Bielat's Troubled Voting Record

                                                                

Bielat has a serious problem. A problem that, as a candidate for high office, is insurmountable.

Candidate Bielat, 2010, made statements about his voting record that are just not true. He lied to the voters of Massachusetts, and you can bet the Democrats will hammer him on it if he makes it to the general election!

In 2010, Bielat claimed that even though he was always a registered Democrat, he voted for Republicans from time to time. This is simply not true. A search conducted with the New York Secretary of State's Office concluded that Sean Bielat had never voted for a Republican in the primary before coming to Massachusetts - and voting for himself!

In fact, even after coming to Massachusetts and registering in Brookline, the only Republican candidate he voted for was himself. Not Scott Brown, not Charlie Baker.

Just Sean Bielat.

                                                             

This lack of voting history, and the lies he's told about it is a serious issue if you intend to take down a Kennedy in Massachusetts. It's just as serious to lie to the people of the Commonwealth. Rewarding a liar with a seat in Congress isn't something Republicans are willing to do.

                                                      

Lying to your new neighbors is what you do when you swoop into a new state and you have something to hide. What else is Sean Bielat hiding?

The Democrats brought this up last time around and crippled Bielat in the Boston market, where he would potentially be strong. It will come up again. We can't make the same mistake we made in 2010. We cannot choose someone to represent the party with such a thin voting record, obfuscated by outright lies.

We cannot vote for someone we do not trust to work in our interests and against Obama's. And we cannot vote for someone we can't trust just because he's the best-known candidate.

He's well-known for losing to Barney Frank!

And in the general election, people won't vote for someone they can't trust. You can bet Kennedy and the Democrats, with their million-dollar-plus war chest, will make sure the Commonwealth doesn't trust Bielat come November.

It's time to nominate someone with a clean slate, a respectable voting record, and a real understanding of the Commonwealth and thepeople of the 4th District to fight and to take the seat back here in the 4th Congressional District.

For Related Articles Go To: 

Sean Bielat: A Pattern of Deceit

_________________________________________________________________________________ Here is the official voter record from the town of Brookline for Bielat, Sean: voter Id 05BSN1475003, that shows Bielat did not vote in the State Election on 11/4/2008, nor did he bother to show up to vote in the
Local Election on 5/3/2011.  

Sean Bielat: A Pattern of Deceit

Have you ever noticed that whenever Sean Bielat’s name comes up among Republicans in the 4^th Congressional district about the race, we’re left with the impression they all think Sean is “the man”, that can and will finally bring some sanity to the Massachusetts Congressional delegation. Unfortunately, it’s not because they believe his campaign create's excitement or that the former New York democrat is the strongest candidate.  No, not by a longshot friends.  In fact, after much contemplation and soul searching, I've come to the conclusion that it has more to do with the fact they think everyone else thinks he's the strongest candidate, and therefore don't want to give the wrong answer. (Oh boy)

So, if that's the case, then the next most obvious question following that mystifying glimpse into the mindset of  a RINO is why do these MA GOP 11 percenters think that way?  What is it they know, that gives RINO insiders such a feeling of inevitability and confidence, even after the former New York Democrat failed in his first attempt in 2010 at national political office, or for any office, for that matter,  during a year in which  the very vulnerable Barney Frank, lagging far behind Bielat in cash donations  was his for the taking. 

It’s a question I’ve struggled with for two years until recently, when the Bielat campaign announced on May 2, 2012 that  Sean had miraculously surged in the polls,  almost overnight,  against Joe Kennedy’s Great Grandson and the magical Kennedy name, and was now only 12 points behind after trailing 60 percent to 28 percent in February.  

Sean’s explanation for the unbelievable turnaround (and the key word there is "unbelievable)  was Joe’s inept reply that the crisis at the pumps was caused by “cheap oil”, which makes about as much sense as Sean Bielat saying Roe vs Wade was settled law during the 2010 campaign, an answer even Barney Frank found incredulous, coming from someone who claims to be a conservative and had to disagree with him in a debate forum, if you can believe that. (See video in the right column of debate excerpt between Sean Bielat and Barney Frank)

So what's the answer? Why do so many Republicans throughout the 4th think so many other Republicans  and Independents are backing Sean, when there really isn't any data to support that claim, except for the data that always seems to be released from the Bielat campaign itself. And Bingo I think that's the answer. Get my drift?

So far I don't have a horse in this race, seeing I've been moved to the 9th Congressional District due to redistricting, but I still care who represents our state in the House of Representatives. I want good solid tea party/true conservatives that will fit in with the other tea party representatives in the US  Congress, that will still, hopefully, be there to provide strong conservative opposition to liberal legislative initiatives along with conservative solutions to difficult problems. But if you allow me I'd like to get back to the question of the hour.

Why does the mere mention of Sean Bielat's name, who was unheard of before in MA politics before 2010,  stir such hope and confidence within the ranks of the MA GOP establishment, whenever his name is mentioned?

Is it because he once served as a Lieutenant in the US Marine Corps, that’s right Lieutenant not Major as his staff consistently refers to him using his present rank in the Reserves, which is inappropriate and incorrect usage in public when  not referencing the Reserves, leaving the impression one is referring to his rank on active duty?

Is it because he had a great liberal education at Harvard University?

Is it because he grew up in New York as a democrat and recently switched political parties?

