John Sigler’s Chairman’s Corner
Feb 10th, 2012 by David Anderson
Good Afternoon and Welcome to a “Special Edition” of The Chairman’s Corner.
Throughout this month of February, your Delaware Republican Party enthusiastically joins this nation’s African- American community and all Delawareans in celebrating Black History Month (or National African American History Month).
From Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant to Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald R. Ford, Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush, America’s Republican Party leaders have fought tirelessly against the poison of racism that flows through the veins of far too many people of all political persuasions and affiliations. The Republican quest for smaller, more effective government that eschews the cynicism of crony capitalism, and challenges the “reality” of generational dependency infecting this current administration and far too many in Congress, is an honorable goal that serves all men and women equally well.
It was President Gerald R. Ford who, in 1976, signed the very first presidential proclamation establishing February as “Black History Month,” setting this month aside as a time to honor the many important contributions African-Americans have made toward making America “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” It is because of President Ford’s efforts that all Americans are now better able to appreciate the contributions and sacrifices of America’s African-American visionaries, patriots, scholars and leaders, many of whom were proud and loyal Republicans, just like you and me.
Many of us think of the Republican Party as “The Party of Lincoln.” And so it is.
But ours is also “The Party of Frederick Douglas” and the party of Harriet Tubman, Carter G. Woodson and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Add to this list many other distinguished and accomplished African-American Republicans, such as Mary McLeod Bethune, Don King, Jackie Robinson, Lynn Swann, Sammy Davis, Jr., Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas and Alveda C. King. There are thousands and thousands of others who have given so much of which we are so proud and who have made a tremendously positive difference in each of our lives.
After the Civil War, 23 black men (13 of whom were former slaves), were elected to Congress, all as members of the Republican Party. President Richard Nixon’s Executive Order No. 11625 made certain the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to “implement Federal policy in support of the minority enterprise effort.” President Bush had a much more diverse assembly of Cabinet Secretaries than President Obama, including General Colin Powell, the first ever black Secretary of State, who was then succeeded in the post by another distinguished African-American Republican, Dr. Condoleezza Rice – the first African-American woman to rise to become third in the line of succession to the presidency.
This election year, Democrat opposition to fiscally responsible Republican policies will portray the GOP in many distasteful ways – and yes, the “race card” will be played again and again. This, unfortunately, is to be expected in a hotly contested election year in which the incumbent President has so few positive accomplishments upon which to base his re-election campaign. Black voters are crushed under 13.6% unemployment, approximately twice that of white unemployment (7.4%) yet Democrats push for raising mandatory minimum wage requirements, which ultimately causes even more unemployment for the largest segment of minimum wage earners, black teenagers.
For these reasons and many others, the Republican Party supported 32 African-Americans running for Congress in 2010. This is a contemporary historical truth … and we believe this is still just the beginning. Look for more in 2012. Meanwhile, allies like the National Black Republican Association continue to lead the way and provide information to voters willing to seek the truth.
Here’s another “truth:” ObamaCare is already raising taxes on the middle class and causing more middle class unemployment while this administration rewards wealthy investment bankers for their role in creating this great recession, all of which disproportionally impacts the African-American community. It’s no surprise that millions of Americans are rejecting the opposition’s false advertising claims that Republicans are “for” big business while Democrats are “for” the people. It just goes to prove once again that “… you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
As more investigations and hearings uncover additional “pay-to-play” scandals and political corruption in the Obama administration, we in Delaware’s Republican Party welcome and embrace politically disillusioned people of all races, all nationalities and from all walks of life. I invite you to attend our meetings, get to know and become involved with the Party, and vote Republican in 2012.
And when you attend one of our meetings, please bring a friend. Everyone is welcome in our Republican Party.
John C. Sigler, Chairman
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Lessons learned from South Carolina Republican Primary
Someone wrote after the South Carolina primary: “More analysis: I am expecting both the establishment and the Left to absolutely crucify Newt now that he is no longer written off as a has been.”
But see that’s the difference. We are so accustomed to candidates who just stand there and allow themselves to be pummeled and do nothing about it. The GOP has low expectations, and I still think is afraid — like the Stockholm Syndrome — of the news media.
Newt may be far from perfect.
The fact that so few candidates have learned these lessons narrows the circle of GOP candidates who can take on the assault and win, and over come it.
But Newt is not going to offer a stationary target, allow the artillery to get the range, and just sit their and take incoming artillery shells.
It would be better if we had a candidate who (a) knew how to fight but (b) did not need to defend himself on so many issues.
But Newt knows how to make his critic hurt MORE than his critic hurts him.
What happened with CNN John King v. Newt Gingrich is that Newt transformed a CLEAR LOSER, and a very BAD attack, into a WIN.
He didn’t just survive the barrage.
He converted a bad thing into a good thing. He actually gained ground by an attack that would have devastated most other candidates. He profited from the attacks.
So what distinguishes Newt from the typical candidate is that he is going to *PROFIT* politically from many of the attacks on him, and make his attacker hurt worse than the attacker hurts Newt.
NOTE: Mitt Romney did the same thing with Bain Capital, and almost destroyed Newt heading into the debates. Romney probably should have sunk the knife in.
Romney’s team converted the questions about Bain Capital into a NET BENEFIT by claiming that Newt and Santorum were adopting a left-wing view of economics and talking like liberals who did not understand business and want government regulation of everything. For a while, Romney was clobbering Newt and Santorum on that theme. Romney was actually GAINING more than he was losing on that theme. Had Romney been able to milk that issue a little further, he might have nipped Newt in the bud in SC.
But see that’s the difference. We are so accustomed to candidates who just stand there and allow themselves to be pummeled and do nothing about it. The GOP has low expectations, and I still think is afraid — like the Stockholm Syndrome — of the news media.
Newt may be far from perfect.
The fact that so few candidates have learned these lessons narrows the circle of GOP candidates who can take on the assault and win, and over come it.
But Newt is not going to offer a stationary target, allow the artillery to get the range, and just sit their and take incoming artillery shells.
It would be better if we had a candidate who (a) knew how to fight but (b) did not need to defend himself on so many issues.
But Newt knows how to make his critic hurt MORE than his critic hurts him.
What happened with CNN John King v. Newt Gingrich is that Newt transformed a CLEAR LOSER, and a very BAD attack, into a WIN.
He didn’t just survive the barrage.
He converted a bad thing into a good thing. He actually gained ground by an attack that would have devastated most other candidates. He profited from the attacks.
So what distinguishes Newt from the typical candidate is that he is going to *PROFIT* politically from many of the attacks on him, and make his attacker hurt worse than the attacker hurts Newt.
NOTE: Mitt Romney did the same thing with Bain Capital, and almost destroyed Newt heading into the debates. Romney probably should have sunk the knife in.
Romney’s team converted the questions about Bain Capital into a NET BENEFIT by claiming that Newt and Santorum were adopting a left-wing view of economics and talking like liberals who did not understand business and want government regulation of everything. For a while, Romney was clobbering Newt and Santorum on that theme. Romney was actually GAINING more than he was losing on that theme. Had Romney been able to milk that issue a little further, he might have nipped Newt in the bud in SC.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Lessons Learned from Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney: REPUBLICANS HAVE TO LEARN TO FIGHT
A key argument by moderate Republicans is that putting forward THE PERFECT CANDIDATE is the trick. If we simply choose the right candidate, everything else will fall automatically into place.
