
backtracked several times, until they told them to just stop and let them
walk.

ND and IA buses were also late and were minority report states.

Repeated attempts to gain recognition from the floor to make any corrective
motion whatsoever, let alone debate, were simply ignored.  That's no real
surprise, but many long time attendees were still surprised at the level
this one went to.  It would truly not have mattered to the outcome if no
one had been in the seats.

From National Delegate Janis Holt:

Unfortunately, we were not able to stop the rules from being adopted as is. There was no chance for debate. It wasn't allowed.

Watch Video below of the rule change vote at the Republican National Convention 2012. There are clearly objections to the vote and then it is clear that the vote was too close to call.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GYjRXNtcxU

Shocking Fox Report: RNC Breaking Rules and Stripping States of Elected Delegates. Watch Video Report HERE

Fox 19 News has released a VERY in-depth report about how the RNC is underhandedly getting around rules and stripping States of elected delegates, mostly Ron Paul delegates. I might have supported someone other than Ron Paul, but these Ron Paul delegates were elected by THEIR STATE and Congressional Districts and they have a right to be there! The RNC cannot just remove delegates that they do not like. They can create rules for the delegates but they cannot just remove delegates that they do not like! This is Ridiculous! 

The Republican Party must realize that they must work with Conservatives, Tea party Groups, Social Conservative Groups, and Ron Paul supporters if we are going to beat Obama. We need EVERYONE on board and working hard. Trying to win over moderates at the expense of disenfranchising your conservative base will NOT work!


FOX19.com-Cincinnati News, Weather


Also see my latest article regarding the Republican National Convention:

Moderates, Romney Wreak Havoc at National Convention - Will They Destroy the Republican Party?

Moderates, Romney Wreak Havoc at National Convention - Will They Destroy the Republican Party?

Update: Morton Blackwell sent out an urgent message late last night stating that the compromise we have been hearing about regarding these issues is fake and is an attempt to get conservatives to back down! The compromise only deals with the issue of the presidential candidate selecting state delegates and the compromise does not even cover the proposed rule change that will allow the RNC to change the rules between conventions without delegate approval. We MUST not back down!

WARNING! Romney and Moderate Republicans want Control over who the national delegates are and what is in the Republican Party Platform and Rules! They want to take this power away from the states. This is an attempt to mold the Republican platform to his moderate values and also to force state delegates to be completely loyal to him and his moderate beliefs instead of standing for their own beliefs and the beliefs of the people who voted for them from each state and congressional district.

Call All National Delegates you know and tell them This MUST be defeated!

Let me first say that I am of course voting for Romney because Obama MUST go. Romney was not my first choice but he has won and he will be better that Obama.

That being said.....

Mitt Romney Better Check Himself Before He Wrecks Himself (and the GOP)

Romney's Team (his top campaign lawyer Ben Ginsburg and other operatives) and many other moderates in the RNC have introduced rule changes at the Republican National Convention that, if passed by the convention this week, would destroy the GOP and disenfranchise Republicans all over the nation. These attacks are not just aimed at one group (like Ron Paul Delegates). These attacks are aimed at all conservatives who will not compromise or go with the flow.


Romney can court the moderates, but he will not win if the loses the base of the party (the conservatives). He needs the Tea Party. He needs Social Conservative. He Also Needs Ron Paul Supporters.

Fellow Conservative Texan Jeremy Blosser is at the National Convention and he sent me a report about these issues. I was also sent articles about these subjects from other fellow Conservatives like Cathie Adams and Debbie Georgatos.

First, one proposed change from Romney would allow  Presidential Nominee (right now that would be him) to pick the state delegates to the National Convention. SAY WHAT? Individual states get delegates for a reason. It is so each STATE gets represented. the people of each state select THEIR delegates to the National Convention, NOT HIS. These delegates do everything from voting on the Republican values in the GOP platform to voting for the Republican Presidential Nominee. Each state assigns their national delegates a presidential candidate to vote for based on things like caucus votes and statewide primary election results. Romney has won the nomination. He has the votes. Apparently that is not good enough for him. Now he wants to be able to pick the delegates to the national convention. He wants to take that right away form the states.

THIS WOULD ALLOW ROMNEY AND HIS MODERATES TO CRAFT THE GOP PARTY PLATFORM AND VALUES! That is why this is such a bad idea. This change would not just allow Romney to pick delegates to vote for him for the nomination. These delegates ALSO VOTE ON THE PLATFORM. So in effect, allowing Romney to pick his delegates instead of the states picking them will mean that Romney can pick people to represent HIS values in the platform instead of the States and Congressional Districts picking delegates to represent THEIR values in the platform.