Is it because he never even ran for a single public office, including dog catcher, before he ran for a national office?

Is it because he favors the legalization of marijuana?

Is it because he's such a charismatic campaigner"? (note the sarcasm)

Is it because he runs for the tall grass, whenever the subject of abortion , gay marriage, or willingness to make a "no new taxes" pledge, comes up?

Or could it be…just possibly…because of a pattern of deceit. That’s right, a pattern of deceit that caught unsuspecting republicans and well intentioned conservative media personnel with their pants down in 2010  and once again in 2012? 

Before I answer that lets take a look at who we're dealing with in Sean Bielat. 

Travelling down memory lane to September22, 2010, Sean's people put out a press release stating that he trailed Barney Frank 48-38, and lead 51-34 among Independents. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

Bielat lost that race in November 53-44. That was a good showing, if you discount the incumbent's reputation, the fervor of the Tea Party, the huge money advantage Bielat held, and the anger we all felt over Obamacare.

If you throw all those factors in along with the fact very few republicans and independents, could  understand why Barney  wasn't out of office already in 2010 and wearing a fashionable orange jump suit, for his role in the FANNIE MAE- FREDDIE MAC debacle that brought the US economy to it's knees, just before a presidential election, then it's difficult to understand why Bielat not only didn't defeat Barney Frank, but why he didn't kick his butt all the way back to his lover's marijuana garden in Maine, or his basement-brothel for young boys in the DC burbs..  

In other words, in the perfect year with the perfect situation, Bielat blew it, and he blew it big time, but the dirty little secret,  those of us in opposing campaigns suspected all along, was that Sean Bielat was an exceptionally weak candidate to begin with, which became obvious to anyone who didn't have a horse in the race, during his appearances on the Laura Ingraham and the Sean Hannity shows during the 2010 campaign, as well as during the debates against Barney Frank himself when Barney made a stronger case for the social conservative position on abortion than Bielat did, much to the shock of conservatives around the entire District, who began regretting that he had been selected as the Republican Party nominee by the voters in the 4th District's State Primary.

Point of fact many social conservatives did sit that election out, despite the fact they despised Barney Frank. Although it's difficult for "the country-clubbers" to understand, sometimes principles matter more than winning an election does to Christian and social conservatives, which is why Bielat's statement in the Boston Herald recently that he felt he had a better chance this time around because the 4th District is more conservative now due to redistricting, is somewhat laughable.

If that is true, the redistricting should actually work to the advantage of Dr David L Steinhoff (R), seen in the photo below,  a dentist, from Fall River, MA., who recently announced he's stepping into the race, as well,  and appears to be a strong conservative, who doesn't run from social issues either (How's that for a change of pace, gang ?. .

Unlike Bielat, Steinhof has pledged not to vote for any more legislation calling for taxes, or tax increases.

Perhaps if Bielat hadn't run like a chicken with it's head cut off from opportunities to debate his primary opponent, Earl Sholley in 2010, he might have been better prepared to stand up to Barney than he did as well as solidify his positions on the issues. Anyway  back to these mysterious "internal polls"....

Sean Bielat's habit of releasing the results of his own internal polls, which almost always portray a tight race via a campaign press release strains his credibility to say the least. I mean, when you think about it, you have to wonder why he would need to do that if the data on the results were indeed factual and as favorable to his campaign as it always appears. While "internal" usually means a poll not meant for public consumption, that clearly is not the case here, and the RINO establishment and the media seems to be taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker, once again. But not everybody....

Does Sean Bielat really expect us to buy into this "polling" nonsense? Apparently he does, which is simply another reminder that the kid is not even close to being ready for prime time yet. It's also unclear whether these polls are scientific, or even real, considering that the mysterious polling company is keeping the details of how the data was ascertained to themselves.

That should raise a flag right there, don't you think? Usually a polling company is more than happy to release this information as it's good for their business, especially if it helps their clients in such a favorable way as this poll obviously did.

Compare the web site of OnMessage, Inc with a site like Rassmusson Reports and you’ll understand why I’m just a “tad” suspicious of the company, which appears to look more like a public relations firm, which actually makes sense and causes me to be even more suspicious of their so called “internal polls”. The site is hardly warm and fuzzy looking, nor does it seem willing to share it’s polling information with the public  the way Rassmusson and other professional polling outfits do. 

In conclusion, the truth, Mr Bielat,  is that no poll can make a candidate electable, and no piece of propaganda can make a Republican vote against his or her interest, so you would be well advised to remember that,  before you decide to release the results of another one of your preposterous "internal polls".

Sources:

Poll Shows Joe Kennedy III's "Celebrity Advantage" Evaporating (May 2, 2012)

Sean Bielat: Joe Kennedy III falls short of "myth"

Bielat's Troubled Voting Record

OP-ED About Sign at Acushnet, MA Church Way Off Base

In an op-ed in the New Bedford Standard Times (South Coast Today entitled Your View: St Francis sign embarrasses Acushnet, the authors commented on the large sign in front of St Francis Xavier Parish of Acushnet, MA by saying the message was "a shameful insolent act" and then followed with a perplexing question: How could anyone post such a hurtful, grievous words about another human being"?.