My argument is that it does not matter which candidate you choose. The GOP has to learn how to FIGHT (rhetorically and politically, of course)… and to fight in UNITY.
And, yes, that means being PERSUASIVE, not simply cantankerous. Success is measured by whether the listener is persuaded, not by how you feel saying what you want to say. Success is when the hearer says (even quietly to himself) “You’re right” not just if you are being loud and ornery (like me).
I suggest that recent events in the GOP Primary highlight what I was saying. (And, no, I had NO foreknowledge of any attacks on Mitt Romney. I just spoke from 28 years in Republican campaigns, from being co-chair of Reagan/Bush 1984 at the University of Florida in 1984.)
There is NO candidate who is immune from being attacked.
You have to be geared up for (political) battle.
You can’t avoid the battle by hiding behind a candidate whom you believe is perfect.
The mistake that Mitt Romney and his team made was that they SAW the “baggage” for which Newt Gingrich could be attacked, BUT THEY WERE *BLIND* TO THEIR OWN BAGGAGE. Just because it hadn’t attracted attention yet, they though they were immune to criticism.
So Mitt Romney started a mud-slinging war ASSUMING that it would only affect Newt, and Romney would come out smelling like a rose. Nothing would stick to him.
Just because a candidate hasn’t been criticized YET, doesn’t mean he WON’T be.
So Mitt Romney decided to go negative and spark a war thinking that he could smear Newt, but nothing could be said negative about Mitt Romney. You can’t run a campaign ASSUMING that nobody can find anything negative to say about you. Your opponents will *ALWAYS* find something negative to say — even if they have to fabricate smears out of thin air.
So what’s the lesson? GIVE UP? NO!
If you think Mitt Romney, is a better candidate, FIGHT for him. Don’t think you can coast to an easy victory.
Contrast this with Newt Gingrich’s opening in last night’s SC debate:
Newt used a brilliant political tactic, when opening last night’s debate. He did not want to talk about or dwell on the substance of the question of his ex-wife’s comments. Marianne Gingrich’s interview had (has) the potential to totally destroy Newt’s candidacy, because people will assume he can’t win the general election. They may not care in the primary, but they have to wonder “Would a Newt nominee survive the general election and beat Obama?”
THAT was one of Christine O’Donnell’s points in making her controversial endorsement of Mitt Romney: Christine expressed her analysis that Newt Gingrich would be savaged over his personal baggage in the general election, leading to the re-election of Obama.
BUT NOTICE THE POLITICAL TECHNIQUES USED BY NEWT:
In opening last night’s debates, he changed the story to being about the WAY that he responded. He took a losing topic, his ex-wife’s comments, and turned it into a winner — HOW he fought back, showing himself to be a fighter who can take on tough challenges. I am sure he planned ahead on this — to highlight his strength, energy, and boldness in fighting back, to OBSCURE the substance of the discussion, and convert it into being all about his debating strength. So you no longer think about WHAT they were talking about, but only about HOW he said it. I am sure he planned that all along.
I would feel much better about a Mitt Romney nomination if Republicans who mostly are his supporters UNDERSTOOD *HOW* to take on Barack Obama in the same way.
I don’t mind Mitt Romney at all. But I think the GOP needs to know how to fight and win (not just fight for fighting’s sake, of course).
REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING AMONG THEMSELVES, SEARCHING FOR THE PERFECT CANDIDATE, BECAUSE WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO FIGHT AND WIN.
We don’t know how to fight for *ANY* candidate, so we are blaming the candidates, instead of ourselves as campaigners.
By the way, don’t get me wrong:
I suspect that Christine O’Donnell is genuinely pained by (in her view) watching a re-run of the party acrimony of 2010. I haven’t spoken to her in a while, but I understand from her comments, and her “Tweets” that pop up on our Facebook feed, that she really dislikes the prospect of another self-destructive civil war.
I suspect that for Christine it is like watching a car accident happening in slow motion and you can’t do anything to stop it. So her response to a ridiculously excessive number of candidates was to feel the need to all get behind one.
One of the smartest things that Mitt Romney supporters could do would be to fly Christine O’Donnell down to Florida to make that passionate appeal that the Party needs to unite behind one candidate, that we cannot beat Obama divided. She assumes that means coalescing behind Romney. But she’s not the only one, from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Gov. Nikki Haley to Ann Coulter, and many others.
My concern is not with the choice of candidate (even though I do lean elsewhere), but with the underlying assumption that we don’t have to fight for every vote if we pick the “easy” candidate.
My argument is that it does not matter which candidate you choose. The GOP has to learn how to FIGHT (rhetorically and politically, of course)… and to fight in UNITY.
And, yes, that means being PERSUASIVE, not simply cantankerous. Success is measured by whether the listener is persuaded, not by how you feel saying what you want to say. Success is when the hearer says (even quietly to himself) “You’re right” not just if you are being loud and ornery (like me).
I suggest that recent events in the GOP Primary highlight what I was saying. (And, no, I had NO foreknowledge of any attacks on Mitt Romney. I just spoke from 28 years in Republican campaigns, from being co-chair of Reagan/Bush 1984 at the University of Florida in 1984.)
There is NO candidate who is immune from being attacked.
You have to be geared up for (political) battle.
You can’t avoid the battle by hiding behind a candidate whom you believe is perfect.
The mistake that Mitt Romney and his team made was that they SAW the “baggage” for which Newt Gingrich could be attacked, BUT THEY WERE *BLIND* TO THEIR OWN BAGGAGE. Just because it hadn’t attracted attention yet, they though they were immune to criticism.
So Mitt Romney started a mud-slinging war ASSUMING that it would only affect Newt, and Romney would come out smelling like a rose. Nothing would stick to him.
Just because a candidate hasn’t been criticized YET, doesn’t mean he WON’T be.
So Mitt Romney decided to go negative and spark a war thinking that he could smear Newt, but nothing could be said negative about Mitt Romney. You can’t run a campaign ASSUMING that nobody can find anything negative to say about you. Your opponents will *ALWAYS* find something negative to say — even if they have to fabricate smears out of thin air.
So what’s the lesson? GIVE UP? NO!
If you think Mitt Romney, is a better candidate, FIGHT for him. Don’t think you can coast to an easy victory.
Contrast this with Newt Gingrich’s opening in last night’s SC debate:
Newt used a brilliant political tactic, when opening last night’s debate. He did not want to talk about or dwell on the substance of the question of his ex-wife’s comments. Marianne Gingrich’s interview had (has) the potential to totally destroy Newt’s candidacy, because people will assume he can’t win the general election. They may not care in the primary, but they have to wonder “Would a Newt nominee survive the general election and beat Obama?”
THAT was one of Christine O’Donnell’s points in making her controversial endorsement of Mitt Romney: Christine expressed her analysis that Newt Gingrich would be savaged over his personal baggage in the general election, leading to the re-election of Obama.
