Perhaps Bush Should Invade Colorado?

I ask this since the stated mission of Trotskyism er, Neoconservatism, is to install “democracy” everywhere in the world (because, you know, all people are the same), it only seems fitting that the USAF immediately start carpet-bombing that poor, benighted state.

The state GOP did something incredibly stupid: they didn’t hold an election and gave all that state’s 34 delegates to Sen Ted Cruz of Texas. Maybe it’s all that legal marijuana they’re smoking. I dunno.

Now, I understand that what they did was technically legal. It’s also technically legal to not buy your wife flowers for her birthday or tell your boss he’s a jack-ass, but it’s horribly ill-advised.

How stupid was this? It played right into Donald Trump’s playbook. The whole politics-in-America-is-rigged shtick. The optics are so bad that there’s no way to undo the damage. Cruz’s attempt to humor his way out of the bad press (“What is this ‘democracy’ of which you speak”) fell flat. There’s no democracy with no vote. Surely he’s smart enough to see that.

If Cruz wanted to turn this debacle around he should do something audacious –to out-Trump Trump–so to speak. Accordingly, if I were advising him I’d hold a press conference right now and disavow all those delegates and immediately call for a one-on-one election between himself and Trump in Colorado. Although that wouldn’t happen, he’d regain control of the narrative and at the end of the day, still have those delegates in his back pocket. He’d “own” the news cycle at least for several days. Instead, he’s going around trumpeting the “election” “held” in Colorado and now in Wyoming, too.

So what did the Trumpster do? He regained the narrative immediately after his disastrous loss in Wisconsin with some cleverly staged campaign events. He now seems poised to win heavily in the next five primaries, with Cruz coming in a distant third in some of them. It looks like Cruz’s high point is going to be Wisconsin.

More importantly, Trump’s made some strategic moves that indicate to me that he’s going in for the kill. First, he hired Paul Manafort, the whip who saved Gerald Ford’s nomination in 1976 and then Ronald Reagan’s in 1980. Then he hired Rick Wiley, Gov Scott Walker’s campaign manager. (In a post-facto way, this neutralizes Walker’s endorsement of Cruz and possibly sets the stage for Walker’s acceptance of the Veep slot.) Finally, he sat down with Megyn Kelly when she secretly visited him in Trump Tower last Wednesday. Indications are that this was preparation for a one-on-one interview next month. (Can you imagine what those ratings will be?)

Then of course there was the announcement by Randy Evans of the Republican National Committee that Trump would get the nomination if he got anywhere north of 1100 votes, as opposed to the 1237 needed to officially win the nomination. (I wonder if this was the result of his meeting with Reince Priebus the week before?)

Anyway, it’s going to be an exciting ride. Buckle your seat belts.


  1. Peter Millman says

    George, It’s been an exciting ride if you like wallowing around in the mud. I think this has been the most disheartening campaign that I can remember. There is not one half way decent candidate running for President. One of the most distressing points of this campaign is the total obeisance by all the candidates to the state of Israel. These political hacks and charlatans grovel before the treasonous Israeli lobby, AIPAC, which should be registered as a foreign agent of the Likud party.
    What this country sorely needs is another Dwight Eisenhower who restored dignity and grace to the Presidency. Can anyone honestly say that these benighted, dimwitted imbeciles are in the least bit Presidential? They’re all repulsive, obnoxious, and disgraceful.

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      In the mud is where the best fights happen, and in the mud they are honest. I’ll take the mud over the fake civility of the Bush and Clinton families any day of the week.


  2. When delegates, as in Colorado and Wyoming, are picked by political bosses, then primary elections are a sham. Why should voters even bother?

  3. The rules for how the Colorado delegates were selected were made clear well in advance. They were hardly a secret. If Trump wanted to win them he could have, but he didn’t follow the old Boy Scout advice: Be Prepared. Doesn’t really bode well for a Trump Presidency, does it?

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      Well in advance still means the GOP changed the rules to favor Jeb Bush back when he was in the race so as to favor their golden boy a rig the election in their favor. Madison was right to warn us against faction (parties) that would treated our Republic. Now we are seeing his wisom all these years later.

      You stick to the GOP ‘s rules. I’ll stick with the U.S. Constitution.


      • George Michalopulos says

        Me too, Peter. I really get a chuckle when I see the GOPe/Neocon talking heads on TV talking about “the Constitution” and/or the “Founding Fathers.” Seems they forgot that tidbit about “factions” which Madison wrote about.