So right off the bat they were simply ignoring the fact that Catholic Church was expressing an opinion, which is why I responded by leaving a comment that said basically "lighten up". I suppose in the minds of the authors, they do not have the right to their own opinion unless it is politically correct, or agrees with their view. So I'll skip the part where I recite the First Amendment of the Constitution, which covers religious freedom as well as freedom of speech and go right to their accusation that the words are "hurtful and grievous".

Compared to the hostile and much more judgmental rhetoric on the signs of homosexual activists who showed up last Sunday, or the telephone calls to the church threatening several acts of violence including burning the church down, the Church's response to President Obama's sudden change of position on gay marriage last week couldn't be more innocuous or civil

I mean, there is not a hint of hatred or personal condemnation in the message they conveyed on their sign that they posted on “THEIR PROPERTY”, only one that is consistent with the church's long standing position that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Biblical account shows that after the creation of the first man, God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him". (The  key word here is suitable)

At this point God could have created another man for Adam, but he chose instead to create a special creature, with a special set of "plumbing" and a special "brain" designed specifically to compliment him physically and fulfill his needs, both physically and emotionally. Any man and woman who has ever been married will confirm this, if they are willing to be totally honest.

The Biblical account of the creation of the perfect "helper" for man ends with God bringing the woman to the man for the first marriage by saying:

Genesis 2: 24 For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife (have sex), and they shall become one flesh 

Getting back to the sign, though, St Xavier's had every right to post that message on "THEIR PROPERTY"

The person that posted the second sign on “THEIR FENCE”, however,  was totally out of line and had no right to do that what-so-ever. That sign says: “You may not be welcome in the Church, but you are in the community. Spread love, not hate. With it was attached a rainbow balloon.

Monsignor Gerard O'Connor of St Francis Parish explained that the message was meant to show where they stand on the hot button issue of same sex marriage. “There's no hatred in the gospel of Jesus Christ and there can never be. We've got to do everything out of love”, said O'Connor to WBZ-TV. “That's what the church teaches…We understand people disagree with us, but we do it out of love. We never said we hate anybody”

The MA Resistance web site which has been covering the militant homosexual movement for many years now published a very informativearticle on the incident in Acushnet and complimented the church hierarchy and parishioners for not backing down, even though they did take the sign down after a day or so. It was replaced with a sign that says: “Go out and proclaim the gospel”

 

For more commentary you may read the following articles:

Your View: St Francis sign embarrasses Acushnet
Your View: Criticism of church takes political correctness too far
Gays threaten and harass Catholic Church over marriage sign. But Catholics are not backing down

MA South Coast Residents Learn About "Agenda 21", "Smart Growth", and "Sustainable Development"

Sixty SouthCoast Residents learned about Agenda 21, SmartGrowth, Sustainable Development and other threats to their constitutional right to own property at an informative presentation at the Fall River Public Library on May 14, 2012, in Fall River, MA. This  group of patriotic and concerned citizens took time out of their busy lives to learn the facts about a devious plot hatched at theUnited Nations in 1987 under the guise of “saving the planet and the environment", called Agenda 21.

They had all heard the horror stories of communities and businesses severely inundated by ridiculous environmental regulations and restrictions from a vast array of government agencies, regional councils, and NGO's (non-government agencies filled with environmental extremists),  none of whom have any accountability what-so-ever to the voters.

Some of the attendees were political activists I had seen holding signs at standouts for conservative political candidates in the past, and others appeared to be  their friends and neighbors, but all had an interest in developing a better understanding of the "sustained development mania" that has been taking place all around us for many years now with little resistance, at least until recently.   

The presentation was divided into two segments. Hal Shurtleff, the Northeast Regional Field Director of the John Birch Society,  was the first to raise eyebrows in a presentation entitled “The Dangers of Agenda 21". He was followed by Dave Kopacz, a ponytailed conservation officer for the town of Ware, MA and member of the Massachusetts Liberty Preservation Association. Mr Kopacz, who is also the President of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly (MARA), succinctly pointed out the shame of people being  denied their  constitutional rights as property owners to pass on to their children their hard earned legacy in the form  of much of the land that dotes the  beautiful country side and hills of Central and Western Massachusetts, where he has spent his whole life, as that would be considered an act of social injustice.

Social justice , as described by true believers in "sustained development" policies, is the supposed right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment . Private property, you see,  is considered to be a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it.

The audience also learned  that purveyors of this misguided and irrational worldview also consider  national sovereignty to be a social injustice, which is why the America-hating United Nations is working at break neck speed to see that it is eliminated. as a problem, by forming a one-world government with the UN in charge. No joke!. President George HW Bush wasn't just using rhetoric when he spoke of " a new world order" and signed on to Agenda 21 for the United States at the UN Earth Summit in 1992 along with 178 other nations.  Nor was Bill Clinton when he signed Executive Order #12858 in 1995 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US einvironmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21.

Barrack Obama wasn’t kidding either when he signed Executive Order #13575 on June 9, 2011, establishing a White House Rural council for facilitating the federal coordination of sustainable development at the local community level.

In fact, Mr Shurtleff began his presentation explaining how the term “sustainable development" was first introduced to the world in the pages of a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development , authored by Gro Harlem Bruntland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as Official UN policy in 1992, in a document called Unsustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit,,  today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

He spoke of how one of the radical masterminds of Agenda 21, Maurice Strong, considered the lifestyles of America's middle class to simply be "unsustainable", except for him and his like, of course.