BUT NOTICE THE POLITICAL TECHNIQUES USED BY NEWT:
In opening last night’s debates, he changed the story to being about the WAY that he responded. He took a losing topic, his ex-wife’s comments, and turned it into a winner — HOW he fought back, showing himself to be a fighter who can take on tough challenges. I am sure he planned ahead on this — to highlight his strength, energy, and boldness in fighting back, to OBSCURE the substance of the discussion, and convert it into being all about his debating strength. So you no longer think about WHAT they were talking about, but only about HOW he said it. I am sure he planned that all along.
I would feel much better about a Mitt Romney nomination if Republicans who mostly are his supporters UNDERSTOOD *HOW* to take on Barack Obama in the same way.
I don’t mind Mitt Romney at all. But I think the GOP needs to know how to fight and win (not just fight for fighting’s sake, of course).
REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING AMONG THEMSELVES, SEARCHING FOR THE PERFECT CANDIDATE, BECAUSE WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO FIGHT AND WIN.
We don’t know how to fight for *ANY* candidate, so we are blaming the candidates, instead of ourselves as campaigners.
By the way, don’t get me wrong:
I suspect that Christine O’Donnell is genuinely pained by (in her view) watching a re-run of the party acrimony of 2010. I haven’t spoken to her in a while, but I understand from her comments, and her “Tweets” that pop up on our Facebook feed, that she really dislikes the prospect of another self-destructive civil war.
I suspect that for Christine it is like watching a car accident happening in slow motion and you can’t do anything to stop it. So her response to a ridiculously excessive number of candidates was to feel the need to all get behind one.
One of the smartest things that Mitt Romney supporters could do would be to fly Christine O’Donnell down to Florida to make that passionate appeal that the Party needs to unite behind one candidate, that we cannot beat Obama divided. She assumes that means coalescing behind Romney. But she’s not the only one, from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Gov. Nikki Haley to Ann Coulter, and many others.
My concern is not with the choice of candidate (even though I do lean elsewhere), but with the underlying assumption that we don’t have to fight for every vote if we pick the “easy” candidate.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
What is Marxism?
From my friend Sevil Kalayci:
"The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects -- his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity." --American economist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)
"The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects -- his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity." --American economist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)
Saturday, January 14, 2012
BREAKING NEWS: Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry APPEALING Federal lawsuit to appear on GOP Presidential ballot
At 9:51 PM Newt Gingrich APPEALED, and at 4:13 PM on Saturday, Gov. Rick Perry APPEALED the decision of Federal Judge in Richmond, to appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican presidential primary ballot. So the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide if Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry should be on the ballot in Virginia.
Friday, January 13, 2012
"NO" says Federal Judge to Virginia Presidential Primary Ballot Lawsuit by Rick Perry
News Release
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES "NO" ON LAWSUIT
TO EXPAND VIRGINIA PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOTS --
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul Will Be on the
March 6, 2012 Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley (703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 13, 2012) -- "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" but TOO LATE to do anything about it, was the ruling of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman "intervened" and joined the lawsuit.
Judge Gibney ruled that RIck Perry's lawsuit is absolutely correct: Virginia's restrictions on who may circulate ballot access petitions is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in light of prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- see below.
However, the Judge ruled that he could not provide a "remedy' to the other candidates, because they did not in fact submit 10,000 ballot petition signatures and it is simply too late in the process to be fixed.
Explained Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley: "Had a candidate actually collected ballot petitions using out-of-state circulators, for example, and wanted those otherwise ineligible petitions to be counted, Judge Gibney clearly would have ordered those petitions to be counted. Judge Gibney would have stricken the requirement that circulators be Virginia residents. But now there simply isn't time for candidates to run out and collect 10,000 ballot petitions, even if they use out of state circulators, free of the restriction that RIck Perry challenged."
Judge Gibney's final order can be downloaded at:
http://www.JonMoseley.com/PerryCourtOpinion.pdf
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argued that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argued that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman asked for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
###
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES "NO" ON LAWSUIT
TO EXPAND VIRGINIA PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOTS --
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul Will Be on the
March 6, 2012 Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley (703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 13, 2012) -- "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" but TOO LATE to do anything about it, was the ruling of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman "intervened" and joined the lawsuit.
Judge Gibney ruled that RIck Perry's lawsuit is absolutely correct: Virginia's restrictions on who may circulate ballot access petitions is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in light of prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- see below.
However, the Judge ruled that he could not provide a "remedy' to the other candidates, because they did not in fact submit 10,000 ballot petition signatures and it is simply too late in the process to be fixed.
Explained Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley: "Had a candidate actually collected ballot petitions using out-of-state circulators, for example, and wanted those otherwise ineligible petitions to be counted, Judge Gibney clearly would have ordered those petitions to be counted. Judge Gibney would have stricken the requirement that circulators be Virginia residents. But now there simply isn't time for candidates to run out and collect 10,000 ballot petitions, even if they use out of state circulators, free of the restriction that RIck Perry challenged."
Judge Gibney's final order can be downloaded at:
http://www.JonMoseley.com/PerryCourtOpinion.pdf
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argued that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argued that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman asked for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
###
Thursday, January 12, 2012
GALLUP -- TWICE AS MANY VOTERS ARE CONSERVATIVE THAN LIBERAL
Running conservative candidates is the winning move.
Running more liberal candidates is the losing move.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
January 12, 2012
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade
PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.
Running more liberal candidates is the losing move.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
January 12, 2012
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade
PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Federal Judge HALTS printing of VIRGINIA BALLOTS for March 6 Primary
News Release
FEDERAL JUDGE REVERSED COURSE JANUARY 10:
ORDERS IMMEDIATE HALT TO PRINTING OF VIRGINIA BALLOTS --
FEDERAL JUDGE PREDICTS ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Will Be on the Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley
(703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 10, 2012) -- Stop printing the ballots for Virginia's primary was the Order of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
Judge Gibney earlier said no to the same request on December 29, 2012, denying then Rick Perry's motion for an injunction to stop the printing of the ballots. Virginia's State Board of Elections indicated they would print the primary ballots on January 9, 2012, and were required by Federal law to mail the ballots to overseas military and civilian voters by January 21, 2012.
But Judge Gibney reversed himself in a January 10, 2012, Order, commanding a halt to the printing of primary ballots. Gibney's injunction expires at 11:59 PM on January 13, 2012, the same day that Gibney will hold a hearing on the "merits" (substance) of the lawsuit. The expiration date of the injunction indicates that Gibney expects to issue a final ruling the same day as the one and only real hearing in the case. That is an extremely fast turn-around for such a momentous lawsuit.
Even more striking, the Federal Judge signalled that he is likely to order that all Republican presidential candidates will appear on Virginia's primary ballot. Gibney wrote: "The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
Although it is possible that Judge Gibney could still refuse to change the Virginia ballot, he is strongly leaning toward granting the request of the other presidential candidates to be included in the March 6 primary.
Gibney halted the ballot preparation because of a compelling legal brief filed jointly by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Judge Gibney had ordered that all of the Presidential candidates should have the opportunity to participate in the Rick Perry lawsuit.
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
Enter the excellent Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief, which solved this problem.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argues that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argue that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman ask for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
Rather than looking at the petition gatherer residency requirement in isolation, Judge Gibney was now persuaded to consider the entirety of Va. Code 24.2-545(B) invalid as a unit.
However, one requirement for an injunction is the likelihood of success on the merits. That is, a judge will only issue an injunction if it appears likely that the party requesting an injunction has a very strong case for winning at the final hearing.
