Republican Politburo Denies State Committee Members to be Heard

Ani­mals in the wild appar­ent­ly know where food can be found, even though they can­not speak to each oth­er in a man­ner humans might under­stand. It might be cer­tain acute ani­mal sens­es, per­haps detec­tion by smell, or taste or hear­ing, or changes in tem­per­a­ture, that allow wild ani­mals to sur­vive in harsh envi­ron­ments most humans could not, some­how receiv­ingknowl­edgeof the where­abouts of nour­ish­ing food­stuffs hid­den among a harsh envi­ron­ment.

But it could also beknowl­edgecon­veyed through unspo­ken, spir­i­tu­al means, which con­veys guid­ance to ani­mals, to help keep them alive, per­haps even flour­ish­ing when snow-cov­ered ground, and intol­er­ant con­di­tions seem to have an advan­tage.

Some­how, for exam­ple, my dogs know when my wife turns into the sub­di­vi­sion sev­er­al blocks away. When she does, one or both com­mon­ly awak­en from slum­ber, leap­ing from their tuffets, has­ten­ing toward the back door, antic­i­pat­ing that Mom­my will soon be walk­ing through it, and she will be. They are always right. I take that as all the proof I need of a spir­i­tu­al con­nec­tion between ani­mals and the cir­cum­stances of their envi­ron­ment, some­how afford­ing themknowl­edgeaccord­ing to uni­ver­sal laws humans sim­ply can­not con­ceive.

If ani­mals did not have the abil­i­ties to gain the kind ofknowl­edgeI ref­er­ence, they would per­ish. So, obvi­ous­ly, even though we humans may not under­stand it, what Im say­ing must be true. With­out strate­gicknowl­edge, and the abil­i­ty to use it, ani­mal life would per­ish in the wild.

Share

And the same can be said about humanknowl­edge. The prof­it Hosea may have said it best, com­mu­ni­cat­ing through time, My peo­ple are destroyed for a lack ofknowl­edge, impress­ing on human­i­ty the neces­si­ty of con­tin­u­al­ly learn­ing all that it can in order to sur­vive in the nat­ur­al world.

Hav­ing made the case that an ever-increas­ing body ofknowl­edgeis essen­tial for human sur­vival, since that axiom has proven true, does it not fol­low that the abil­i­ty to destroy human­i­ty rests, at least to a cer­tain extent, on lim­it­ing the avail­abil­i­ty ofknowl­edgeto to the gen­er­al pub­lic? Of course it does.

Since Amer­i­c­as found­ing, and espe­cial­ly over the past sev­er­al decades, prac­ti­cal­ly all areas of gov­ern­ment have under­tak­en to secrete many of their activ­i­ties and inten­tions from becom­ingknowl­edgein the minds of the peo­ple for whom gov­ern­ing bod­ies osten­si­bly exist. I have no need to jus­ti­fy that claim as it is obvi­ous to any Amer­i­can with a sound mind and a smart phone. Why so many secrets?

The gov­ern­ment will tell you these secrets are nec­es­sary to main­tain nation­al secu­ri­ty, all the while open­ing the bor­ders to allow any for­eign adver­sary, drug car­tel mem­ber or street thug to walk unac­cost­ed across Amer­i­can bor­ders, and remain per­ma­nent­ly hid­den from future account­abil­i­ty from the laws gov­ern­ing such things. Thus, we know the need for gov­ern­men­tal secre­cy also includes the need to cov­er up cer­tain gov­ern­men­tal mal­in­ten­tions.

I used to warn my US Rep­re­sen­ta­tives NOT to par­tic­i­pate in clas­si­fied brief­in­gs. I did this, in essence, in an effort to save my lit­tle por­tion of the repub­lic. I say it that way because for your rep­re­sen­ta­tive to sit in on clas­si­fied brief­in­gs, he or she must sign an NDA, a non-dis­clo­sure agree­ment. That means, if he dis­clos­es any­thing he learns in that brief­ing, the full force of the US Gov­ern­ment could crash down upon him. But I would not con­vey that kind of advice to these peo­ple for their own good as they should know bet­ter any­way. I would do it for my own. That is because, as soon as your gov­ern­men­tal rep­re­sen­ta­tive can no longer tell you the truth, as sign­ing an NDA requires,he or she also can also no longer rep­re­sent you. You would not lie to your­self, would you? Of course not. But with respect to the gov­ern­ment, YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IS YOU. Thats how a repub­lic works. Its imper­fect, but the best humans can do. I no longer waste my time hav­ing this con­ver­sa­tion, as my rep­re­sen­ta­tive is Rich McCormick, who would nev­er con­sid­er such advice any­way.