As Secretary General of the UN's Earth Summit, in 1992, Strong was quoted as saying: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable"

Mr Strong, who at one time, owned vast amounts of property in the Western United States,  was speculated to be a candidate to become Secretary General of the UN, but is now hiding out in China, according to unconfirmed reports.

Shurleft recommended several books and cds including one book which he seemed to focus on entitled

Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earth Press, 1993)

According to one of the leaflets passed out containing information on the above book,  “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, the book is instructive for demonstrating the completely alien mindset that holds sway in so many influential political, academic, and media circles. This edition, edited by Daniel Sitarz’s provides a powerful albeit unintended, indictment of the UN agreement by offering this candid appraisal of the plan’s totalitarian ambition. Incredibly, Sitarz admits with apparent approval that:

Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended  to be implemented by every person on Earth…It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people.

Effective execution of AGENDA 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.--- a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources . This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of  every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision making at every level.

Mr Shurleff told me after the meeting that  the book also contains information which can shed light on the ongoing destruction of the New England Fishing Industry, including in my hometown of New Bedford MA, by environmental bureaucrats placing insane restrictions on their so called “catch shares” quotas which many experts suspect are  based on questionable science and random calculations by marine law enforcement authorites, and lawyers for agencies like NOAA, headed by Dr Jean Lubchenko, who formerly was Director of the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the NGO’s actively involved in carrying out Agenda 21. The photo above shows Republican Candidate for Congress from the 4th Congressional Distircit, Earl Sholley, in 2010 talking to a New Bedford Fisherman about the troubled industry.

Dave Kopacz, seen in the photo on the left, also spoke of the questionable science used to write regulations enforcing the preservation of thousands of acres of dead, diseased trees in woodlands all over the nation that show the UN’s agenda has nothing to do with saving the environment, but is simply about the acquisition of land. Kopacz then passed around a photograph of a large group of dead trees in a forest where lumber companies are not allowed to cut trees anymore, to illustrate his point.

Both Kopacz and Shurtleff spoke of the devious methods and outright lies used by the “facilitators” of smart growth and sustained development, who generally avoid giving direct answers to direct questions. Kopacz encouraged the audience to repeat the question when a bureaucrat gives an answer to a question that wasn’t asked, until you get a proper answer as he has learned after many confrontations with advocates of "sustainability",  that they are not going to be forthcoming with their real agenda, which is, as far as both speakers were concerned, was the acquistion of property and the elimination of our constitutionally guaranteed property rights.  

In fact Shurtleff quoted J Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council for Sustainable Development who explained how they stopped using the name Agenda 21 to hide their association with the United Nations plan to destroy the United States and replace it with a one world government all under the guise of saving the planet from an environmental catastrophe:

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society. This segment of our society who fear “one world government” and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined “ the conspiracy” by undertaking LA 21 (Local government for sustainability). So we call our process something else, such as "comprehensive planning", "growth management", or smart growth”, Lawrence was quoted as saying.  

There were many more topics discussed to help increase awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development and what city planners everywhere are actually up to including many subjects we hear discussed in the media frequently these days such as the banning of incandescent light bulbs and the dangers of mercury filled light bulbs we will all be required to use very soon, the discredited science of global warming,  expensive and inadequate electric cars, solar panels, windmill farms, Solyndra  and other PPP’s (Public Private Partnerships are special dealings between government and certain chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants, and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy.)

Other individuals mentioned that have had a role in the United Nation's plan for world domination and  Agenda 21 include Alger Hiss, Jacques Cousteau, and former Vice President Al Gore, as incredulous as it sounds. Other topics discussed included the rape and tortureof innocent civilians by UN troops, population control, benefit corporations, green corporations, consigli, regional planning commissions, nonviable counties,   America2050.org, eminent domain, open spaced communities, land trusts, and much, much more.

A significant amount of time was spent on ICLEI, which is the largest association of both local and national governments working towards sustainable development policies including Smart Growth, Wildlands Projects, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, "Going Green", Open Space Plans, Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management and consensus. Kopacz also spent time on the Comprehensive Land Use Reform and Partnership Act (CLURPA), that took decades in Massachusetts to finally get through the legislature, but by that time he was starting to lose me. 

I may have missed a couple of topics discussed as after three hours, my head was spinning and my straightback chair was becoming quite uncomfortable down in the basement of the old Library. But I do remember what was perhaps the most poignant statement I heard all evening when Dave Kopacz concluded his mind bloggling presentation by bluntly blurting out::

"THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONSERVATION",  which in fact he had reiterated several times during the evening, stressing his love and passion for conservation and his life long habit of going out of his way to save endangered species, which was easy for me to believe after observing his "ponytailed caricature" and "his in your face" demeanor for three hours.

"I wrote a paper on a 5 legged salamander", he said with a straight face, "and Environmental Studies and Conservation was my major in college and my lifelong work as a  Conservation  professional"

"THIS IS ABOUT LAND ACQUISITION"!  and continuing he stated....

"I BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES IS A GREAT NATION,  NOT BECAUSE OF OUR MILITARY MIGHT, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY".

