Are you confused about what a contested convention is? Do you get nauseated hearing terms like “brokered convention” and “open convention” because you are convinced that some big baddy mafia types in D.C. are trying to undo your vote? Let’s face it, the main stream media and radio talk show hosts sure love to get people riled up over these terms, don’t they? But, notice they never really EXPLAIN the process, they just try to scare us all to death with their hand wringing over it.
They COULD explain it, but then you would understand it and wouldn’t have to depend on their analysis to form your own thoughts. They don’t like that.
This is why I have a simple explanation of the process here… the WHOLE process itself isn’t really all that simple, but the basics and the basic terminology are not difficult to understand. The further you have to go in the process, the more complicated it gets. But, why get all worked up and spend mental energy over that until it happens….let’s just focus on the basics.
It’s simple. Seriously. A 3rd grader could understand the basics here. Most regular, non political folks don’t know the basics because let’s be real, you have lives and families and jobs and kids and haven’t really had the time to dig into the minutia of the presidential election, ESPECIALLY the primaries. But take just 5-7 minutes and read this….you don’t even need to file it away in your brain…just bookmark it and refer back as needed.
In order for a candidate to win the nomination at the Republican convention this year, they need to have the votes/support of 1237 delegates.
The total number of delegates available from the states is 2472. 1237 is a majority.
A MAJORITY = 50% + 1.
50% of 2472 is 1236.
1236 + 1 = 1237.
See? Not hard. Not made up and not some random number pulled out of the sky by some secret Republican establishment wizard, as alluded to by at least 1 candidate.
That is a rule that has been place for over a hundred years.
It wasn’t changed to deny anyone a nomination or to help anyone get the nomination. It just is what it is. A RULE.
Well then, what’s all this talk about a contested, open, or brokered convention? Well, the media likes to confuse things to make them more exciting and frustrate the voters.
There is a difference in a CONTESTED CONVENTION and a BROKERED/OPEN CONVENTION. The majority of the media talking heads know this, but still use the 2 terms interchangeably. Don’t let them confuse you.
A Contested Convention is when the candidates get to the party nominating convention and no one has won or secured the majority of delegates (which this year is 1237). IF that happens, then the convention is AUTOMATICALLY contested. That means any candidates with LESS than 1237 delegates before the first ballot or vote is cast at the convention, does not win the nomination outright.
So for those who CAN’T seem to understand how numbers work, (I’m looking at you Sean Hannity), 900 < 1237. Any candidate with only 900 delegates has not secured the nomination.
1100 < 1237. Any candidate with only 1100 delegates STILL has not secured the nomination.
1236 < 1237. Any candidate with only 1236 delegates HAS NOT secured the nomination. Mr. Hannity, are you still with me?? Do you understand?
1237 = 1237.
Any candidate with 1237 delegates (or MORE) on the 1st ballot or the 50th ballot, has SECURED the nomination. If any candidate secures 1237 delegates BEFORE the convention, then they have won the nomination and the nomination/ballot process at the convention are just formalities.
If no candidate has secured or won 1237 delegates, by the time the convention begins, then it is a CONTESTED convention…..this means it is contested before and up until the FIRST BALLOT is cast.
So before the voting actually begins, the candidates have a chance to try to convince the small number of unbound delegates to vote for them. (There will be a few delegates that aren’t bound to any candidate, because of their own state’s rules.) The candidates will be allowed to give a speech trying to win the support of those delegates and they will be allowed to bargain with them to join their team.
Then, the first vote is taken. If STILL, NO candidate has secured at least 1237 delegates, THEN the Convention is considered “brokered” or open.
“Brokered” is kind of old terminology, but I’m fairly sure they don’t use brokers anymore, which is why it is more appropriately referred to as an OPEN convention at that point. It’s open because after the first ballot is taken, then several of the delegates are unbound from the candidate they were originally supporting. Whether or not they are unbound is determined by their own state’s rules, NOT any power players in Washington D.C. 98% of the rules governing the delegates at the convention were adopted by their individual states. Some states don’t unbind or “release” there delegates until after the 3rd vote is taken….but, many unbind or release them after the first vote.