In Amer­i­ca, the build­ing blocks of our rep­re­sen­ta­tive form of gov­ern­ment, that repub­lic I spoke about ear­li­er, are each indi­vid­ual. Although George Wash­ing­ton warned of cer­tain ill effects on soci­ety should it devel­op, in order to amass enough polit­i­cal pow­er to affect the man­ner in which our lev­els of gov­ern­ment func­tion, the par­ty sys­tem empow­er­ing a col­lec­tive of indi­vid­u­als, unfor­tu­nate­ly became inevitable. And because that sys­tem became so cen­tral to the man­ner in which indi­vid­ual can­di­dates for pub­lic office would be select­ed, it also became impor­tant to leg­is­late var­i­ous basic rules by which each par­ty would, and should be held account­able to the peo­ple they serve. In the case of Geor­gia elec­tions, that body of law is found underTitle 21Elections.

The rea­son these oth­er­wise pri­vate orga­ni­za­tions must be sub­ject­ed to an entire body of law, as opposed to, say, an Elks club, is that these insti­tu­tions known as polit­i­cal par­ties, are the ramp-way orga­ni­za­tions empow­ered to recruit, cul­ti­vate, devel­op and nom­i­nate can­di­dates for offices in the gov­ern­ment. That is all they do. Thus, in essence, these polit­i­cal par­ties are not pri­vate at all. They are the on-ramps of our repub­li­can form of gov­ern­ment. In Geor­gia, Title 21 pro­vides a foun­da­tion of require­ments these orga­ni­za­tions must abide in order to remain polit­i­cal par­ties rec­og­nized under law. Main­tain­ing that sta­tus under Title 21 is the entry require­ment for a polit­i­cal par­ty to gain access past the gate-keep­er autho­riz­ing names on elec­tion bal­lots. He or she would be the Sec­re­tary of State.

Recent­ly, it became com­mon­ly under­stood among the mem­bers of one of Geor­gias great polit­i­cal par­ties, the Repub­li­can Par­ty, that cer­tain exec­u­tive offi­cers elect­ed by its mem­bers in the past effec­tive­ly changed the por­tray­al of the orga­ni­za­tion away from that of a Title 21 Polit­i­cal Par­ty, to that which is leg­is­lat­ed under law as a Title 14 Cor­po­ra­tion. That is an impor­tant dis­tinc­tion because Title 14 cor­po­ra­tions areimpart­ed no access to place can­di­dates on a law­ful Geor­gia bal­lot, defeat­ing the very pur­pose of a polit­i­cal par­ty under law.

The pub­lic­i­ty sur­round­ing that appar­ent breach, or per­haps par­tial breach of Title 21 require­ments, appar­ent­ly led those who run the par­ty to meet in secre­cy this week­end to dis­cuss what to do, nev­er mind­ing the fact that the so-called cat is already out of the bag. In so doing, rather than effec­tive­ly oper­at­ing the orga­ni­za­tion as one might a polit­i­cal par­ty under a repub­lic form of gov­ern­ment, those pre­sid­ing over the meet­ing effec­tive­ly took the assem­bly into polit­buro mode as one might imag­ine under the old USSR or Com­mu­nist Chi­na.

Hav­ing met in a pri­vate clas­si­fied brief­ing, or what they call, exec­u­tive ses­sion to dis­cuss the cor­po­ra­ti­za­tion of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, and pos­si­ble solu­tions there­to, such that no attendee might breathe a word of that which was revealed, Repub­li­can mem­bers and vot­ers all over the Geor­gia were denied the rep­re­sen­ta­tion a repub­li­can form of gov­ern­ment guar­an­tees. In accor­dance with the oper­a­tion of any sovi­et or Chi­nese polit­buro, no points of order nor res­o­lu­tions regard­ing the man­ner of deal­ing with the polit­i­cal party/corporation issue were allowed from the floor.

But per­haps Repub­li­can vot­ers can take solace, not­ing that the indi­vid­u­als they elect­ed to rep­re­sent them are so very qual­i­fied in their sta­tus as mem­bers of the State Com­mit­tee, that their acu­men in such things dwarfs any abil­i­ty of rank and file par­ty mem­bers to think, or to present fresh ideas for par­ty exec­u­tives to con­sid­er, ideas which might solve a prob­lem which has fes­tered year after year, with no appar­ent solu­tion, even to the extent that a State Com­mit­tee mem­ber would issue a gen­er­al state­ment, order­ing each out­spo­ken mem­ber toshut your mouth and sit down and wait for announce­mentson the mat­ter. Shut up. Sit down. Wait. Sounds a bit like com­mands one give a dog, does­nt it? Well, that is the state of the enti­tle­ment atti­tudes some Repub­li­can State Com­mit­tee mem­bers pos­sess in rep­re­sent­ing Geor­gia Repub­li­cans.