    • Sounds like what CNN is always saying, with their panel of one Trump supporter and 10 bashers. Doubt anything was transparent in Colorado, just like the RNC themselves, all establishment operatives working in underhanded manner, always telling everyone well, “its the rules,” their shyster rules they make up as they go along. When people look at just one thing that isn’t even policy, but just this riffraff and have expectations that a candidate is supposed to micromanage on all facets of all things all by himself and then characterize a would be “presidency” on such basis it just sounds like the axis of Dems-Libs-Progs-Neocons all trying to derail Trump because a lot of them are going to lose their jobs for the betterment of the Country. What “bodes well” for a Trump presidency is that on all the most “big issues” all the crazy wasteful spending across the board, name it, military, education, healthcare on and on he is going to grapple with some of those things whereas the other candidates hardly even have a pretense. Thats the “big stuff” and not this RNC Colorado chicanery, who are they and their lousy 34 delegates.

    • If Cruz supporters believe rules should always be followed no matter how lousy they are, then they should have no problem if Adam and Steve want to get hitched or if Jen decides to have her unborn child ripped apart and sucked out of her womb when she is 8 months pregnant, since that is the law, Eh? There are unethical rules like voterless elections and immoral laws like legal SSM and abortion. Both should be opposed.

  4. Michael Kinsey says

    Mr linked into Zionist bankster families by 2 marriages, his and his daughter’s, compels my commonsense to expect the same bankster/Wall Street cronies to fill his cabinet, that Obama and Bush had. Freedom loving Christians won’t be dining in the White House, just dying in the military in defense of what little real freedom we have left? No dying in Corperation instigated acts of aggression for resourses for their fat wallets. There is no freedom worth killing and dying for here, This country is not Christendom, it’a the beast. Stop selling you children on the idea of killing for this country is a noble act of self sacrafice that Jesus Christ will honor. Santa Luchia would most definately disagree with saving the rich at the expense of the lives of the persecuted. Know ye not what manner of spirit Christ”s authentic servants have?

  5. This is just laughable. The Trump campaign gave out error-filled instructions to his supporters at the Colorado convention; Ted Cruz’ campaign did not because it was more disciplined and read the rules in advance. If the rules were clear to Cruz (hardly a Bush-style Republican) they were clear for Trump.

    Calling the Colorado Republican party rules unconstitutional is completely fallacious. First of all, the party is a private organization and ought to be able to pick its candidates however it likes. Secondly, for well over a century parties picked candidates with minimal democratic input. Smoke-filled rooms were the order of every convention up until the 1950s and 1960s.

    Now ask yourself – was the Constitution more respected or less respected in the days of smoke-filled rooms than it is today?

    • Uhhh, then who IS the “PARTY” ???? Some “delegates” no one knows. Not the electorate. So just scrap having an electorate register for a party since if they vote for someone the “delegates (party insiders special interest cronies for the corporate lobbies)” do not approve, they overturn the vote. If on other hand the electorate does vote for whom the “delegates” favor, well then isn’t that so nice, isn’t that just so “democratic.”
      All a charade.

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      First of all, the party is a private organization and ought to be able to pick its candidates however it likes.

      RESPONSE: Wow! Thank you, thank you, thank you for finally taking the mask off. Take a good look people. This is what an oligarchy looks like.

      Secondly, for well over a century parties picked candidates with minimal democratic input. Smoke-filled rooms were the order of every convention up until the 1950s and 1960s.

      Now ask yourself – was the Constitution more respected or less respected in the days of smoke-filled rooms than it is today?

      RESPONSE: James Madison wrote a pro-constitution editorial (known to history as Federalist 10), that described in prescient terms precisely why political factions are dangerous. When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.

      Again Thank you. America is awake now. You can take your ball and jax and go home.


    • We still have smoke-filled rooms running things. At least in the 1950s they were honest about it.

      Today’s smoke-filled rooms are dedicated to shaping public opinion and undoing it when it goes against them.

      I’ll let you judge which is more nefarious.


    “Except that Trump wishes the rules changes to be made inconsistently, which is even worse than what the RNC conspirators desire. He is all for proportionate representation in states where he got skunked, but he is perfectly happy with the Florida results, where he won all 99 delegates while only winning 46 percent of the vote, or South Carolina, where he was awarded all 50 delegates while only winning 32.5 percent of the vote. You can’t have it both ways, Donald.”

    • No Matt, Trump only wishes that you do not have “voting” like how you have in Colorado where no one even votes at all except “delegates” who are the party insiders. Also, Trump has hardly been “skunked” at all anywhere. Cruz other hand in many and plenty of places already whipped by the vote of the “electorate.” Has Trump even had a single, a “single,” third place finish? In terms of the popular vote Trump blows Cruz out, blows him out and from here the gap only widens further. RNC only wishes to do one thing at this point ….
      Hijack the election …. then the GOP loses an engine and crashes into a mountain.