The RNC had already betrayed the states last year, especially Texas, by forcing us to change our rules and how we select our National Convention delegates. Last year I declared that the RPT MUST STAND UP TO THE RNC. Unfortunately we did not. Well, now we see what happens when we try to play nice and go along. When we do not stand up for what we believe, we lose and then we lose more in the future because now the other side has a foot in the door to be able to force more changes on us.

Texas is Leading the Way to Defeat this Change! I am thankful to say that most of the Texas Delegation are strongly opposed to this, including our State Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri and our two RNC Rules Committee Members Butch Davis and Melinda Fredericks. They are leading the charge for the Texas Delegation against this proposed change and are standing for Texas and Grassroots Republicans everywhere!

Second, another rule change would allow the RNC to make rule changes between conventions, without approval from the delegates and with no checks or balances. The delegates to the national convention are from all corners of America and at the convention they are responsible for voting on the National Platform (out values) and our party rules. This change would allow the handful of RNC members to take that power away from the delegates. This change would allow the Republican National Committee members to have the ability to change this important documents between conventions and without approval of the delegates. The original threshold proposed was 2/3 of the entire RNC in order to be able to change the rules between conventions.  Melinda Fredericks, the Vice Chairman of Texas GOP and a Rules Committee Member, got this changed to 3/4. Mrs. Fredericks meant well, but it was a compromise that really does not safeguard us much. We need to stop compromising and just start standing for what is right. I urge Mrs. Fredericks and the Texas Delegation to also oppose this change just as strongly as they oppose Romney wanting to pick Delegates instead of the states.

The RNC should not be able to change our rules between conventions, even with a 3/4 threshold, because as Morton Blackwell (long-time Conservative RNC member) noted, in his many years on the RNC he has never seen a situation where the chairman did not get what he wanted on a vote, regardless of threshold.

Call All National Delegates you know and tell them This MUST be defeated!

Romney and Moderate Republicans MUST realize that they NEED conservatives in order to beat Obama and the Democrats. Groups like the Tea Party and Ron Paul supporters bring energy and passion to election. There is a belief that a candidate must go moderate to win but that is no longer true. The nation is becoming so polarized that conservatives are getting fed up and joining together. They are NOT just going along with the Republican Party anymore. They can change elections. Look what the Tea Party and conservative groups did right here in Texas when they helped Ted Cruz win the Texas US Senate Nomination against the sitting LT Governor who had limitless campaign funds. The Republican Party needs to embrace these conservative groups instead of tossing them to the side. They need us for our passion and energy to get people to the polls, but they also need our votes! They cannot just assume that conservatives will keep supporting the GOP because many conservatives are bailing the GOP because the moderates are so drastically trying to take over the party and move it more to the left. I am voting for Romney because I want Obama out and Romney is the better of the two, but I have friends who have told me that they are just so fed up with the moderates in the Party, like Romney, that they just might not even vote in the Presidential election because they can not in good concise vote for either candidate based on their values.

Mitt Romney Has Chosen Paul Ryan as Vice President on Republican Side of 2012 U.S. Presidential Race

According to Fox News, the Associated Press has confirmed that Paul Ryan has been picked as Mitt Romney's running mate against Barack Obama in the 2012 United States Presidential Election this November. Mitt Romney will officially make the announcement later this morning in Virginia.

Paul Ryan has been a Tea Party fiscal hero in recent years because, as the House Budget Chairman, he has openly stood up for drastic economic and fiscal reforms aimed at cutting back government spending and balancing the budget.

Paul Ryan was a guest speaker at the 2012 Texas Republican Party State Convention. Paul Ryan also endorsed Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate in a very heated 2012 Texas GOP Primary Runoff. Ted Cruz won against a well funded, and well known, LT Governor David Dewhurst. This Ted Cruz win sent ripples across America because it showed that the Tea Party can still be a force to reckon with and has not fizzled out.

Mitt Romney likely chose Paul Ryan to secure the backing of the conservative tea party side of the Republican Party. Some conservatives, although they want to see Obama defeated and will support Romney over Obama, have not gotten excited about a moderate Mitt Romney being the Republican nominee. By picking tea party conservative Paul Ryan, Romney likely wishes get the conservative tea party members excited and energized about the upcoming election.

Black Republican Romney Supporter Refuses to Attend NAACP Speech: Opposes Actions of NAACP | MICHAEL BERRY

read the story here: http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html?article=10255697#.T_uM0sPTpSg.mailto

Paul Begala on Obama: Once a Drug Head Girl Pusher, Always a Drug Head Girl Pusher?

I recently came across an article on The Daily Beast “Paul Begala on Romney: Once a Bully, Always a Bully”

In the article, Paul starts out by saying that “It is a good general principle that we ought not hold teenage wrongdoing against middle-aged people.”