When I heard those words...."THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY",  a bell went off in my head and I realized I was awake again and with that I headed out of the room, grabbing some literature on the way out, and feeling more determined than ever to learn more about this very disturbing topic. Driving back to New Bedford, I wondered how the supporters of this diabolical UN plan could get away with this and how as much as I hate to admit it, both political parties bear some responsibility in the fact it has gone largely unopposed for years now.

I mean "going green", "the green economy",  and "earth day" celebrations, a pagan holiday if ever there was one, has become the "cool" catch phrases in our culture now. Cities and towns all over the State of Massachusetts, the United States, and the entire world for that matter,  as well as "mush for brains" students, of course, in our schools and colleges have fallen for the plan, hook, line, and sinker, and continue to fall like dominoes as we speak.

In my follow-up research I discovered that the city of Boston has, not surpringly,  become one of those totally "green cities". A brief google search led me to an article stating that " Mayor Menino unveiled an exciting new "sustainability" brand for the city of Boston: Greenovate Boston "Oh Boy"! But not to worry....

"There is a definite resistance building up", Shurtleff remarked.. "14 years ago we would give these presentations and 5 people would show up. Citizens all over the country now are starting to pay attention to what is going on and are showing a great interest. We need more and more patriots to resist and take a stand against the movement" as the citizens in the Town of Carver MA did last year when they invited Dave and myself to address a town meeting before they voted on an Open Space Plan and then voted  to reject the plan, preserving their property rights and freedom, at least temporarily. (See Carver, MA activists defeat Open Space Plan)

As one of the commenters to this article mentioned after my initial post, the John Birch Society has been the only group out there for years now bringing this to the public's attention, but it might be a good time for the "tea parties" to get involved and I agree. It would be a natural issue for them. A bipartisan issue as well, such as insisting that the United States needs to withdraw from the United Nations.

On that I think most conservative and tea party activists would agree. The mantra for JBS protests and presentations for decades has been:

"GET THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND GET THE UNITED NATIONS OUT OF THE UNITED STATES"..

Although, as I stated, both political parties are to blame, it  is definetly a vehicle that appeals to "environmental wackos" and full blooded socialists on the left, though the appeal is also to average citizens, who find nothing wrong with making a decision integrated with concerns for the environmental impact that decision will have on their community, nor should they. But I think that is also a problem and a major challenge facing the opponents of "sustainable policies" like "open space plans" and "going green", which sound harmless at first hearing, until you investigate what rights you will actually lose and how your life will be affected once the policy is fully implemented.

I don't know about you, but living in  "stack em and pack em" urban roadside communities as is presently planned for us, doesn't appeal to me.

It is also clear, after having attended the seminar, that we're talking about wolfs in sheep's clothing when we're talking about today's radical, power hungry environmentalists who seem fixated on bringing  us back to the 19th century. By the way, did you realize that the town of Amherst, MA, home to UMass, Amherst and Amherst, College, and a whole " bunch" of radical leftists,  has a UN flag in front of their city hall

I recalled Mr Kopacz saying one of the easiest ways communities allow the Smart Growth “facilitators” into their beloved towns and convince city planners and community leaders to buy into their “comprehensive plans” is through the receipt of generous “land grants” that come attached with restrictions such as the banning of single family home construction in the future. Kopacz encourages towns to refuse these grants and get people to build their own soccer fields, walking paths, and little league baseball diamonds etc. “ I’ve used boy scout volunteers to clear brush and the like”, he said, “ and I've found that when some one develops blisters digging, raking, hoeing, and doing other physical labor they have a tendency to take much more pride in the finished product, than when it's constructed by professional contractors.”

Communities in Massachusetts who are now listed as full fledged ICLEI towns and cities include the following:

Acton, MA

Amherst, MA

Auburn, MA

Belmont, MA

Boston, MA

Brookline, MA

Cambridge, MA

Chelmsford, MA

Concord, MA

Dedham, MA

Devens,  MA

Hingham, MA

Ipswhich, MA

Marsfield, MA

Medford, MA

Milton, MA

Nantucket, MA

North Andover, MA

North Hampton, MA

Quincy, MA

Salem, MA

Tewksbury, MA

Tyngsborough, MA

Wellsley, MA

Wellfleet Town, MA

Winchester, MA

Worcester, MA

In closing I just want to say, wake up America, before it's too late! Join other patriots in cities and towns across our great nation, who are becoming informed and involved by standing up for the liberties and the country they love, which are now under unprecedented assault by environmental extremists, as well as everyday citizens, who have been deceived by a bunch of evil, America hating,  head-cracking thugs. Follow the example of the good people in Fall River, MA, who took the initiative to begin learning about Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. and the citizens of Carver, MA who stood up for freedom and their constitutionally guaranteed  right to own property.

To Read more Jazz Patriot articles on Agenda 21,  go to :

Stop Agenda 21

Agenda 21" in One Easy Lesson",

"Agenda 21", Smart Growth Seminar, Fall River, MA,

Waking UP to the Threat Imposed By the UN

Beware: SouthCoast Rail Project Is Nothing Less Than UN "Agenda 21" TakeOver Scheme

Beware of Agenda 21 and SRPEDD: Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District

Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson

The following article was forwarded to concerned patriots on the Massachusetts South Coast by the  National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) from the American Policy Center.
_______________________________________________

Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos. “Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out,” I’m asked.

So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I’ve also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.

A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.

What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Social Equity (Social injustice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.

Economic Prosperity Public Private Partnerships (PPP).
Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.