Remember, the delegates are regular, normal people like you and I. They were selected by the individual states to represent that state AND that state’s votes at the convention. We, the people, only really get to have the most say so in electing the candidate directly on the first ballot….if there is no winner or the equivalent of a tie, then the job of the delegates that WE elected to represent us, will basically be the tie breakers. So it isn’t like our votes don’t count. They do. Mostly on the 1st and 2nd ballots. If you don’t like that, then you need to seek to change that through your own state.
And let’s also remember, no one person or committee decides if a convention is contested. It happens AUTOMATICALLY. So the next time some media talking head says something like “If a candidate is a short a few dozen delegates, then it shouldn’t be a contested convention”, they are depending on you to be ignorant and uninformed because all the candidates being short of a majority of delegates is the EXACT DEFINITION of a contested convention.
NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP FOR DUMMIES
With all the broo-ha-ha about Ted Cruz and his Natural Born Citizenship status, it’s easy to get confused about the reality and truth really is, so I thought I’d make it as easy to understand as possible.
1. The only place the term “natural born citizen” was ever defined by the founders was in The Naturalization Act of 1790. (link here)
2. The text (as relates to natural born citizenship) of The Naturalization Act of 1790 reads as follows:
“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”
3. If you aren’t a natural born citizen, then you are a NATURALIZED citizen. Cruz has never been naturalized in the U.S. because he was BORN a citizen of the United States.
That’s really all you need to know. When it comes down to it and IF a court ever does decide to look at it, that is what they’ll refer back to in order to see the original intentions of the founders. It really IS as simple as that.
Of course, as always, you can leave a comment a question regarding the subject here or on my Facebook page. I’ll address any falsehoods that you may read and I’ll even any challenges to the information that I have provided.
Don’t you hate it when the loudest and squeakiest wheels among us tend to be the most ignorant? Why is that? Could it be because we just don’t have the will to let our own voices be heard….. therefore, surrendering any power we have to the ones who have the courage to speak their minds….how ever empty those minds may be???
Silence is golden. At least that’s what we’ve always been told, right? And while I do agree that there is a time for silence, I will also add that there is a time to speak out. And NOW is the time to speak out if we are ever to save our nation.
Is it easy? NO. Will it win you many friends? NO.
One of my very favorite songs is “I Wanna See You Be Brave” by Sara Bareilles.
It contains one of the most powerful messages every put to music. It talks about how powerful our words are when speak out and how we have a choice to keep our thoughts and words contained or to “Be Brave” and let them “fall out”. Because using our freedom of speech to take a stand for GOOD is one of the bravest things we can do in this world.
You can be amazing
You can turn a phrase into a weapon or a drug
You can be the outcast
Or be the backlash of somebody’s lack of love
Or you can start speaking up
We can’t all stand on the front lines of the battlefield and physically fight for our country. Not all of us are called to do that. Yet, sometimes it seems that speaking our minds and speaking out for what is good and right takes as much bravery as standing on the front lines in a battle.
One of the most powerful fighting forces in the world is our words. Whether they are being sung in a concert, spoken in a speech to thousands, whispered in the ears of our children, preached in the pulpits of the churches, used to explain quantum physics 12th graders, passionately expressed in a locker room at half time during a football game, used with tender loving care when eulogizing a loved one, screamed in moments of anger at a loved one or a stranger on the street, spoken at altar from one person to another as they commit their lives to one another and ultimately required for the salvation of our souls through repentance and being unashamed in acknowledging Christ the Savior. Words are powerful.
Nothing’s gonna hurt you the way that words do
When they settle ‘neath your skin
Kept on the inside and no sunlight
Sometimes a shadow wins
But I wonder what would happen if you
Say what you wanna say
And let the words fall out
Honestly I wanna see you be brave
Words can be used to affect change. Speaking out against the powers that be and against evil and for good does take a certain amount of bravery, even in America where such speech is supposed to be protected.