As a result, Judge Gibney issued the extraordinary comment quoted above (which is necessary and legal valid for the balancing test for issuing an injunction):
"The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
The purpose of making this comment was to explain why an injunction was appropriate for him to order at this time.
###
FEDERAL JUDGE REVERSED COURSE JANUARY 10:
ORDERS IMMEDIATE HALT TO PRINTING OF VIRGINIA BALLOTS --
FEDERAL JUDGE PREDICTS ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Will Be on the Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley
(703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 10, 2012) -- Stop printing the ballots for Virginia's primary was the Order of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
Judge Gibney earlier said no to the same request on December 29, 2012, denying then Rick Perry's motion for an injunction to stop the printing of the ballots. Virginia's State Board of Elections indicated they would print the primary ballots on January 9, 2012, and were required by Federal law to mail the ballots to overseas military and civilian voters by January 21, 2012.
But Judge Gibney reversed himself in a January 10, 2012, Order, commanding a halt to the printing of primary ballots. Gibney's injunction expires at 11:59 PM on January 13, 2012, the same day that Gibney will hold a hearing on the "merits" (substance) of the lawsuit. The expiration date of the injunction indicates that Gibney expects to issue a final ruling the same day as the one and only real hearing in the case. That is an extremely fast turn-around for such a momentous lawsuit.
Even more striking, the Federal Judge signalled that he is likely to order that all Republican presidential candidates will appear on Virginia's primary ballot. Gibney wrote: "The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
Although it is possible that Judge Gibney could still refuse to change the Virginia ballot, he is strongly leaning toward granting the request of the other presidential candidates to be included in the March 6 primary.
Gibney halted the ballot preparation because of a compelling legal brief filed jointly by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Judge Gibney had ordered that all of the Presidential candidates should have the opportunity to participate in the Rick Perry lawsuit.
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
Enter the excellent Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief, which solved this problem.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argues that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argue that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman ask for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
Rather than looking at the petition gatherer residency requirement in isolation, Judge Gibney was now persuaded to consider the entirety of Va. Code 24.2-545(B) invalid as a unit.
However, one requirement for an injunction is the likelihood of success on the merits. That is, a judge will only issue an injunction if it appears likely that the party requesting an injunction has a very strong case for winning at the final hearing.
As a result, Judge Gibney issued the extraordinary comment quoted above (which is necessary and legal valid for the balancing test for issuing an injunction):
"The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
The purpose of making this comment was to explain why an injunction was appropriate for him to order at this time.
###
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
POLITICAL BOOT CAMP -- HOW TO: HERE IS A TACTIC CHRISTINE O'DONNELL COULD HAVE USED & YOU CAN LEARN FROM:
Tea Party 2.0 is a project of the Northern Virginia Tea Party to teach tea party activists how to move beyond waving signs to changing the country. The tea party needs to learn the political techniques of success. So here is an idea that occurred to me:
Christine O'Donnell's Facebook posts appear on my Facebook wall, along with those of my 3,700+ other Facebook friends.
And my speciality is coming up with ideas -- political ideas, business ideas, legal ideas, rhetorical ideas, big ideas, little ideas, good ideas, bad ideas, smart ideas and dumb ideas. I was working on coming up with ideas for her to use making the most of her political circumstances, and habits continue.
Christine has been very intensely involved in, and fascinated with, watching the GOP debates and GOP primaries with great interest, and tweeting on every development and twist and turn. When the debates come on, Christine sets everything else aside and everything else stops.
So a case study occurs to me:
What Christine could have done was hold A HIGH DOLLAR RECEPTION / DINNER PARTY / COCKTAIL PARTY to watch the debates and primary returns WITH HIGH DOLLAR DONORS TO HER CHRISTINEPAC, instead of just sitting on her couch at home tweeting.
But to do these things, you have to listen to where the ideas come from. I am posting this publicly, so that if someone rips off my idea, there will be a record of where the idea came from.
Christine O'Donnell's Facebook posts appear on my Facebook wall, along with those of my 3,700+ other Facebook friends.
And my speciality is coming up with ideas -- political ideas, business ideas, legal ideas, rhetorical ideas, big ideas, little ideas, good ideas, bad ideas, smart ideas and dumb ideas. I was working on coming up with ideas for her to use making the most of her political circumstances, and habits continue.
Christine has been very intensely involved in, and fascinated with, watching the GOP debates and GOP primaries with great interest, and tweeting on every development and twist and turn. When the debates come on, Christine sets everything else aside and everything else stops.
So a case study occurs to me:
What Christine could have done was hold A HIGH DOLLAR RECEPTION / DINNER PARTY / COCKTAIL PARTY to watch the debates and primary returns WITH HIGH DOLLAR DONORS TO HER CHRISTINEPAC, instead of just sitting on her couch at home tweeting.
But to do these things, you have to listen to where the ideas come from. I am posting this publicly, so that if someone rips off my idea, there will be a record of where the idea came from.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Is RON PAUL appealing to Jew hating ANTI-SEMITES?
Blaming "International bankers" has been an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory for several centuries. Ron Paul excuses CONGRESS who VOTES TO SPEND THE MONEY and instead blames "central banking" and the monetary system for Federal spending and national debt.
I am watching Ron Paul speak on C-SPAN. This is from his own words, not what any one else says about him.
CONGRESS, who spends the money, gets a pass in Ron Paul's world.
Instead, Ron Paul's CENTRAL theme is that over-spending is caused by THE BANKSTERS - historically a very well-known CODE WORDS FOR JEWS -- who have secretly stolen our "sound money" and secretly taken control of our nation.
The clear meaning that "international banking interests" = Jews goes back several centuries, and is deeply ingrained among Ron Paul's supporters. It is not something easy to miss.
Ron Paul bends over backwards to AVOID blaming Congress, who actually does spend the money. Ron Paul is intentionally creating a SCAPEGOAT of bankers for all of our problems. This is the same theme in the early Nazi party of scapegoating all of Germany's ills on the Jewish financial interests and bankers in Germany in the 1930's.
The supposed Jewish conspiracy to steal our "sound money" to enslave our country sounds like the scare of Commies trying to steal our precious bodily fluids by putting fluoride in our drinking water.
Ron Paul could not be unaware that he is strumming those strings. He knows what he is doing. He might not be an anti-semite himself. But he is knowingly throwing gas on the fire of anti-semitism and hatred of Jews, who are perceived to control the banking system.
I am watching Ron Paul speak on C-SPAN. This is from his own words, not what any one else says about him.
CONGRESS, who spends the money, gets a pass in Ron Paul's world.
Instead, Ron Paul's CENTRAL theme is that over-spending is caused by THE BANKSTERS - historically a very well-known CODE WORDS FOR JEWS -- who have secretly stolen our "sound money" and secretly taken control of our nation.
The clear meaning that "international banking interests" = Jews goes back several centuries, and is deeply ingrained among Ron Paul's supporters. It is not something easy to miss.
Ron Paul bends over backwards to AVOID blaming Congress, who actually does spend the money. Ron Paul is intentionally creating a SCAPEGOAT of bankers for all of our problems. This is the same theme in the early Nazi party of scapegoating all of Germany's ills on the Jewish financial interests and bankers in Germany in the 1930's.