Local Sustainable Development policies
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.

Who is behind it?
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

Where did it originate?

The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.

Revealing Quotes From the Planners “

Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!

“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

“No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

Agenda 21 and Private Property

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

Reinvention of Government

“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.

What is not sustainable?

Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.

Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Editor's Note: We have reproduced here in full "Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson" from the American Policy Center. We encourage you to visit the original ___________________________________________________________________________

  For more on Agenda 21 See "MA South Coast Residents Learn About "Agenda 21", "Smart Growth" and "Sustainable Development", Waking Up to the Threat Imposed By the UN, "Agenda 21", Smart Growth Seminar, Fall River, MA

Waking Up to the Threat Imposed By the UN

In an effort to educate myself and anyone else who is interested in learning about the threats that the United Nations and policies like Agenda 21 hold for the United States,  I have begun publishing articles on the Jazz Patriot with that goal in mind. I'll even be attending a meeting in Fall River, MA this evening to learn more about "Smart Growth", which I will be reporting on here at the Jazz Patriot, God willing. A day doesn't go by now where we don't here city and state leaders using terms like "Smart Growth", Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, Redistribution of Wealth, Social Justice, Social Injustice, Pubic Private Partnerships (PPP), Wetlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR (Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, Going Green, Alternative Energy, Local Visioning facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management and consensus.

The term Sustainable Development  all goes back to 1987 in a report produced at the United Nations World commission on Environmental and Development. "Agenda 21'  was adopted as official policy for more than 178 nations including the United States by President George HW Bush, true globalist and advocate for a one world government. There is much to learn. Standby!

If you are on the Massachusetts South Coast tonight, May 14, 2012, you can attend a meeting at the Public Library in Fall River Massachusetts. The latest word I,ve received is that there will be a presentation you don't want to miss by an expert who will make sure we are all brought up to speed on these imminent threats to our liberty.

Before I even go to the meeting, there is one thought in my mind which I know will even be more solidified in my thought processes following tonights three hour session and that I will bully endorse the John Birch Society's half century cry to

GET THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS ____AND GET THE UNITED NATIONS OUT OF THE US ! 


To read more Jazz Patriot articles on Agenda 21 see MA South Coast Residents Learn About "Agenda 21", "Smart Growth", and "Sustainable Development", Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson, "Agenda 21", Smart Growth Seminar, Fall River, MA

THE RAPOZA REPORT

The Jazz Patriot welcomes Linda Rapoza of Fall River, MA as guest columnist today. Linda is President of the "Mildred Fay Jefferson 4th Congressional District Chapter - MA-RA and is the former republican State Committee woman for the First Bristol and Plymouth State Senate District. Linda is well known for her political activism on the Massachusetts South Coast and is a tireless and articulate spokesman for Conservatism wherever she goes. She recently played a leading role in the successful grass roots revolution that took place at the MA Republican Primary Election on March 6, 2012 which put Conservatives in control of a quarter of the seats on the MA GOP State Committee. True Conservatism, including Social Conservatism is on the rise on the Massachusetts South Coast in large part because of Linda. It's an honor to have her as part of the Jazz Patriot family. 
_____________________________________________

THE RAPOZA REPORT

“Shining the light of truth on the offerings of liberal media pabulum.” - Linda Rapoza
(Warning to liberals in both Parties: The following is not for the faint of heart.)

The Department of Public Health and Education has just outlawed school bake sales. Lucky for us, the Massachusetts legislature reversed it – maybe.

While much of the money for athletic equipment and school trips comes from such activities conducted by the very people who pay for our public schools through taxation, unelected government busy-bodies never miss an opportunity to regulate anything that moves.

To some, the story of government-approved snacks seems silly. But is it? A burgeoning government at the hands of those seeking total control of the masses is an affront to the individual liberties laid out in our Constitution. This isn’t about cupcakes or candy bars. It’s another power-grab by liberal bureaucrats who see the rest of us as unsophisticated bumpkins incapable of making decisions they can agree with.

Who defines our constitutional freedoms? Is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness something “endowed by Our Creator” only if it comports with unelected government institutions? How far can government go if those who control it decide you’re incapable of making the “correct” decisions concerning your own children? Could the violation of government-approved eating habits be expanded to define child abuse?

While individuals with an insatiable appetite for hovering over our every move continue to promote anti-constitutional encroachments on our liberties, more “nudging” of the populace to perform according to the will of the state has stepped up its pace.

Along with the indoctrination of government-approved beliefs and principles in our schools and universities, this administration has inserted itself into our relationship with our churches, attempting to bully us into practicing our faith in accordance to their will.

We’re now like caged rats in a government-driven experiment for a socialistic command-and-control utopia being operated by government employees who’ve been assigned to redesign our lives for the betterment of the collective over the individual.

On June 9, 2011 President Obama signed Executive Order #13575 establishing a White House Rural Council for facilitating the federal coordination of sustainable development at the local community level. More have followed, referencing the United Nation’s Agenda 21 and its numerous tentacles, one of which is “Smart Growth” - a concept that defines sustainable development in terms of controlled living through reduced consumption; the redistribution of wealth through the elimination of the “social injustice” of private property; and population control and reduction with the goal of returning the land to its “original wilderness”. This would include a future without automobiles, a limit on rural development, and a whole host of new environmental regulations on private property, farms and waterways, just to name a few.