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”
      ― Mark Twain

      Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.
      —George Carlin

      A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.
      —James Freeman Clarke

      Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide. —Joseph P. Kennedy

      Wake up America. Time to take our country back!


      • Michael Bauman says

        Ignoring for the moment that, politically, it is doubtful that it was ever our country: even if it was at one time we lost it about the time of the civil war. We lost it in bits and pieces to be sure, but we have been ruled by and for the benefit of the elite for a long time. It is just that now, they are so confident in their control, they don’t care if “we the people” know it.

        Here is a fascinating, to me, thought experiment: It is well known that JFK was elected President over Richard Nixon because some zombies from a couple of Chicago area cemeteries got up and voted under the control of Richard Daley, the First.

        Would a Nixon Presidency embroiled us in Vietnam? Nixon was not as much of a Wilsonian as JFK. He was corrupt to be sure on a personal level but his international policies were normally quite pragmatic, not as much driven by ideology.

        Our votes don’t matter, but the votes of zombies and illegal aliens do.

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says


          I agree with what you have said. Further, JFK did not do what the elites wanted him to do. JFK was elected over Nixon not because Nixon would not have given them what they wanted, but that JFK was picked over Nixon because the elites thought JFK could be controlled because he was so compromised in his personal life. When they discovered they could not control him through his personal and family piccadiloes they took him out on November 22, 1963 and America was lost that day and we have been losing ever since.

          Our collective cognizance dissidence could not believe then that our Republic started to fall then and by the time of Iran Contra was completely lost. Today we are finally awake enough to see the faces of our rulers and surprise, surprise we don’t like it.

          The Question now is: What are we going to do about it? OR Can we do anything about it?

          I don’t know, but we should try, we need to try. Let us at least try.


          • Michael Bauman says

            Peter, historically only mass protest and non-compliance has forced a change in government.

            I have heard, for instance if the states in the middle of the country, especially Texas were to secede, that would force a change. I don’t think that such an act would accomplish anything unless other countries went along with it AND the US military refused orders to fire on those who were defying the government. That they would is a fantasy, IMO. It would be too easy to create a blockade. The relative power of government weaponry vs private weaponry is too great.
            Besides all of those things are simply and eye for an eye. No difference in the end. Plus as recent history has shown plus our own history less recent, civil war ends up destroying everyone.

            A massive tax revolt might be effective but such things are difficult to organize and quite easy to break as the government can simply come in and confiscate all of your earthly wealth and put you in jail.

            The Christian answer is quite different than any of these and it was what overthrew for a time, until we started cooperating again, the Roman Empire: doing the will of God in all times and places out of love while being prepared to accept the consequences in joyful sorrow.

            Even with the ruthless efficiency of current national governments to search and destroy, they cannot possible destroy all of us. Somehow God manages to change hearts even among the wicked.

            While Romans 12:1 is talking about a lot more than facing tyranny I think it has application in this as well:

            I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

            The only way to truly overcome evil is through the Cross for as Timor/Edward reminds us–the lust of power drives the hearts of those who seek to govern, no matter what the external form.

            There is no external structure, system or morality that can stand against it. We humans are too weak. We are addicted to power. That is what makes the 1st step of 12 step programs so difficult: “Admit that you are powerless”. The demonic lie that “we will be as gods” still echoes in our hearts.

            Jesus Christ embodied the spirit of that 1st step when He said, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” John 5:30

            The question as I see in is not how to resist evil but how in this particular time, place and circumstance do we “do good”.

            That is neither apathy nor pacifism. Peacemaking as I understand the Greek (correct me if I am wrong) is a very active verb, perhaps translated as “doing peace”.

            As I read the Gospel, for what that is worth, our “doing peace” is encapsulated in the Beatitudes, Jesus words on the law and most certainly the Cross, the grave and the glorious third day resurrection.

            I don’t know that is possible to fight/resist and love at the same time. One is a refusal to recognize the good in the other while seeking to maximize one’s own “good”. Love on the other hand, Christian love, is the kenotic self-offering for the good of the other without consideration of our own.

            In any case our Lord commands us to “be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world.” It is He who fights for us, not the other way around. We are His sheep, not his guard dogs. Perhaps our Guardian Angel fills that role?

            Do something? Give alms*, rejoice always, forgive, worship the Most High God and repent.

            *Alms encompasses anything you do for another person simply because the other person needs something, over extending yourself in the process.

            There is much to ponder in these times to be sure.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          As Ronald Syme said in The Roman Revolution (1939):

          “In all ages, whatever the form and name of government, be it monarchy, republic, or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the façade ….”