But free speech is only protected from the federal government. Our free speech is not protected from our employers who might fire us for taking sides on an issue. It’s not protected from the mobs of dummies who will attempt to shout us down with lies and mockery. It’s not protected from the majority of uninformed people who use the media as their primary source of knowledge on all things and try to belittle us when we speak something that is true, but not popular. Our freedom of speech is not protected from groups who wish us harm and would even attempt to harm us or our property because of our views. We all know these things, which is why we treat that freedom like the delicate thing it is….something to be hidden because WE have to protect it….by never letting it see the light of day. But as delicate as it is, it is also powerful.
And it’s not bravery to hide it and protect it. It’s bravery to use it to drown out evil and promote good. THAT is bravery. I encourage you to use your voice for righteousness.
Speak up. Speak out.
Everybody’s been there,
Everybody’s been stared down by the enemy
Fallen for the fear
And done some disappearing,
Bow down to the mighty
Don’t run, just stop holding your tongue
Maybe there’s a way out of the cage where you live
Maybe one of these days you can let the light in
Show me how big your brave is
I am often told that I say the things others can’t say. I say things that others have wanted to say for a long time, but are afraid to speak or can’t find the right words. I am frequently sent information and ideas that other people want ME to say either publicly, to someone else, through Facebook, Twitter and various other forms of social media.
I realize these people are well meaning. Some of the greatest people I have known in my life and respected so highly, have actually asked me to use MY voice to say the things that they want said. It’s flattering that they put so much faith in me, but it’s also discouraging. Speaking out is not easy, no matter who does it.
Speaking out takes sacrifice sometimes. In order to do something “brave”, there has to be an element of risk involved. We must be willing to sacrifice something or else it’s not bravery. There is no courage where there is no danger. But, if you don’t speak out, could you be losing something far greater in the end than a few sensitive Facebook friends? It is disheartening that so many aren’t willing to pay a small price, when so many paid the ultimate price for the very freedom of speech.
Will you get fired?
Will you not get that one job because they know where you stand on some issues?
Will you get shouted down and mocked?
Will you become an outcast among your crowd?
Will your great Aunt Myrtle unfriend you on Facebook?
If you’re lucky.
Will you offend someone who is determined to be offended no matter what?
And since your history of silence
Won’t do you any good,
Did you think it would?
Let your words be anything but empty
Why don’t you tell them the truth?
What would you say about a very wealthy white woman who, in the 20th century, 50-100 years AFTER slavery ended, did the following:
-claimed blacks were an inferior race
-put into motion plans to eradicate the black population
-met with KKK members, giving speeches on to solve the problem of the “negro”
-knew she couldn’t just out right kill the blacks herself, so she did the next best thing….used her wealth and power to conspire to kill blacks before they were able to be born.
-used black community leaders to convince the pregnant black women to kill the babies they were carrying, as she thought the best way to get rid of an inferior group would be to stop them from reproducing.
-started a massive organization that would continue her legacy to kill the “undesirables” long after she was dead…..
* kills more black people in 3 days than the KKK did in their entire existence.
*receives government funds to continue their legacy of downsizing the black population.
*places their clinics in primarily minority neighborhoods to easier reach their “targets”…young black women.
*gives an award each year to a prominent person, usually in the government, who helps further the works of their founder.
What would you say about this woman?
Would you say she’s vile? She’s racist? She’s hateful? Maybe even evil?
Would you want to be associated with her? Would you accept an award in her honor?
What would you say about someone who DID accept the award for furthering her work? What would you say if that person GLADLY accepts the award and even says they ADMIRE this hateful and racist woman?
What would enrage you more? A flag that you think represents racists or an actual RACIST?
The horrible woman who did all these things was a wealthy white woman named Margaret Sanger.