Paul then goes straight into saying it is ok to hold this 40 year old teenage incident against Romney Why? Because as an adult, Mitt Romney was a “bully” when he “cut” education as a governor and because his company laid people off.

Ok Paul, according to your logic, it would be perfectly fine for you to write an article with this as the headline:

“Paul Begala on Obama: Once a Drug Head Girl Pusher, Always a Drug Head Girl Pusher”

This article would start out talking about how you would not normally hold Obama’s ADMITTED teenage drug use against him now that he is a grown man.

You would then of course write an article that says it is ok to hold Obama’s past drug use against him.

Why? Because Obama hasn’t changed. Our border with Mexico is being overtaken by drug cartels. Drug Trafficking and Drug Cartel Violence along the border is shocking, like this massive cartel battle on the Texas/Mexico border or this shootout between Texas law enforcement and several drug cartel members. Yet, Obama has pulled our troops from the border. He even came to Texas and joked about how the border is safe and Republicans will not be happy until there is a moat with alligators. This is very similar to when he joked about doing drugs by saying that he “inhaled frequently … that was the point.” Obama seems to have a pattern of joking about doing drugs and drug related border violence.

You would then go on to say that you would not normally hold it against a grown Obama for admittedly shoving a girl in school, but then you would write about how it is ok to hold this against him. Why? Because Obama still shoves women around. He has recently shoved women in Texas around by defunding a women’s health program simply because Texas decided not to give any of that tax money to abortion mills. So Obama cuts off the entire women’s health service program funding and kicks all the women using that program out on the street all because Obama would rather fund planned Parenthood more than he wants to provide health services to women. And of course, there is Obamacare, which is Obama unconstitutionally pushing all Americans around by making us all purchase health insurance from private companies or face a penalty.

I can’t wait for that article to come out Paul.

Seriously though, how about we talk about the issues affecting us today instead of bringing up 40 year old stories told by Obama campaign workers who used to go to school with Romney. One of the witnesses to this incident now says he did not see or know about the incident and even the brother of this kid who was allegedly bullied says the story is factually incorrect and politically motivated. The guy is not even alive anymore to verify if this happened to him. Really? I guess I am not surprised that this vague 40 year old alleged high school incident is being brought up by the liberal media even though the media ignores Obama’s ADMITTED past drug use. It is all a ploy to distract people from Obama’s unpopularity on many issues. Especially this week when Obama has alienated most of America (especially blacks and Hispanics who oppose gay marriage in constitutional amendment votes) by “coming out” in support of gay marriage (I guess he lied last election when he said he is against gay homosexual marriage).

Did Obama’s Immorality Influence Secret Service Agents in Colombian Prostitute/Sex Scandal?

Regardless of whether or not you are a soldier in the military or a federal agent, your actions are a reflection of your leadership. 

Soldiers in a military unit will be squared away if they have good leadership. The leadership sets the tone for the entire unit. If soldiers in a unit know that their commander will nail them to the wall for not following the standards then the soldiers of that unit will generally be well trained, display professionalism and follow the standards. Why? Because regardless of their personal beliefs or morals, they know that this is what the leadership expects and they will be in trouble if they don’t. On the other hand, if you are in a unit where the commander does not enforce the standards, or does not follow the standards himself/herself, then the soldiers of that unit will generally not follow the standards and will push the limits to see what they can get away with before they will get into trouble.

This is not to say that a unit will not have a couple of individual knuckleheads who just will not follow the rules even if they have a good commander. There will always be one or two outliers in any organization. In general though, the soldiers of a unit with a good commander will be squared away while the soldiers in a unit with a bad commander will be ate up. (Pardon my military terminology)

The actions of the Secret Service reflect poorly upon President Obama

This Colombian prostitute/sex scandal did not just involve one or two bad Secret Service agents. This scandal involved an entire unit of Secret Service agents and even military personnel. When an entire unit is corrupted, that tells me the problem also has to do with the leadership of this unit and the moral environment that these agents work in.

I know what you are thinking. How can the President be responsible for the actions of this unit when the President is over thousands of units as President Commander in Chief? Shouldn’t the blame fall on the supervisor of just that unit? The answer is that the blame should fall on both the supervisor and the President. You see, the Secret Service is unlike any other organization. They are constantly with or near the President. They are directly influenced by the President. They see him in public and in private. They know intimately how the President acts and how he enforces legal and moral standards.

I am not at all inferring that President Obama knew about this sex scandal or has been involved in anything like this. What I am inferring is that if these Secret Service agents were around a President who displayed high moral integrity and respected the rules and standards on a daily basis, then it is very unlikely that they would have gotten themselves involved in this sex scandal in the first place. They would have been too scared to get involved in this scandal. They would have known that their actions would not be tolerated and would get them into trouble.