The new civic engagement in academia is not about rigorous debate in maintaining the liberties that built this nation, but about obedience to the U.N’s communistic concepts in caged-living, of government-controlled stackable communities where “the people” will be required to live, work and play all in the same fenced-in corral for the glorious goal of “saving the earth”.

What does the future look like? Since government-approved behavior is being dictated by the carrot-and-stick approach, you’ll be taxed on any choices that aren’t approved by the state including food processing and the dispensation of water. You’ll be required to drive a government-approved vehicle, (or bicycle), and travel on government-approved roadways. You’ll live in government-approved housing operated by government-approved energy, and you’ll even have the pleasure of partaking in government-approved recreational activities in your spare time.

Far-fetched? Hardly. The blueprints for implementation for all of the above are already in the pipeline, all of which requires a Constitution made irrelevant in order to achieve “success”.

The time for sitting on the sidelines is over. Everyone who values their freedom will have to make the decision to either fight for every liberty that’s left, or lie down and become just another speed bump to the aspirations of those who have put themselves in charge of creating a New World Order.

For those who pay no attention to history, lost liberties don’t mean much until they’re gone forever. To those who think America is worth saving, we remember the words of President Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

See also The Rapoza Report (Feb 2012)

Agenda 21 "Smart Growth Seminar", Fall River, MA

If you are a property owner on or near the Massachusetts South Coast then you don't want to miss attending the following  Free ...

Agenda 21 “Smart Growth Seminar”

Monday May 14^th 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM

Fall River Public Library

104 No Main St, Down Town Fall River

Presentation Given by MARA President, Dave Kopacz

The information you will gain from this seminar is for your benefit if you are a property owner. It’s important to those who have never heard of Agenda 21 (an agenda of United Nation's environmental guru, Maurice Strong, and it's numerous freedom-stifling tentacles (one of which is Smart Growth)

The progressive forces behind the concept of Smart Growth have been sugar coating it throughout our area (most recently invading the Real Estate Agent community) and it is being ramped up in an attempt to rush through, without benefit of public understanding, the United Nation's blueprint for a one-world government . The consequences of such regulation to the liberties and freedoms of private property ownership cannot be understated as they will affect everyone of us.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Executive Order Moves U.S. Towards World Governance

The following is an email I just received from Linda Rapoza, President of the Mildred Fay Jefferson Chapter, Massachusetts Republican Assemblies (MARA), the organization Ronald Reagan always referred to as "the republican wing of the republican party"

Elephants & Other Patriots,

If you have friends in the Fall River area who are on the fence about coming to our Agenda 21 Seminar on Monday May 14th at 6:00 p.m at the Fall River Public Library, you might want to send them the following, while reminding them of Obama's Executive Order #13575 on June 9, 2011 which established a White House Rural Council to facilitate the federal coordination of sustainable development at the local community level.

Seating is limited. Please call or e-mail me at 508-254-7785 or at dlrapoza@comcast.net

Obama executive order moves U.S. toward world governance

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:17pm — AmericanPatriot

National Issues, News & Elections

On May 1st, President Barack Obama signed a new Executive Order which opens the door for the United States to give up economic and environmental sovereignty through the promotion of a single international regulatory system.

This regulatory system would seek to gobally streamline cooperation between nations for trade, environmental, and legislative processes on the international stage.

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. - Whitehouse.gov

While the need for economic coorperation between nations and trading partners is crucial, these agreements are normally facilitated between governments through individual trade agreements, and not by a globally designated regulatory body.  Already countries are giving up their sovereignty through such agreements like Agenda 21, which places draconian impacts on US land owners to use their property as they see fit.

The goal of many global leaders and central banks is the facilitation of a singular economic system, where financial and economic decisions are made from a single body.  The formation of the G-20, as well as annual meetings by economic leaders in Davos, Switzerland, promote and create policies that bind nations to trade and regulatory processes without acceptance by legislative representatives.

President Obama has been actively signing several Executive Orders over the past two months, many of which imply or allow the Federal government to take control over private property, and the lawful use of that property, with little recourse of due process for businesses and land owners.  In March, Obama signed an unnumbered Executive Order which provides the Federal government the power to confiscate land, infrastructure, and human resources in both peacetime, and during a declared crisis.  One month later, the President issued an additional Executive Order which allows the government to nationalize, and take control of all natural gas resources.

Every day, more and more economic sovereignty is being signed away by the Obama Administration, with the intention of facilitating a new global economic system whereby the American people and American businesses no longer have the right of due process in the US legal system, but instead are bound under international law and regulation.  This new Executive Order signed by President Obama on May 1st is another move towards global governance, and the loss of economic sovereignty for the citizens of the United States

Kenneth Schortgen Jr, Finance Examiner

As a historian in his primary field of study, and an investor in the real world, Kenneth has a keen perspective on all facets of the financial world. He has owned his own business and corporation, and has been an investor in many different markets such as securities, real estate, currency trading...

http://www.examiner.com/article/government-control-over-americans-increases-with-new-legislation-over-resources 

Ron Paul Strategy For GOP Convention Revealed Following Coups d'etats at Massachusetts Caucuses

This very informative article entitled “Businessman LeadsConservative Activists” was published yesterday in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette and focuses on Worcester, MA businessman, Bradford P Wyatt and speaks of the incredible behind the scenes action that led up to the devastating defeat for the MA GOP Leadership at the Caucuses on April 28, 2012. .