She was a vile, immoral, and hateful racist.
The organization she founded to help eradicate the black population was Planned Parenthood.
And the award recipient, (The Margaret Sanger Award ) was none other than Hillary Clinton.
That’s the truth. And Clinton even said of her:
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…”
“I am really in awe of her”
Yes, while she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger award and said these lovely words about her.
If the Confederate flag offends you, that’s fine and your offense might even be justified in your situation. But, if it offends you more than Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, or Hillary Clinton, then you will never be taken seriously. The outrage is for show and probably fake.
If you rally against a piece of cloth on a stick MORE than the actual racists themselves…. then racism doesn’t really offend you. So maybe now is the time to stop pretending to actually oppose racism. Just admit it’s easier to go along with every cool new trend of banning this and banning that and marching against whatever the media tells you to, than to actually think for yourself, be yourself and get passionate about REAL problems.
Some Fun Earth Day Facts
1. Earth day was founded by Atheists, hard core socialists, and communists…. oh…. and also one guy who murdered his girl friend.
2. Earth day is set to be observed annually on April 22, which, COINCIDENTALLY, *wink wink* is the birthday of the great and awesome Russian leader Vladimir Lenin. And by great and awesome, I mean a mass murdering psychopath. And by leader, I mean a ruthless tyrant.
But still, even though Lenin was a revered icon and hero to the founders/organizers of Earth Day AND the fact that the very first Earth Day in 1970 JUST HAPPENED to be on Lenin’s 100th birthday….. means NOTHING.
Just kidding. It’s a total tribute to the King of Communism.
3. The agenda set forth to celebrate Earth Day is one of worshiping mother earth and nature…..which completely goes against Biblical teachings…..which… makes it that much more appealing to liberals across the land…so win/win/win for them……..And lose/lose/lose for the actual EARTH…..which brings us to number 4 on list of Earth Day facts.
4. Ironically enough, the one thing that suffers the most anytime liberals/socialists gather to celebrate and/or protest ANYTHING is the EARTH.
First, the delightful aroma of hippies, envirowackos, liberals, commies, etc etc gathering in one area is enough to make anyone give in to their demands if they just promise to disperse and leave the scene….. I’m pretty sure the air quality at any given assembly of leftists is much worse than anything they could be protesting.
Second, they are so exhausted from
smoking dope PROTESTING the polluting and trashing of Mother Earth, that they just don’t have the energy to actually clean up any of their own trash generated at such events.
Earth Day Celebrations Across The Land
5. The environmental movement is one of the dirtiest tricks ever played on mankind. It has nothing to do with making the world cleaner or better for humans. It’s driven by a socialist and anti freedom, anti God agenda.
There you have it. Just a few little Earth Day Facts that a very large portion of the population isn’t even aware of.
However, I realize that the powers that be will ignore these little inconvenient truths… except Barack Obama…. I suspect he gets slightly jealous about the whole Lenin having his own day and all.
And in all fairness, if we celebrate Lenin’s birthday as “Earth Day”, then it only makes sense we should designate Obama’s birthday as Uranus Day.
Here’s the deal….I saw T.D. Jakes in an interview on CNN and was shocked to hear the things he said regarding the George Zimmerman case…so, I quickly tweeted my disappointment. I actually forgot about the tweet until hours later when I noticed that he had retweeted it to his rather large audience and many of his fans proceeded to let me know they didn’t appreciate what I said and many questioned what I was referring to…here is the tweet and my response in an open letter to the Bishop follows.
July 24, 2013
Bishop T.D. Jakes
c/o The Potter’s House
This is not a letter I planned to write. I don’t write to famous people because, the chances of them reading what I have to say is the same as winning the lottery, so I generally don’t waste my time.
However, since my tweet about you did get your attention, enough for you to take the time to retweet it to all your followers, I guess I have some ‘splainin’ to do. I should explain because, whatever your intention in retweeting it, the result was a torrent of your ticked off fans raining down their displeasure with me.