These Secret Service agents were not scared though. This was not just a bad decision by one agent done in secret so that no one else would know. This was an entire group of agents. For them to all get together and do this tells me that they did not feel that what they were doing was wrong or that they would even get into trouble for doing it. The environment these agents are in with the President must be very lax when it comes to moral standards for them to even think that this was acceptable or that they could get away with it.

I am not a secret service agent, nor am I near the President, so I cannot know how the President acts when he lets loose behind closed doors. I do know how he acts publicly though, and his public disregard for the law and morality downright scares me.

How can we expect Americans in general, let alone the Secret Service agents, to uphold the law and have moral integrity if our own President does not seem to?

The President has a duty to uphold and defend the laws of the United States of America. The President can work to overturn a law, but the President cannot just unilaterally decide to toss out a law. That is what President Obama seems to have done though. The following list contains just a few of the instances where President Obama has refused to uphold the legal standards and/or displayed low moral integrity.

1)      The Defense of Marriage Act is a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. President Obama has openly stated that he will not defend or respect the Defense of Marriage Act.

2)      President Obama has not enforced internet pornography laws. Online pornography is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking. Just as a secret service agent involved in the sex scandal (last line sarcasm)

3)      President Obama is disregarding the Constitution in regard to Obamacare by forcing Americans to engage in commerce and purchase private health insurance, and also by forcing religious organizations to pay for a private service that goes against their religious beliefs.

4)      President Obama is openly refusing to enforce immigration laws or take the measures needed to defend our borders. Furthermore, when the President could not get the Dream Act passed, he effectively implemented the Dream Act unilaterally by directing federal agencies to be lax in enforcing the law.

5)      President Obama is immorally spending trillion of dollars more than what the government can pay back. The national debt is more than 15 trillion and that is an amount that seems impossible to even be able to pay back. It will surely get passed off to our children and grandchildren who will have to pay it back. Having debt can and will lead to massive problems now and further down the road. Just ask the secret service agent who got his sex scandal made public because of an unpaid debt (last line sarcasm)

6)      President Obama immorally supports Partial Birth Abortion in which an American’s life is taken from them as they are being born by getting stabbed in the back of the neck before they come out. Furthermore, President Obama supports funneling millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood (an abortion provider) even though tax money is not supposed to pay for abortions. This federal money to Planned Parenthood effectively goes to paying for abortions even though the money was not technically given to Planned Parenthood to pay for abortions.

7)      Obama was willing to refuse paying the US Soldiers fighting for freedom because Planned Parenthood funding was more important that paying our military members.

8)      President Obama has immorally and unprofessionally created racial divides by using the DOJ to be racially biased in their decisions (like the DOJ not prosecuting the New Black Panthers but then turning around an unconstitutionally blocking the Texas Voter ID Law). Obama’s other actions have also caused racial divides instead of bringing races together. For instance, Obama has created a “Blacks for Obama” organization. Would it be acceptable for a white candidate to create a “Whites for Romney” organization or a “Whites against Obama” organization? Obama has also created racial divides between blacks and Hispanics and whites and blacks by taking the side of black Trayvon Martin against Hispanic George Zimmerman based on race/emotion and not fact, and also taking the side of a black professor over a white police officer based on race and not facts.

Those are just some of the instances where President Obama has publicly not followed the standards or has displayed low moral integrity.

And we wonder why these Secret Service agents did not follow the standards or display moral integrity by getting involved, as a group, in this Colombian Prostitution and Sex Scandal.

For the record, I think there are many great and very moral Secret Service agents serving their country and it is a shame that this scandal and bad leadership will taint the good work that they are doing and have done.

TX Woman gets over 3000 signatures for Texas Presidential Debate (w/ Mitt Romney & Ron Paul?)

Update: Petition now has over 5000 signatures!

This past weekend at my County Convention in Hardin County, TX, I was pleasantly surprised when a young woman from my county,
Chelsea Willis, approached me and said she had a petition with over 3000 signatures on it. The petition was to try to persuade Mitt Romney to come to a Texas Republican Presidential Debate. The petition is titled "Potential Nominees, attend the GOP Debate (Houston, TX on May 24th, 2012)"

In recent years, Texas has had little say in the Republican Presidential Race. The Texas GOP tried to put Texas on the map by getting together a debate on May 24th in Houston, TX. Mitt Romney was the only candidate to snub this Texas debate.

Even with Santorum suspending his campaign (dropping out of the race), Chelsea knew that the race was not over and many states still have not voted, so on April 14th Chelsea sprang into action by starting an online petition in support of this Texas debate with Gingrich, Paul and Romney. The petition specifically urges Mitt Romney to attend.