The supposed Jewish conspiracy to steal our "sound money" to enslave our country sounds like the scare of Commies trying to steal our precious bodily fluids by putting fluoride in our drinking water.
Ron Paul could not be unaware that he is strumming those strings. He knows what he is doing. He might not be an anti-semite himself. But he is knowingly throwing gas on the fire of anti-semitism and hatred of Jews, who are perceived to control the banking system.
Moderate Republicans Search for a Mirage: The Lazy Man's Candidate
On a Delaware political blog, a moderate Republican argued:
My analysis and response, from Jonathon Moseley:
REALLY? The smear ads against Romney — remember I am arguing that *ANY* Republican will be smeared, because the standard play book continues to work so this comment concerns only the Romney variant of what will be thrown against ANY Republican nominee — will drive Independent voters in to the arms of Obama.
The moderate disease is the perennial search for “the lazy man’s candidate” — a candidate who will win without any effort. Moderates and RINO’s long for the candidate they can watch from their couch, eating potato chips, who will coast to an easy victory. However, there is no easy way to snatch power away from the other team. It will require hard work, house by house, block by block, and news release by news release countering lies, smears, and propaganda.
TV ads that have already been written, but you haven’t seen them on TV yet, will paint Romney as the Monopoly game fat cat rich robber baron. Obama will say Romney is the 1% versus the 99%, that Romney is Wall Street. They will say Romney is the problem, that caused the mortgage melt down crisis. Romney is the reason you are out of work, they will say. Romney is one of the guys who stole your house in foreclosure (that’s a silly argument, but that is the kind of superficial nonsense that Democrats use as propaganda).
Of course, the news media will join Obama’s “Hallelujah chorus” as the Obama back-up singers. “Obama and the News midgets” will sing whatever song Obama wants, plastering the country wall to wall with Obama’s message — no matter who the candidate is.
We will face thousands of stories about how Mitt Romney is everything that you feared about the Republican Party: Rich Wall Street bankster who stole your house.
“Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by laying off a lot of poor and middle class Americans? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?”
TOWN HALL: 7 REASONS WHY MITT ROMNEY'S ELECTABILITY IS A MYTH
Remember that Barack Obama raised and spent 3/4′s of a BILLION dollars in 2008 — and he still has that fundraising mailing list. Obama will have gigantic amounts of money to run ads depicting Romney as one of the Wall Street banksters who hae wrecked the country.
By the time the Obama campaign gets done with Mitt Romney, Romney will have to go into hiding out of fear of being tarred and feathered by angry mobs of unemployed people.
Really? That is why Herman Cain was leading the pack? He was taken out only by sniper fire, not because people wanted someone experienced with and infected by life inside the Beltway.
If you want experienced leadership, then Newt Gingrich is your man. Newt was 3rd in line to be President as Speaker of the House. That means that Newt was already trained on and briefed on top secret information, developments, and procedures in case he needed to step in as President. As Speaker, he has already led the Congress. To accomplish anything a President must be able to rally Congress to pass his legislation. Newt has actually done that before. Newt has actually balanced the Federal budget (Bill Clinton resisted and was dragged kicking and screaming, by Newt, into balancing the budget.) Newt has actually reformed government programs like welfare. Newt has actually saved social security and medicare by extending their financial lives and financial stability, for a season. Newt actually led a Republican revolution.
So it is not about experience.
It is about the futile search for the lazy man’s candidate, which is chasing a mirage.
The problem is not finding the perfect candidate.
THE PROBLEM IS A REPUBLICAN “ARMY” THAT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FIGHT THE BATTLE.
We keep searching for the perfect general to lead an unruly, disorganized, undisciplined Republican “army” that cannot organize lunch without fighting and breaking up into 10 different factions (about lunch).
The problem is not in our leaders, dear friends. The problem is in oursselves.
Also, most independents will support Mr. Romney. You will also see some democrats cross over and vote for Mr. Romney.
My analysis and response, from Jonathon Moseley:
REALLY? The smear ads against Romney — remember I am arguing that *ANY* Republican will be smeared, because the standard play book continues to work so this comment concerns only the Romney variant of what will be thrown against ANY Republican nominee — will drive Independent voters in to the arms of Obama.
The moderate disease is the perennial search for “the lazy man’s candidate” — a candidate who will win without any effort. Moderates and RINO’s long for the candidate they can watch from their couch, eating potato chips, who will coast to an easy victory. However, there is no easy way to snatch power away from the other team. It will require hard work, house by house, block by block, and news release by news release countering lies, smears, and propaganda.
TV ads that have already been written, but you haven’t seen them on TV yet, will paint Romney as the Monopoly game fat cat rich robber baron. Obama will say Romney is the 1% versus the 99%, that Romney is Wall Street. They will say Romney is the problem, that caused the mortgage melt down crisis. Romney is the reason you are out of work, they will say. Romney is one of the guys who stole your house in foreclosure (that’s a silly argument, but that is the kind of superficial nonsense that Democrats use as propaganda).
Of course, the news media will join Obama’s “Hallelujah chorus” as the Obama back-up singers. “Obama and the News midgets” will sing whatever song Obama wants, plastering the country wall to wall with Obama’s message — no matter who the candidate is.
We will face thousands of stories about how Mitt Romney is everything that you feared about the Republican Party: Rich Wall Street bankster who stole your house.
“Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by laying off a lot of poor and middle class Americans? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?”
TOWN HALL: 7 REASONS WHY MITT ROMNEY'S ELECTABILITY IS A MYTH
Remember that Barack Obama raised and spent 3/4′s of a BILLION dollars in 2008 — and he still has that fundraising mailing list. Obama will have gigantic amounts of money to run ads depicting Romney as one of the Wall Street banksters who hae wrecked the country.
By the time the Obama campaign gets done with Mitt Romney, Romney will have to go into hiding out of fear of being tarred and feathered by angry mobs of unemployed people.
The American people are fed up with inexperienced leadership.
Really? That is why Herman Cain was leading the pack? He was taken out only by sniper fire, not because people wanted someone experienced with and infected by life inside the Beltway.
If you want experienced leadership, then Newt Gingrich is your man. Newt was 3rd in line to be President as Speaker of the House. That means that Newt was already trained on and briefed on top secret information, developments, and procedures in case he needed to step in as President. As Speaker, he has already led the Congress. To accomplish anything a President must be able to rally Congress to pass his legislation. Newt has actually done that before. Newt has actually balanced the Federal budget (Bill Clinton resisted and was dragged kicking and screaming, by Newt, into balancing the budget.) Newt has actually reformed government programs like welfare. Newt has actually saved social security and medicare by extending their financial lives and financial stability, for a season. Newt actually led a Republican revolution.
So it is not about experience.
It is about the futile search for the lazy man’s candidate, which is chasing a mirage.
The problem is not finding the perfect candidate.
THE PROBLEM IS A REPUBLICAN “ARMY” THAT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FIGHT THE BATTLE.
We keep searching for the perfect general to lead an unruly, disorganized, undisciplined Republican “army” that cannot organize lunch without fighting and breaking up into 10 different factions (about lunch).
