What I meant to say (it was pretty late when I wrote the post to which you were responding) was that the names were submitted to the caucus for approval. In the precinct caucus I attended, there were enough available delegate posistions to allow everyone attending the caucus to be a delegate, and every one of us signed up. There were also a few people who voted in the primary who couldn’t attend the caucus but were interested in being delegates. They gave their names to either election judges or party official who then forwarded them to the precinct caucuses where they were acted upon. My precinct had more than enough available spots for delegates, so everyone who wanted to be a delegate was approved. Apparently there were some precints where the people running the caucuses were not aware that attendance at the caucuses was not required to be a delegate and didn’t act on any of the names forwared by the election judges to the caucuses.
In my precinct, over 10 people showed up who did not attend our precinct convention. We never added them to the list of delegates for the county convention and we never voted on them to become delegates to the county convention. I am glad to hear that everything was done according to the rules in your precinct. It, however, was not the case in my precinct.
I was there too and there were over 10 people in my precinct who were not at our precinct convention, were not added to the list of delegates to the county convention and were not voted on to attend the county convention. This IS a violation of election code.
..And the credentials committee said: “let there be delegates,
and behold there were delegates, and they said it was “all good”
and it was the evening and the morning of tyranny.
Since new pieces of mis-information continue to appear,
I think it is important to open the windows to let some fresh air of truth
take away the stench produced by propaganda.
Today the Caller Times Reports:
“Texas Republican Party rules state that a delegate to the county convention does not have to attend the precinct convention. The credentials committee can add delegates of its choosing, as long as they voted in the primary, said Joel Yowell, convention parliamentarian who has served on state rules committees.”
It would have been so great if this reporter had asked the convention parliamentarian: which rule gives the credentials committee the power to “add delegates of its choosing”?.
According to the rules of the Party, delegates are chosen at the precinct convention, where their eligibility is first established and then voted upon. It is true you do not need to attend the precinct convention, but your name and eligibility must be first established by the precinct convention and voted upon so that you can become a duly elected delegate. (see rules 21 for the precinct convention.)
There is no other mechanism to select delegates. The credentials committe has not been given any power to add delegates in violation of rule 21. (http://www.parkergop.org/1998%20Texas%20Rules.htm) Their job is to assess challenges against delegates, not to create them out of thin air. If the credentials committee could “add delegates of their own choosing” there would be no need for a precinct convention, in fact there would be no need for primaries either as such “committees” would have the power of divine appointment to bypass the democratic process.
But even if the credentials committe had been given such almighty powers, the chair is still bound to follow parliamentary rules and I guess, the good parliamentarian, if he retains any degree of conscience, must be having trouble sleeping at night.
Behold Rule 6:
“6. b. At any convention, a motion to move the previous question or to close nomination concerning the election of delegates and alternates shall not be in order until there has been reasonable opportunity for additional nominations, debate and/or amendment.”
But instead the caller times “informs” us : that the chair is “within his rights as chairman to decide whom to recognize.”
Again, it would have been so good if the caller times reporter would have enlighten us as to where in the world these almighty powers had been bestowed upon
the chair, to become the sole arbiter of freedom of speech ignoring Party Rules, the Law of the state and parliamentary laws of due process for the assembly.
Where does he got the divine right and omniscient knowledge to rule against points of order without hearing them?
The majority of the assembly had no idea of what was going on thanks to the chair.
They were deprived of their right to know the truth so that the manipulation can go on undisturbed.
(BTW this is the first convention in my life where in a floor sitting hundreds of people there was no means of amplification for the floor. In other words, there was nothing democratic going on that day.)
I was never told that the Republican party acted upon the same principles ruling the courts of a medieval absolute monarchy.
But I guess now we know better. But as long as I have a voice and a choice between freedom and tyranny, I know where my choice will stand.
I will not bother you further, these are only some of the most obvious rules broken that morning, and the subsequent window dressing of the caller times.
There are many other rules and procedures trampled upon previous to the convention and are thoroughly documented, in the challenge against the chair which the credentials committee conveniently dismissed with its fiat and unbounded power, but you will not read any of that in the Caller Times.
Again feel free to share this information with anyone you think may profit from it.
Truth is the best defence against tyranny, because it is the one thing which darkness can never overcome.
A republic governed by the rule of law? You decide...