Since the start of the petition, Gingrich has also announced he suspending his campaign (dropping out)

Although it now seems unlikely that any other Presidential candidate other than Mitt Romney will get the Republican Nomination, it is encouraging to see that even regular voters in little Texas counties are standing up and trying to make a difference. Getting over 3000 signatures is pretty impressive for this rather low-key controversy.

Even with just Ron Paul and Mitt Romney left in the race, the point is to show Romney that Texas does not like being ignored, so I encourage everyone to go to this link and sign the petition http://www.change.org/petitions/mitt-romney-debate-ron-paul-houston-tx-on-may-24th-2012

Who knows, if she gets enough signatures maybe Romney will actually take notice. I hear that a major news outlet would be interested in a debate with just Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. That would be interesting!

Below is a personal letter from Chelsea Willis regarding her petition:

I created a petition titled "Potential Nominees, attend the GOP Debate (Houston, TX on May 24th, 2012)" because I care deeply about who becomes the GOP nominee.

I understand that the SREC has received a commitment from a major television network to televise the debate, and that the remaining GOP nominees, except Romney, have pledged to be at the debate. In addition, it is my understanding that the SREC passed a resolution that intensely urged the uncommitted nominee to attend the Texas GOP Presidential Debate. In response, I have created an online petition to encourage Romney to debate Gingrich and Paul. The ultimate purpose of the petition is to gather constituent support for the debate, and I could really use your assistance in getting out the word. A substantial number of signatures will convince the uncommitted nominee that attending the debate is in the best interest of his campaign.

To read more about what I'm trying to do and to sign my petition, click here.

It will just take a minute!

Once you are done, please ask your friends to sign the petition as well. Grassroots movements succeed because people like you are willing to spread the word!

Sincerely,
Chelsea Willis

Texas GOP State Chairman Munisteri is FOR Winner Take All – It's Fair & Grassroots Want It - RNC Waiver Likely

The State Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas has come out and expressed support for Texas going back to Winner Take All. He also explained why the Texas GOP has a good reason to qualify for a waiver if needed due to our circumstances, and also explained that the National Convention Delegates (Not the RNC) would vote to make the ultimate decision of whether or not Texas should be penalized.

See Bottom of this Article for the Video and Transcript of What Texas GOP Chairman Munisteri had to Say about Texas Winner Take All

Including this recent support from Chairman Munisteri, the support for Winner Take All has been impressive.

The Current Chairman supports it, the Former Chairman Cathie Adams supports it (Munisteri beat Adams for TX GOP Chairman in a heated race two years ago) Kelly Shackelford, the former Attorney for the RNC, also supports it. Even David Barton, one of the most highly influential and respected Republican in Texas, has come out supporting it. 

Winner Take All is More Fair

Going back to our previous Winner Take All system is also more fair than proportional because our previous winner take all system was not a true winner take all system. It is a modified winner take all that allows each Congressional District in Texas to have a voice. In our previous winner take all system, if a candidate wins 50% or more in a congressional district then they win all the delegates in that congressional district. If they do not win 50% or more in a district then the top vote getter in that district gets 2 delegates and the runner up gets 1. That is local control at its best because the congressional district is the lowest level in a presidential election. Our past “winner take all” system that the SREC wants to go back to is not a true winner take all and it is actually very fair and geared so that each congressional district has a voice.

Grassroots Republicans Support and Voted for Winner Take All and NOT Proportional

Winner take all is what the GRASSROOTS Republicans want. Winner take all has been voted on as our delegation allocation by all the delegates at the State convention. Winner Take all is what Texas WAS and is what has been approved by the delegates from all over Texas at the last State Convention. The only reason we changed to proportional is because we were forced. We just want to go back to what the PEOPLE of Texas have voted to have (winner take all) instead of being irrelevant by staying with proportional (which was not voted on or supported by TX Republicans and was only done to not be penalized by the RNC rules)

I have received some emails from Ron Paul guys saying that we should listen to the grassroots because the grassroots want proportional and that for the SREC to go to winner take all would be and act of elitism and part of a backroom deal.

They are wrong and I have PROOF that the Grassroots Republicans in Texas want Winner Take All and NOT Proportional

My proof is the State Convention.

Every 2 years the 10,000+ Republican Representatives from all over Texas meet for the State Convention. They are the grassroots and they vote on the delegate selection rules. If the "grassroots" want proportional then they could vote to be proportional at the State Convention. If the grassroots did not want to be "modified winner take all" then they would have and could have changed it at the state convention. They HAVE NOT done so. Over the past Conventions, the Grassroots Republican Delegates at the Texas State GOP Convention have CONSISTENTLY voted to keep our winner take all system and not change to proportional.