My tweet was simple. I expressed disappointment in an interview that I had just seen with you on CNN re: the George Zimmerman case and quite honestly, it was simply a “venting” tweet because I never imagined you would even see it (being a famous, wealthy, and important minister.) Also, I don’t even have very many Twitter followers, so the chances of anyone seeing it was pretty nil. Had I known you would personally see it, I would have sent the message to you privately. It was not intended in any way to try to air grievances with someone without privately letting them know beforehand. Just so you know, it wasn’t meant to call you out in public, even if that’s what the result ultimately was.
Because of the said tweet, I have been inundated with questions about my statement. I will answer those now.
The interview that I was alluding to in the tweet was one where you said a number of things that bothered me. I understand that you have a right to your own opinion. You do not have a right to your own facts. My opinions are seen by 12 Twitter followers. Yours are heard by the 30,000 in your church, plus the millions who hear you on TV.
In the interview, you referred to the Martins and their son’s death from a senseless act of violence. You referred to that act of “senseless” violence, NOT being on the part of their son, Trayvon, but solely on George Zimmerman.
Again, you have a right to your opinion, but as a minister, to gloss over the glaringly obvious in attempts to smear a man is at best disingenuous and at worst utterly deceitful. You seem to be saying that assaulting someone and beating his head on the concrete is not senseless violence, but someone defending themselves from that attack is senseless violence.
So what should Zimmerman have done… just lain there and taken his beating like a good non-black person and ended up dead, or in the hospital with brain damage? Tell me something, if he had, would you have devoted an entire Sunday sermon on the injustice of it all? Would you be appearing on talk shows to weigh in on “senseless” violence?
You then went on to say this wasn’t really about race and you said “I don’t think it’s as much about skin as it is about right. More and more people are on different sides of this perspective because we don’t think with our skin, we think with our hearts.”
Thinking with our hearts does not always produce honest results. It can antagonize a bad situation, especially when the truth is not as prevalent on an issue as are the lies surrounding it. Maybe as a minister, you should encourage people to think with their heads also? You know, it’s like when you counsel abused women to do the smart thing, instead of just following their hearts? See, using your head over your heart is not always a bad or uncompassionate thing.
I would also ask, where is YOUR heart on this? Have you taken just a minute and stopped to consider what if what Zimmerman said was correct? Did you consider that if his accounts of things are correct, then you are attempting to assassinate the character of a fellow Christian and stomp him while he is down and promoting the idea that an innocent man should spend life in prison? Is it possible that you have overlooked evidence in this case in favor of your “heart thinking”? And from that, you have also chosen to believe one witness out of dozens. So not only have you ignored another HUMAN BEING in this situation, you have gone out of your way to do so. Yes, Zimmerman is a human being just like the Martins and just like their son.
Also, you obviously looked at all the evidence and watched all the testimony and sat down and reasoned out the whole situation before weighing in as a minister, didn’t you? Surely you had to have, knowing the influence you have on others and your concern for the truth. So, assuming you did, did you listen to the policewoman talk about Zimmerman’s devastation when he learned of Martin’s death? Did you listen to her has she discussed his concern about taking another life (which was not his intention, obviously, if he was surprised)? Did you listen to the testimony about his immediate reaction being one of concern about his faith? Does that sound like a monster to you?
Did you check Zimmerman’s past and notice that he’s not perfect? Did you also notice that in recent years, he had begun to grow out of some of that nonsense and become a contributor to society as opposed to a menace? Did you take note of the young black teens that he mentored in the community? Did you notice his concern for the safety of others in his community regardless of their skin color?
Did you see his apology to the Martin family over a year ago, which was televised? Did you see his response about how it bothered him that Trayvon was so young?
If you DID see and hear these things, then did you choose not believe them? I don’t know of a Christian that can see and hear those things that would feel they are being deceived. Did you decide to bestow judgment on Zimmerman, deciding on your own that he was deceiving everyone by saying he never intended to kill anyone, that he was sorry that he had to and that he was grappling with his own faith because of it?