It also clears up some questions about what the overall goal seems to be for Ron Paul at the up and coming 2012 GOP National Convention at Tampa, FL

The role of Paul supporters at the convention, Mr. Wyatt says, will be limited to promoting two planks on the GOP platform: auditing the Federal Reserve Bank and barring U.S. involvement in wars without congressional approval.

Well, let's hope Mr Wyatt is correct in his analysis of Congressman Pauls intentions, but after spending several hours this weekend deciphering much of the fervor and cult-like  loyalty to Ron Paul emanating from his followers all over the Web, I'm not quite ready to accept the premise they have no plans to take over the Convention.

To read related posts GO TO: :

 GOP Establishment Planning on De-certifying Newly Elected Ron Paul Delegates,

Ron Paul Wins 17 of 27 Delegate Positions at MA Caucuses,

Massachusetts GOP Allocation Hearing on 5/29/2012

MA GOP Establishment Planning On De-certifying newly elected Ron Paul Delegates

Red Mass Group is reporting that the Romney Campaign is planning on decertifying the Ron Paul delegates that won positions at the MA State Caucuses on April 28^th  to the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida under the Ronald Reagan Unity Liberty Slate, by invoking Rule 5.2, which requires delegates to be certified by the “allocation committee.”

Translation: We aint certifying no stinking Ron Paul Delegates.

So the MA GOP establishment set the rules and now they have decided to change the rules when the caucus votes didn’t go their way. I see.

The problem that many who posted at RMG see is twofold. Ron Paul supporters are not going to be happy about this and it may be a tad difficult (just a tad) to convince them to vote for Mitt Romney this November as well as for Scott Brown after the way they’ve been treated. After all they followed the MA GOP’s own rules correctly. 

And actually there is a third problem  when you include the fairly significant conservative base that stayed home the day of the MA caucuses, after realizing that not a single newly elected conservative state committee member was invited and that the new chairman filled his slate with ultra-liberal, old guard, RINO types, continuing the same ridiculous war against social conservatives you'd expect in the Democrat Party, but not the Party of Lincoln.

RMG ,  blogger John Di Mascio,  summed it up perfectly by stating: So now we have more hubris as the Romney campaign will disregard the results of lawfully held caucuses. And they wonder why the base of the party is not happy with the Romney campaign.

As I told one baffled blogger at the Free Republic site who said "So my question would be why don't groups or people or organizations follow their own rules?

Most of us, don’t have the power to change the rules of an election once the results are in, unless you’re a dictator in a Banana Republic or you’re the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Gore vs Bush, in the 2000 Presidential election. If you want to change the rules of any kind before the contest actually takes place, then that is entirely different matter. I don’t have any problem with the Ron Paul People studying the rules in each state, and then getting all their people there on election day to vote at the caucuses, even if they are trying to take over the convention, which we all know that is exactly what they’re plan is, and they are using the GOP’s own rules to do it.

In Massachusetts this situation could have been avoided. I can’t speak about all the other states that are now having certification problems with their delegates as well, but If the MA GOP had allowed a seat at the table for the Conservatives as well as the establishment, they could have come up with a slate that everyone felt was fair, but you see the MA GOP Establishment is at war with Social Conservatives in MA over “abortion” and gay marriage issues and everyone knows it. It’s always the elephant in the room, and they refuse to allow “social conservatives” at the table, even though social conservatives now control most of the State Committee seats after the last election on Mar 6th, which was essentially a grass roots revolution, which you have heard virtually nothing about in the main stream media. .

Also I read on one of the Ron Paul Blogs, The Daily Paul The Daily Paul, which sent hundreds of visitors to The Jazz Patriot  site last night  that the original slate which gave the conservative base so much heatburn due to the way it was filled with ultra-liberal, old guard types, most of whom aren’t even in power anymore, was written by Mitt Romney himself, who isn’t even our governor anymore. If that is true, and I don’t know if it is, the corruption in the MA GOP is worse than I thought.

Most of the information in this post and the previous post, Ron Paul Win's 17 of 27 Delegate Positions At MA Caucuses In Embarrasing Defeat For Romney was acquired from reading the latest reporting on the subject at Vote Core Values in a post entitled MessGOP Steps In It Again  at Red Mass Group in the article that actually broke the story,   Down Comes the Axe, by MA GOP Insider, Paul R Ferro, who also had serious entanglements to furious Ron Paul supporters, commenting on his post and tweets that further fanned the flames.

Based upon the vast amount of web activity this site received over the weekend from local as well as national blogs, I would surmise we haven't heard the last about this fiasco. Some of the websites and articles that have been responsible for burning up my modem include the following : Free Republic; What Really Happened ; Daily Paul.Com; Reddit.

Something tells me we haven't heard the last of this story. I'll add to this post or submit other posts as more information becomes available. Stay tuned.

For R elated Posts Go To:

June 4, 2012 Massachusetts GOP Allocation Hearing on 5/29/2012


May 7, 2012 Ron Paul Strategy For GOP Convention Revealed Following Coups d'etats at Massachusetts Caucuses

May 4, 2012 Ron Paul Win's 17 of 27 Delegate Positions At MA Caucuses in Embarrassing Defeat For Romney