That is PROOF that the grassroots do not want us to have proportional. Elitism in a backroom deal is what occurred to force TX to become proportional in the first place against our own wishes. The grassroots and the delegates at the State Convention did not vote on that. It was forced upon us. So when someone says it is against the grassroots for the SREC to vote to go back to winner take all, remind them that the SREC members are elected to follow the wishes of the last state convention, and all those grassroots Republicans at the last convention voted to stay winner take all and not proportional!

Sincerely,

David Bellow

SREC SD3

Here is what TX GOP Chairman Munisteri had to say about Winner Take All

This is not a full or exact transcript. Also below this transcript you can click and watch the entire video of the interview with Munisteri so you can see for yourself exactly what he said.

4.8.12-- Inside Texas Politics – Brad Watson interviewed Steve Munisteri, Texas Republican Party Chair (RPT). 

Munisteri explained that he has always been a supporter of Winner Take All. He said that it is not just Rick Santorum supporters that are and have always been for winner take all. Munisteri says he is still undecided.

Munisteri said that Texas has the second most Republican delegates (second to California), more than 3 X the number from Florida, and 6 X more than the number from South Carolina. He believes if Texas moves to WTA that our state will stop being ignored as inconsequential and that Texas can play a big part in the final selection of our Presidential nominee. 

Munisteri said it takes 15 of 62 SREC members to request an emergency meeting. He stated that the SREC/WTA supporters already have the 15, but they are making sure they have a two-thirds majority before submitting their formal request to him to schedule the meeting. Munisteri believes there is already a majority of the SREC members who want WTA. 

Munisteri said the delegate count of 650 for Mitt Romney that is often stated by the media is at least 100 delegates too high because they are using projections from caucuses instead of actual selected delegates. Munisteri says that Romney really only has about 550 delegates and therefore there is still a considerable distance to go before a candidate wins by getting 1144 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Because Romney has refused to participate in the Texas Presidential candidate debate, Munisteri believes this is what has upset Texas voters and has prompted the push for WTA so that Texas would not be ignored. 

Munisteri reminded the listening audience that in 2008, Obama and Hillary battled it out until June before settling on Obama. In 1976 the choice of Ronald Reagan as the Republican nominee went right down to the final vote on the convention floor and no one knew who would be the nominee until the National Convention. Munisteri said that there is no reason to rally around a candidate before the nomination process is over and before there is a winner. He said that the best thing to do is to let the process play out fully so that the best nominee will be selected. He said that in 2008 and in 1976, Obama and Reagan had time to get ready for their general election opponent even though they had long party nomination process.

Chairman Munisteri said that even though states had to submit their rules to the Republican National Committee back in October 1, 2011, a waiver from those rules could be sought by vote of the RNC Executive Committee. 

Munisteri went on to explain that it was the RNC that forced Texas to move to proportional from its previous delegate winner take all hybrid plan because the RNC wanted to punish Texas for scheduling its primaries in March. However, now that our primaries have been moved back to May 29, he believes it is fair to move our state back to its original rules. Munisteri explained that Texas could make an argument that we are not changing our rules by going back to winner take all and therefore should not be punished. We are not changing the rules, we are just going back to our ORIGINAL rules that were in place since the last convention before the RNC forced us to change. He explained that the Delegates at the National Convention have the ultimate power to punish or not punish Texas because there can always be a floor fight at the National Convention to challenge the RNC’s credentials or rules committee; a successful challenge would mean the entire Texas delegation could be seated.

Brad Watson’s interview with Steve Munisteri is the first seven minutes of the video. 

Click The Video Below to Watch the Full Chairman Munisteri Interview:

Texas “Winner Take All” is NOT about Romney or Santorum. It is about TEXAS

Texas MUST go to Winner Take All in order to be relevant in this Presidential Election. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain! This has nothing to do with Santorum or Romney. It is about TEXAS. Also, the RNC and DOJ cannot stop us or scare us!

I am a Santorum supporter and I am a Texas GOP SREC member in favor of an Emergency Meeting to go to Winner Take All, but it is very important to make it clear that I have been for winner take all WELL BEFORE I was a Santorum supporter. In fact, I was never in agreement with Texas being forced by the RNC last year to change from to Winner Take All to proportional. My past blog articles serve as proof that winner take all has never been about Santorum for me because I have been for Winner Take All well before I supported Santorum. My support for winner take all has always been about giving Texas a voice and making us relevant. We are the biggest Republican State in the nation and we are always overlooked! Could winner take all for Texas benefit Santorum? Sure it could. That is why the Santorum campaign is really getting on board with this and it is exciting his base. But it could also benefit Romney if he comes here and campaigns hard because with his money and network he could win Texas and get all of our delegates under winner take all. Winner take all is not about Santorum or Romney. It is about giving Texas a voice and getting candidates to recognize Texas and campaign here and have debates here.