The problem is not in our leaders, dear friends. The problem is in oursselves.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Endorsing Newt Ginrich for President in 2012 Republican Primary
By Jonathon Moseley
Here are some of the reasons that I endorse Newt Gingrich for President in the Republican primaries:
Only one candidate for President has actually blocked socialist medicine despite an overwhelming push by the entire nation's establishment:
Newt Gingrich, who blocked "Hillary Care" in the 1990's.
Only one candidate for President has actually signed socialist medicine into law:
Mitt Romney.
Only one candidate for President has actually reduced government:
Newt Gingrich.
Only one candidate for President has led the way in Republican politics.
Newt Gingirch. I am watching Mitt Romney on C-Span from New Hampshire right now, as Romney calls for an "Opportunity Society."
Who coined that phrase?
Newt Gingrich.
Where did Mitt Romney learn this concept from?
Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich was teaching the conservative movement as a leader and intellectual innovator 20 years ago, and ever since.
Only one candidate for President has actually led a Republican revolution, in the 1990's, when the GOP took over the US House for the first time in 40 years:
Newt Gingrich.
And unlike the last time the GOP took control a long time ago, this time the Republican take over has stuck. With a slight wrinkle, what Newt Gingrich built in the US House of Representatives has lasted and survived the test of time.
Newt Gingrich was already the Speaker of the House -- 3rd in line to be President in case of any emergency, if the President and Vice President were lost.
Newt Gingrich is not only a determined revolutionary for cutting government and increasing freedom but is a knowledgeable and experienced veteran capable of actually getting it done, not just talking about it.
One of the main reasons why conservatives "cave" in Washington is because
they don't know HOW to get things done..
Conservatives grind to a halt, and cave to the establishment, not because they lose their principles, but because they don't know how to fight and overcome the resistance of the D.C. establishment.
Newt Gingrich not only wants to reform America, but he knows how to actually beat the establishment and get his policies enacted.
Here are some of the reasons that I endorse Newt Gingrich for President in the Republican primaries:
Only one candidate for President has actually blocked socialist medicine despite an overwhelming push by the entire nation's establishment:
Newt Gingrich, who blocked "Hillary Care" in the 1990's.
Only one candidate for President has actually signed socialist medicine into law:
Mitt Romney.
Only one candidate for President has actually reduced government:
Newt Gingrich.
Only one candidate for President has led the way in Republican politics.
Newt Gingirch. I am watching Mitt Romney on C-Span from New Hampshire right now, as Romney calls for an "Opportunity Society."
Who coined that phrase?
Newt Gingrich.
Where did Mitt Romney learn this concept from?
Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich was teaching the conservative movement as a leader and intellectual innovator 20 years ago, and ever since.
Only one candidate for President has actually led a Republican revolution, in the 1990's, when the GOP took over the US House for the first time in 40 years:
Newt Gingrich.
And unlike the last time the GOP took control a long time ago, this time the Republican take over has stuck. With a slight wrinkle, what Newt Gingrich built in the US House of Representatives has lasted and survived the test of time.
Newt Gingrich was already the Speaker of the House -- 3rd in line to be President in case of any emergency, if the President and Vice President were lost.
Newt Gingrich is not only a determined revolutionary for cutting government and increasing freedom but is a knowledgeable and experienced veteran capable of actually getting it done, not just talking about it.
One of the main reasons why conservatives "cave" in Washington is because
they don't know HOW to get things done..
Conservatives grind to a halt, and cave to the establishment, not because they lose their principles, but because they don't know how to fight and overcome the resistance of the D.C. establishment.
Newt Gingrich not only wants to reform America, but he knows how to actually beat the establishment and get his policies enacted.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Accuser of Christine O'Donnell LIED says official Complaint to D.C. Bar
Melanie Sloan, Christine O'Donnell attacker, faces Legal Ethics issues- bar complaint filed by Jonathon Moseley
The Freedomist is following the political hack attack attempted by Melanie Sloan (CREW uses Christine O'Donnell complaint as fundraiser- how lies, slander, and libel gets Melanie Sloan funded- Freedom News) and her progressive cronies (Man throws nephew under bus to attack Christine O'Donnell- The David Keegan Story) who seem to have some unnatural fear of Christine O'Donnell, the Delaware Tea Party Senate Candidate who upset the progressive Mike Castle in the GOP primary (O'Donnell WINS!), only to see the Delaware State GOP turn against her (Teaparty's Delaware Senate loss pinned on establishment GOP refusal to act- Tea Party News) to assure a progressive victory in the form of Chris Coons (now a proud progressive Senator from the progressive state of Delaware). We stumbled upon this gem from a Virgina Website that outlines a bar complaint against the progressive Melanie Sloan (One down, one to go- FEC tosses out Christine O'Donnell complaint) for her attempt to use the FEC (Breaking Exclusive: Crew Director uses own Father to levy FEC charges against Christine O'Donnell- Tea Party News ) to silence any opponent to her Soros-funded progressive dream for America:
BAR COMPLAINT Against MELANIE SLOAN
re: Frivolous Charges Against
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL
Spreading Lies By David Keegan
from http://www.defenseforvirginia.com/ODonnell.html
Jonathon Moseley today filed an official complaint with the District of Columbia "Bar" asking that Melanie Sloan be disciplined or disbarred, responding to false charges brought against 2010 Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell from D.C. lawyer Melanie Sloan.
Jonathon Moseley commented: "Melanie Sloan violated numerous D.C. Bar rules and committed perjury in her complaint (sworn to under 18 USC 1001) and in her false public statements about Christine O'Donnell. A lawyer may not make false statements in the course of representing a client, even in non-legal contexts. Here, Melanie Sloan's many false statements were clearly intended to cause governmental resources to be used in furtherance of her clients' private agenda. D.C. Bar rules require a lawyer to promptly inform authorities upon discovering that a previous complaint is false."
Proof that Melanie Sloan's accusations against Christine O'Donnell are false is chronicled in detail in Jon Moseley's Complaint. A copy of the Complaint against Melanie Sloan filed with the D.C. Bar on June 13, 2011, can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE (recommend using the right click button on the mouse and selecting "SAVE AS" option).
Jon Moseley's affidavit regarding admissions made to him by David Keegan can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE (recommend using the right click button on the mouse and selecting "SAVE AS" option).
Moseley further commented: "Melanie Sloan for her client Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington falsely claims that in 2009 Christine O'Donnell was not a candidate for office, thus questioning the legality of travel and meeting expenses charged to O'Donnell's campaign. However, Sloan knew or could easily have discovered that Christine O'Donnell filed her Statement of Candidacy for the 2010 election on March 20, 2009; told WDEL radio in Delaware on February 13, 2009 that she was putting together a campaign for the 2010 U.S. Senate election; purchased campaign software on January 8, 2009; and in December 2008 posted an ambiguous 'testing the water' encouragement to her supporters about possibly running in 2010. Melanie Sloan violated the rules of the D.C. Bar by calling Christine a criminal when Sloan knew or should have known that Christine was in fact legitimately preparing a U.S. Senate campaign as early as January 2009."