The fact that the par­ty chair­man would lead the group into exec­u­tive ses­sion, pre­vent­ing any knowl­edge from the meet­ing to escape and become pub­licly known, is just anoth­er exam­ple of how the peo­ples gov­ern­ment attempts to lim­it the pub­lic from know­ing what it is doing. It was not as vital that what­ev­er knowl­edge being con­veyed dur­ing the polit­buro ses­sion be con­fined to the group, as it was to hide the pro­ceed­ings from those they rep­re­sent. Geor­gia Repub­li­cans should heed the prof­its warn­ing and rise up ques­tion­ing the pro­ceed­ings of this week­end, and demand an account­ing. Accord­ing to the State Com­mit­tee per­son issu­ing the shut-up order above, the exec­u­tive ses­sion was not secret because it was videoed. Well, then, lets see it.

Cer­tain reli­able report­ing did, how­ev­er, come out of the meet­ing, con­cern­ing an ill-con­ceived motion to endorse Don­ald Trump for Pres­i­dent BEFORE the Geor­gia Pres­i­den­tial Pri­ma­ry. The motion evi­dent­ly did not pass, as it should not have, giv­en that sev­er­al of the can­di­dates paid the required, option­al $25K to get their names on the bal­lot. Why would such an ill-con­ceived motion have been forth­com­ing?

Final­ly, if you are inter­est­ed to know who these peo­ple com­pris­ing the Repub­li­can State Com­mit­tee are, so would they! There is no pub­lic infor­ma­tion avail­able in that regard. The lack of infor­ma­tion regard­ing the iden­ti­ties of State Com­mit­tee mem­bers is yet anoth­er instance of the Repub­li­can Par­ty Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee dis­re­gard­ing Title 21 law, specif­i­cal­ly OCGA 21–2‑110(a)(5) which requires that the names, address­es and titles of those com­pos­ing the State Com­mit­tee, which is the “gov­ern­ing com­mit­tee” of the par­ty, TO BE PUBLIC INFORMATION. That is for some very good rea­sons. First, Repub­li­can State Com­mit­tee mem­bers need to know who their fel­low mem­bers are so that they can dis­cuss pol­i­cy and pol­i­cy ini­tia­tives togeth­er, infor­mal­ly, out­side of a Roberts Rules set­ting. Sec­ond­ly, mem­bers of the Repub­li­can Par­ty not on the com­mit­tee must know who rep­re­sents them on the com­mit­tee such that the same kinds of dis­cus­sions and com­mu­ni­ca­tions can occur. That is what rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ment is all about. As plugged-in as I am in these mat­ters, I am ashamed to say that I have no idea who rep­re­sents me on the State Com­mit­tee. And I ven­ture to say, most Repub­li­can vot­ers, each of whom are poten­tial, card-car­ry­ing, con­tribut­ing Repub­li­can Par­ty mem­bers, have no idea such a gov­ern­ing com­mit­tee even exists.

A reli­able source recent­ly told me that State Com­mit­tee con­tact infor­ma­tion has been with­held for non-nefar­i­ous rea­sons, detail­ing that some­one on the State Com­mit­tee had his or her iden­ti­ty stolen, and thus, the pow­ers decid­ed to with­hold that infor­ma­tion from every­one, a pol­i­cy caus­ing much frus­tra­tion. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, that rea­son does not wash because, for exam­ple, any­one who wants my con­tact infor­ma­tion has lit­er­al­ly dozens of web-based resources to con­sult in order to dis­cov­er it. And I find it at least iron­ic that the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee would with­hold mak­ing the infor­ma­tion about which I speak pub­lic, as the law demands, osten­si­bly due to fear that mem­ber’s iden­ti­ties might be stolen, when they appar­ent­ly have no prob­lem that the iden­ti­ty of the entire Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty for which they have been entrust­ed to exe­cute pol­i­cy, has been stolen, appar­ent­ly com­plete with its Fed­er­al Tax ID#, and unlaw­ful­ly assigned to a pri­vate, cor­po­rate enti­ty, its donat­ed funds appar­ent­ly trans­ferred to that enti­ty with­out the per­mis­sion of its con­trib­u­tors, its rules over­writ­ten to effec­tive­ly take on the iden­ti­ty of that cor­po­rate enti­ty, the very exec­u­tives to whom I refer now oper­at­ing that pri­vate cor­po­rate enti­ty, por­tray­ing those two unre­lat­ed enti­ties, a polit­i­cal par­ty under one title of law, to be one and the same with a cor­po­ra­tion under a dif­fer­ent title of law, while they hide the iden­ti­ties of the mem­bers of the gov­ern­ing com­mit­tee of the for­mer enti­ty from each oth­er so that none of them have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to dis­cuss this sit­u­a­tion out­side of the set­ting of an exec­u­tive ses­sion under Roberts Rules. Yes, isn’t that just per­fect irony? I must tell you, I love irony.