Texas GOP SREC Members are for Winner Take All to Make Texas Relevant, Not to Help Santorum or Hurt Romney

The media is making it look like the push for winner take all is about trying to help Santorum. The truth is that Santorum supporters are not the only SREC members in favor of winner take all. In fact, the entire SREC (including Romney supporters) voted to last month to pass the resolution warning Romney to come to our debate. That is proof that this is not about Romney or Santorum. We are just tired of being ignored. This is about making Texas relevant instead of having candidates ignore us every election. A national debate can give Texas a place in the national race and it is insulting for the frontrunner Romney to reject coming to our Nationally Televised Texas Presidential Debate. Winner take all will make Texas relevant on a national level because all the candidates will want to come to TX to compete for our 155 delegates. Winner take all will shake things up and keep the race alive until Texas votes. Santorum will compete hard in Texas because he wants to keep Romney from getting 1144 delegates and force a brokered convention. Romney will want to come to Texas and campaign here to try to get our 155 delegates to help secure his bid for the nomination. This is not about Santorum or Romney. This is about Texas. Considering all the national attention we have stirred up, I think it is safe to say that it is already working!

The DOJ and RNC will not Hurt or Stop Us from going Winner Take All

In February, I proposed going back to Winner Take All but the SREC voted against it because we did not have an election date set in stone yet and there was fear that the DOJ would push our election day back even more if we tried to go back to Winner Take All. Now that our election date is set in stone, the DOJ does not worry us anymore. If we go to Winner Take All now then what do we have to fear from the DOJ? The DOJ cannot push back our election. The only thing that the DOJ can do is to say no and try to get an injunction to stop us from going to Winner Take All. What do we have to lose? I do not think the DOJ will reject it anyways because if they do reject us then that just sets us up to be able to sue them because it is CLEARLY unconstitutional to tell Texas that we cannot be Winner Take All, but at the same time they allow other states to be Winner Take All.

As far as the RNC goes, we are not worried about them either. We followed their rules and went to proportional when our election was before April. Now that our election is after April, due to liberals and a federal court unfairly pushing our election back, we should be allowed to be Winner Take All like everyone else. The RNC has no authority to punish us anyways. Only the national convention can do that. The RNC spokesman try to say that we will for sure be punished, but in reality, they cannot punish us and the only way we can be punished is if someone at the national convention objects to what we did and then the entire body would vote. I do not believe that the majority of the national convention delegates would vote to penalize Texas for going Winner Take All because any state with an April or later Primary is allowed to be Winner Take All.

Proportional is not More Fair vs. Winner Take All

If you run for city council with 2 other people do you split up the city council seat based on the percentage of the votes you get? NO. The person who gets the most votes wins the city council seat. The same thing with the Presidential race, there is no proportional “popular vote” in the Presidential race. If a candidate wins a state in the November General Election then they get all of the Electoral College delegates from that state. The same thing should apply to the Republican Nomination. The Republican candidate who wins Texas should be the candidate that the State of Texas gets behind. Otherwise we might as well throw states rights out the window and just go to a nation-wide popular vote (proportional).

We Have Nothing to Lose But Everything to Gain! Let’s go Winner Take All!

Ultimately, we have nothing to lose but everything to gain. We are completely irrelevant now as it is so no threats of penalties can make us any more irrelevant than we already are. On the other hand, we have everything to gain by taking a shot at changing our rules and possibly putting Texas in the spotlight and making us a must win state that candidates will not want to ignore. Win or lose, we should stand up for Texas and fight back against us slipping off into not ever being relevant. Our message to America should be 'Don't Mess With Texas' the race is not over, bring it on!

Urgent: Texas GOP “Winner Take All” Emergency SREC Meeting

Now it is time to take it to the next step. Now it is time to do something that we should have done a long time ago. Now is the time for Texas Republicans to have a voice and be relevant. It is time to go back to winner take all!

We need 15 members of the 62 Texas Republican Party State Republican Executive Committee members to sign a petition in order to call for an emergency meeting of the SREC to change the Texas GOP rules back to us being a Winner Take All state instead of being proportional.

We already have 15 or more members ready to sign the petition to call this emergency meeting.

Before we turn in the petition and call the meeting, we want to make sure we have enough support from all the other SREC members. Things are looking good so far! Call your SREC member and ask them to support an emergency meeting to go back to winner take all.

Once we see that we have enough support from the rest of the SREC, we will then turn in the petition and call the emergency meeting.