Jonathon Moseley further explained: "Melanie Sloan based her false statements and frivolous complaint on the affidavit of David Keegan. But David Keegan admits he left O'Donnell's campaign in August 2008. David Keegan loaned Christine O'Donnell's campaign $2,300 on July 25, 2008, which was paid back on August 1, 2008. Sloan claims to have interviewed Keegan extensively. Melanie Sloan admits in her own voice that Sloan's accusations concern 2009 and 2010 campaign spending. An attorney could not rationally believe that David Keegan who left in August 2008 could give Melanie Sloan a factual basis for accusations about 2009 and 2010 campaign expenses. During 2008, Christine O'Donnell had a professional accountant, Timothy Koch, an expert in campaign finance, supervising the 2008 campaign. Melanie Sloan should have known that David Keegan would not have loaned Christine's campaign $2,300 in July 2008 if Keegan saw financial irregularities before he left in mid-August 2008. Although Keegan claims he saw spending for meals or shopping in 2008, none of those expenses show up in the campaign's spending in 2008. Sloan should have known that the campaign never actually paid for the expenses that Keegan complains about, and Keegan doesn't know anything about 2009 or 2010."
Jon Moseley also explained: "Melanie Sloan also lied for her clients C.R.E.W. and Delaware voter Leonard Togman accusing Christine of living at 248 Presidential Drive, which Sloan claims was also the campaign headquarters (in paragraph 8 of Sloan's complaint - click here) . However, 248 Presidential Drive is the commercial office of Mid-Atlantic Realty. Nobody lives in Mid-Atlantic Realty's office space. Melanie Sloan obviously did not conduct any investigation into the truth of Sloan's accusations. As an attorney, Sloan knew that Christine's use as the campaign headquarter address as her 'legal residence' does not mean that is where Christine personally lives. If Sloan had investigated before swearing under 18 U.S.C. 1001, she would have known that Christine told the news media at least 18 days before Sloan filed C.R.E.W.'s September 20 complaint that Christine does not actually live at the address she publicly discloses as her 'legal residence.' A 'legal residence' is not a personal residence."
Moseley also commented: "David Keegan's accusations are all the more strange because Keegan was supposed to be raising money for Christine O'Donnell's 2008 U.S. Senate campaign. He complains extensively about the lack of money in the campaign, although Keegan was supposed to go out and raise the money that he complains O'Donnell's campaign lacked."
NO information learned from Christine O"Donnell, her legal team, campaign, or PAC is included, discussed or reflected in Moseley's Complaint or associated documents, except what was publicly and openly disclosed on or before September 20, 2010. To prove guilt by Melanie Sloan, only information that Melanie Sloan either knew or would have known if she had conducted the inquiry required of an attorney is used to establish violations by Sloan. Private information that Melanie Sloan could not have discovered on or before September 20, 2010, would not prove Melanie Sloan's violations of the D.C. Bar's Rules, except to the extent that Melanie Sloan's private interviews with her own witness David Keegan would have alerted Melanie Sloan that Melanie Sloan's claims and statements were then and are now false.
The Complaint against D.C. attorney Melanie Sloan alleges that (a) Sloan made false statements in the course of representing a client in violation of the D.C. Bar's Rule 4.1(a), Rule 3.3(a)(1), Rule 3.3(a)(4) (amplified by Rule 3.9), and Rule 8.4(c), and (b) Melanie Sloan filed frivolous complaints lacking in merit, that is based upon allegations that Melanie Sloan knew to be false in violation of the D.C. Bar's Rule 3.1, Rule 3.3(a)(2), and Rule 8.4(c), and (c) Sloan threatened and sought criminal prosecution to improperly gain advantage in an election, possibly a violation of Rule 8.4(g). Moseley became aware of the violations by Sloan while researching the false accusations against Christine O'Donnell, but ultimately had a professional duty under Virginia's Rule 8.3 to turn over the information to the D.C. Bar.
Jon Moseley was required to file this Complaint by Rule 8.3 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires attorneys to inform the relevant authority of evidence of likely misconduct. As distasteful as such an 'informant' rule may seem, and perhaps it should be repealed, it is currently the governing authority regulating the legal profession as it now stands.
Jonathon Moseley was the initial Treasurer for Christine O'Donnell's U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware in 2008, and was Christine O'Donnell's campaign manager for her primary in 2008, during which Christine O'Donnell successfully won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. O'Donnell and Moseley won the campaign that Moseley ran for O'Donnell in 2008. Moseley developed and wrote a lawsuit for O'Donnell in 2005 and advised Christine O'Donnell's private marketing business as a marketing consultant over several years with regard to writing and reviewing contracts, etc.
Jon Moseley is also serving as Initial Treasurer for a candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland for the 2012 election and Treasurer for another candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania for 2012, both of which will soon announce officially.
DUE TO SIZE, the Exhibits attached are broken up into three groups of documents:
First group of Documents: www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits1.pdf
Second group of Documents: www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits2.pdf
Third group of Documents: www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits3.pdf
Melanie Sloan on CBS News, September 17, 2010
Melanie Sloan on on CNN, September 17, 2010
Melanie Sloan on Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, September 20, 2010
Melanie Sloan on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, September 20, 2010
Melanie Sloan on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, September 21, 2010
Melanie Sloan on Rick's List on CNN, September 21, 2010
Melanie Sloan on MSNBC's Ed Schultz program, September 21, 2010
Although sworn before a Notary on June 4, 2011, Jon Moseley's Complaint against Melanie Sloan with the D.C. Bar was not actually filed until June 13, 2011. The D.C. Bar will most likely take several weeks to review the matter and process it before starting to consider it. The first step will probably be to forward a copy to Melanie Sloan and ask for her response. The D.C. Bar will probably not begin to look at the Complaint until receiving Melanie Sloan's response up a month from now.
The Freedomist is following the political hack attack attempted by Melanie Sloan (CREW uses Christine O'Donnell complaint as fundraiser- how lies, slander, and libel gets Melanie Sloan funded- Freedom News) and her progressive cronies (Man throws nephew under bus to attack Christine O'Donnell- The David Keegan Story) who seem to have some unnatural fear of Christine O'Donnell, the Delaware Tea Party Senate Candidate who upset the progressive Mike Castle in the GOP primary (O'Donnell WINS!), only to see the Delaware State GOP turn against her (Teaparty's Delaware Senate loss pinned on establishment GOP refusal to act- Tea Party News) to assure a progressive victory in the form of Chris Coons (now a proud progressive Senator from the progressive state of Delaware). We stumbled upon this gem from a Virgina Website that outlines a bar complaint against the progressive Melanie Sloan (One down, one to go- FEC tosses out Christine O'Donnell complaint) for her attempt to use the FEC (Breaking Exclusive: Crew Director uses own Father to levy FEC charges against Christine O'Donnell- Tea Party News ) to silence any opponent to her Soros-funded progressive dream for America:
BAR COMPLAINT Against MELANIE SLOAN
re: Frivolous Charges Against
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL
Spreading Lies By David Keegan
from http://www.defenseforvirginia.com/ODonnell.html
Jonathon Moseley today filed an official complaint with the District of Columbia "Bar" asking that Melanie Sloan be disciplined or disbarred, responding to false charges brought against 2010 Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell from D.C. lawyer Melanie Sloan.
Jonathon Moseley commented: "Melanie Sloan violated numerous D.C. Bar rules and committed perjury in her complaint (sworn to under 18 USC 1001) and in her false public statements about Christine O'Donnell. A lawyer may not make false statements in the course of representing a client, even in non-legal contexts. Here, Melanie Sloan's many false statements were clearly intended to cause governmental resources to be used in furtherance of her clients' private agenda. D.C. Bar rules require a lawyer to promptly inform authorities upon discovering that a previous complaint is false."