Or did you believe Zimmerman was sincere and then chose to ignore it and take the popular position so as not to offend some people?
You said the case wasn’t so much about skin or race, but about right and wrong…then you went on to say this:
“The greater thing here is an opportunity to bring to the open and forefront some of the disparities that exist amongst minorities and we have to fight for that because it is very, very important that all people have equal access to the law, fair representation on the jury and that we engage in the judicial process that’s critical for all Americans.”
So is it or is it not about race? You seem to have a little doublespeak going on. Feel free to correct me.
And what does a fair representation on the jury have to do with this? Who wasn’t represented fairly on the jury? You do understand that the Constitution guarantees a jury by your peers right? You also understand that the Constitution makes it clear this is referring to the DEFENDANT, right? As in, the only person the jury was supposed to be the peers of was George Zimmerman. So why would you even bring that into the discussion, unless you are intentionally trying to put out the vibe that Zimmerman should be in prison and the system is unfair and that is why he isn’t?
You do understand that you have a huge audience that would hear you say that and believe you have your facts straight and never actually check for themselves don’t you? Do you also understand that it could cause them to become enraged and not even attempt to respect the process because you have put out the notion that the process is so unfair and always against them?
What you fail to tell them though is that Trayvon already got a pass from the criminal justice system. He wasn’t prosecuted in Miami or even charged because of a massive attempt to cover up crime in the school/community. He was never charged for vandalism, burglary or drug possession. Three crimes he got away with, with only a slap on the wrist from his school in the form of suspension. I wouldn’t even bring it up, except I need to prove that the system was overly fair to Trayvon Martin, and ironically, that led to his death.
I am not saying Trayvon was not a victim. He certainly was. He was a victim of disconnected and permissive parents that failed to teach a sense of responsibility and values, and a respect for adults. I have sympathy for parents who have lost children. My heart goes out them. But, in their grief, they have been dishonest several times in an attempt to put a man in prison for life just clean up their own kid’s reputation. I simply don’t understand how you can endorse that obviously very unChristlike behavior on the part of the parents.
Trayvon was a victim in that he was a kid that was suspended from school and was allowed to stay home alone (while his dad went out for fun), allowed to go out alone, given spending money to do it with by his father and with no apparent curfew. Then, his father had his girlfriend call the juvenile justice center when he was missing to see if anyone named “Trayvon Martin had been picked up”…he then called the Sheriff’s department to see if “any kid had been picked up”.
So there you have it. Even his father assumed he was in some trouble. No parent, when their child is missing, has the thought to call a juvenile detention center first, unless their son had a reputation for causing trouble. His father was aware of his son’s delinquent behaviors and what was he doing about it? Did he put as much effort into being a father to his son before he died, as he has being a “father” since his death? Yes, Trayvon, tragically was a victim.
He was also a victim of liberal policies that have failed the black community for over 50 years. Policies that have been put in place by people that you openly support.
But, I have to hand it to you, you have recognized the need to focus on families in the black community and are doing something about it. You have a mega event planned for August to address the issues plaguing families in the black community. To help teach others how to fix those problems, you are bringing in a celebrity to teach “life classes”…a celebrity who has lived with her boyfriend out of wedlock for over 20 years.
I do not like to criticize people who are doing things in an attempt to help others, because I am full aware that criticism follows anyone attempting to do good things, as I have personally have experienced it many times. I wouldn’t even be mentioning or critiquing you on it, but you decided to announce my disappointment to the world and I am left to explain.
Just remember when you feel beat down trying to do good things and you make mistakes along the way….
remember….that George Zimmerman was also trying to help others, protect them and serve his community.
George was as much about helping others as you are sir.
*****I have not sourced the factual claims made in this article because I know that you have researched this already and are aware of all the facts of the case. However, if there is anything you need a source for, please let me know and I’ll be happy to provide it.*****