Texas Needs to be Winner Take All to have a Voice and be Relevant

As a member of the SREC and I have advocated for several months and written many articles advocating for Texas to go back to winner take all in order to have any kind of relevancy in the Republican Presidential race. I never wanted to go to proportional in the first place and I made it know at the SREC meeting last year when we voted to go proportional. We were forced to go to proportional though because of the RNC rules that said any state primary election before April would have to be proportion. The liberals and the federal courts have pushed our election back to well after April so now we need to go back to winner take all to be able to have a voice in this presidential race before it is over! Why should other states with April and later elections get to be winner take all and Texas can’t? It is a shame that Texas is the largest Republican state in the nation and we are ignored and never have a say in the Presidential race. We have 155 delegates and if we put all of our delegates behind the candidate who wins Texas then we can really have an impact. Candidates will come to Texas to campaign because they will not want to risk losing 155 delegates in a race where 1144 delegates are needed to win the nomination. 

The Republican Presidential Race is NOT Over Even Though Romney and the Media Says it is

No one is even close to winning the 1144 delegates needed to win the nomination. No matter what Romney and the media says, you cannot win the Republican Nomination until you have 50% or more of all the Republican Delegates in America supporting you. If you cannot win at least 50% of the delegates then that means that 50% of more of America wants someone else and there will be a brokered convention where the delegates can come together and decide who the nominee will me. Texas can have a huge impact if we go back to winner take all. The media says the race is over but it is not. With the vote being split 4 ways in nearly every state election, it is very possible that no candidate will get the 1144 needed to win and that would force a brokered convention. Certainly no candidate will have 1144 delegates before Texas votes May 29^th, 2012. With 155 delegates, Texas could force that brokered convention if, for instance, the voters of Texas give all of our delegates to Santorum over Romney, which is what the polls are showing now.

Mitt Romney has Ticked off Texas Republicans

 This is not about Romney though. It never has been about Mitt Romney. From the beginning, going back to winner take all has always been about giving Texas a voice in the presidential race. The only way we can do that is to be winner take all. I have been for winner take all well before we had any idea of who would still be in the race today. I have advocated going back to winner take all well before Santorum was even doing well in the polls. Going to winner take all has never been about Romney. The only reason Romney has entered this controversy now is because he decided to ignore the largest Republican state in the nation. He has so far told us he does not want to come to our nationally televised Texas debate and has told us the race is over and that he does not need us. Now Texas Republicans are mad and we have a message to Romney. Don’t Mess With Texas! The race is not over! We have 155 delegates so you better not ignore us, especially if we go back to winner take all! The SREC has passed a resolution warning Romney that it will not be good for him is he does not care about Texas and if he snubs our debate. 

Sincerely,

David Bellow

SREC – SD3

David Barton of Wallbuilders, along with Kelly Shackelford and Michael Quinn Sullivan, have released the following message in Support of Winner Take All:

Texas' Role in Choosing the President We in Texas know that we are a significant force in national conservative politics. After all, we have the largest Republican congressional delegation of any state, and ours is a conservative delegation! We also have 155 delegates at stake in the presidential primary – that’s more than the famous first five primary states combined (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada). Those five states are considered to have set the tone for the entire presidential race, but Texas has not spoken yet – and we can speak with a louder voice and with more impact than all of those states! Under our winner-take-all system, our 155 delegates have a significant impact on any presidential race. But this year, the Republican National Committee was poised to penalize Texas for holding our primary in March (as we always do) by imposing on us a proportional delegate count, so the Republican Party of Texas moved away from our normal presidential procedure. But then the federal courts got involved and delayed the Texas primary until May. So Texas now has an opportunity to regain its unified voice by going back to a winner-take-all primary. Contrary to what you may have heard from the national media, the race for the Republican presidential nominee is far from over. After all, only 37% of delegates have been assigned so far; and the media has been completely wrong on the number of delegates that separate Romney from the others (particularly the oft-repeated Associated Press count) – the actual count shows the gap to be much narrower than claimed. Texas can therefore have a clear and powerful voice in selecting a conservative Republican nominee for president by moving back to a winner-take-all system. All it takes is for the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) to call a meeting and make the rule change before the Texas primary vote. Please contact your SREC member and ask them to convene and make that change; and also contact the Republican Party of Texas and let them know that you want to see Texas regain its national voice. Please act on this as quickly as possible - Texas, as the biggest conservative state in the country, should be allowed to speak with the loudest voice!! Thanks for all you do to keep Texas a conservative state! God bless! David Barton (former Vice Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, 1997-2006; National Delegate 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996) Kelly Shackelford (National Attorney; National Platform Committee member 2008, 2004, 2000) Michael Quinn Sullivan (President, Empower Texans*) *For identification purposes only