Proof that Melanie Sloan's accusations against Christine O'Donnell are false is chronicled in detail in Jon Moseley's Complaint. A copy of the Complaint against Melanie Sloan filed with the D.C. Bar on June 13, 2011, can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE (recommend using the right click button on the mouse and selecting "SAVE AS" option).
Jon Moseley's affidavit regarding admissions made to him by David Keegan can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE (recommend using the right click button on the mouse and selecting "SAVE AS" option).
Moseley further commented: "Melanie Sloan for her client Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington falsely claims that in 2009 Christine O'Donnell was not a candidate for office, thus questioning the legality of travel and meeting expenses charged to O'Donnell's campaign. However, Sloan knew or could easily have discovered that Christine O'Donnell filed her Statement of Candidacy for the 2010 election on March 20, 2009; told WDEL radio in Delaware on February 13, 2009 that she was putting together a campaign for the 2010 U.S. Senate election; purchased campaign software on January 8, 2009; and in December 2008 posted an ambiguous 'testing the water' encouragement to her supporters about possibly running in 2010. Melanie Sloan violated the rules of the D.C. Bar by calling Christine a criminal when Sloan knew or should have known that Christine was in fact legitimately preparing a U.S. Senate campaign as early as January 2009."
Jonathon Moseley further explained: "Melanie Sloan based her false statements and frivolous complaint on the affidavit of David Keegan. But David Keegan admits he left O'Donnell's campaign in August 2008. David Keegan loaned Christine O'Donnell's campaign $2,300 on July 25, 2008, which was paid back on August 1, 2008. Sloan claims to have interviewed Keegan extensively. Melanie Sloan admits in her own voice that Sloan's accusations concern 2009 and 2010 campaign spending. An attorney could not rationally believe that David Keegan who left in August 2008 could give Melanie Sloan a factual basis for accusations about 2009 and 2010 campaign expenses. During 2008, Christine O'Donnell had a professional accountant, Timothy Koch, an expert in campaign finance, supervising the 2008 campaign. Melanie Sloan should have known that David Keegan would not have loaned Christine's campaign $2,300 in July 2008 if Keegan saw financial irregularities before he left in mid-August 2008. Although Keegan claims he saw spending for meals or shopping in 2008, none of those expenses show up in the campaign's spending in 2008. Sloan should have known that the campaign never actually paid for the expenses that Keegan complains about, and Keegan doesn't know anything about 2009 or 2010."
Jon Moseley also explained: "Melanie Sloan also lied for her clients C.R.E.W. and Delaware voter Leonard Togman accusing Christine of living at 248 Presidential Drive, which Sloan claims was also the campaign headquarters (in paragraph 8 of Sloan's complaint - click here) . However, 248 Presidential Drive is the commercial office of Mid-Atlantic Realty. Nobody lives in Mid-Atlantic Realty's office space. Melanie Sloan obviously did not conduct any investigation into the truth of Sloan's accusations. As an attorney, Sloan knew that Christine's use as the campaign headquarter address as her 'legal residence' does not mean that is where Christine personally lives. If Sloan had investigated before swearing under 18 U.S.C. 1001, she would have known that Christine told the news media at least 18 days before Sloan filed C.R.E.W.'s September 20 complaint that Christine does not actually live at the address she publicly discloses as her 'legal residence.' A 'legal residence' is not a personal residence."
Moseley also commented: "David Keegan's accusations are all the more strange because Keegan was supposed to be raising money for Christine O'Donnell's 2008 U.S. Senate campaign. He complains extensively about the lack of money in the campaign, although Keegan was supposed to go out and raise the money that he complains O'Donnell's campaign lacked."
NO information learned from Christine O"Donnell, her legal team, campaign, or PAC is included, discussed or reflected in Moseley's Complaint or associated documents, except what was publicly and openly disclosed on or before September 20, 2010. To prove guilt by Melanie Sloan, only information that Melanie Sloan either knew or would have known if she had conducted the inquiry required of an attorney is used to establish violations by Sloan. Private information that Melanie Sloan could not have discovered on or before September 20, 2010, would not prove Melanie Sloan's violations of the D.C. Bar's Rules, except to the extent that Melanie Sloan's private interviews with her own witness David Keegan would have alerted Melanie Sloan that Melanie Sloan's claims and statements were then and are now false.
The Complaint against D.C. attorney Melanie Sloan alleges that (a) Sloan made false statements in the course of representing a client in violation of the D.C. Bar's Rule 4.1(a), Rule 3.3(a)(1), Rule 3.3(a)(4) (amplified by Rule 3.9), and Rule 8.4(c), and (b) Melanie Sloan filed frivolous complaints lacking in merit, that is based upon allegations that Melanie Sloan knew to be false in violation of the D.C. Bar's Rule 3.1, Rule 3.3(a)(2), and Rule 8.4(c), and (c) Sloan threatened and sought criminal prosecution to improperly gain advantage in an election, possibly a violation of Rule 8.4(g). Moseley became aware of the violations by Sloan while researching the false accusations against Christine O'Donnell, but ultimately had a professional duty under Virginia's Rule 8.3 to turn over the information to the D.C. Bar.
Jon Moseley was required to file this Complaint by Rule 8.3 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires attorneys to inform the relevant authority of evidence of likely misconduct. As distasteful as such an 'informant' rule may seem, and perhaps it should be repealed, it is currently the governing authority regulating the legal profession as it now stands.
Jonathon Moseley was the initial Treasurer for Christine O'Donnell's U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware in 2008, and was Christine O'Donnell's campaign manager for her primary in 2008, during which Christine O'Donnell successfully won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. O'Donnell and Moseley won the campaign that Moseley ran for O'Donnell in 2008. Moseley developed and wrote a lawsuit for O'Donnell in 2005 and advised Christine O'Donnell's private marketing business as a marketing consultant over several years with regard to writing and reviewing contracts, etc.
Jon Moseley is also serving as Initial Treasurer for a candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland for the 2012 election and Treasurer for another candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania for 2012, both of which will soon announce officially.
DUE TO SIZE, the Exhibits attached are broken up into three groups of documents:
First group of Documents: www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits1.pdf
Second group of Documents: www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits2.pdf
Third group of Documents: www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits3.pdf
Melanie Sloan on CBS News, September 17, 2010
Melanie Sloan on on CNN, September 17, 2010
Melanie Sloan on Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, September 20, 2010
Melanie Sloan on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, September 20, 2010
Melanie Sloan on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, September 21, 2010
Melanie Sloan on Rick's List on CNN, September 21, 2010
Melanie Sloan on MSNBC's Ed Schultz program, September 21, 2010
Although sworn before a Notary on June 4, 2011, Jon Moseley's Complaint against Melanie Sloan with the D.C. Bar was not actually filed until June 13, 2011. The D.C. Bar will most likely take several weeks to review the matter and process it before starting to consider it. The first step will probably be to forward a copy to Melanie Sloan and ask for her response. The D.C. Bar will probably not begin to look at the Complaint until receiving Melanie Sloan's response up a month from now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
