Real Isolationism: Part Four

Real Isolationism: Part Four.

I have most recently addressed the similarities or lack thereof between Isolationism, Interventionism, and Noninterventionism on the subject of immigration policy, so now I will turn to such things as emigration, and international and domestic business or leisure travel. Before I get into that, I need to clarify a point.

And that is that temporary migrant workers who don’t renew their visa are not “illegal immigrants”. An illegal immigrant is someone who crosses the border unauthorized with the intention of living within those borders. A temporary migrant worker that has no criminal record, and is not in some way a tax parasite, yet who fails to comply with all the red tape should have the sympathy of not just libertarians who oppose bureaucratic meddling on principle, but of the entire working class, regardless of political ideology or personal income, because they know firsthand the cost in time, energy, and patience that bureaucracy exacts on their own lives. Whether its starting a business, paying taxes or fines, buying a home or vehicle, going to court, developing property, or having one’s “papers” in order, workers migrant and domestic face similar headaches.

Emigration

Pure Isolationism: Emigration from the United States, if even allowed, should be accompanied by banishment of that person as well as confiscation of property left within the United States. This serves to deter others from leaving and makes reparation for the expatriate no longer serving his country in some way (as a potential job creator, taxpayer, or cannon fodder). He is who he is because of his country, his people, and his government. He owes them. He is choosing not to contribute, so all ties with him should be severed. He is a traitor. Nations that allow former United States citizens to enter or settle should also face some sort of backlash.

Pure Noninterventionism: Emigration from the United States should be treated as the necessary outcome of failing to induce that person to stay. This is not to say that those who threaten to leave should be bribed to stay at everyone else’s expense, but simply that any nation that values the prosperity it associates with having more people in the work force should not discourage the practices that enable them to be productive. High taxes not only enslave income-earners against the dictates of morality, it causes them, against the dictates of practicality, to be less productive. Worse yet (for the society making such impositions), to seek to be productive elsewhere, in the hopes of not being punished for their successes. Low taxes both encourage citizens to remain and foreign entrepreneurs to draw near. This in turn helps to increase the productive capital of the nation, which brings in more revenue and more producers.

Pure Interventionism: The isolationist stance concerning other nations receiving some sort of backlash (because they have meddled in our affairs by being more attractive places to live or make money!) is correct. Rather than just worry about a few ingrates looking for greener grass, we should also be importing the American way abroad, through force if necessary. If this means colonizing islands in the Pacific, so be it. If it means cutting ties with nations that won’t take our tourists or allow our contractors and corporations to build bases and factories on or near their territory, so be it. If this means, literally invading and occupying that nation until they submit, so be it. If this means leaving a permanent outpost in that nation to make sure they don’t go back to their old habits, so be it.

Travel

Pure Isolationism: Travel abroad should only be allowed to trustworthy people traveling to trustworthy nations. Anything else would lead to mass defections. Domestic travel should not necessarily be impeded.

Pure Noninterventionism: People should be free to move about as they please for the reasons they choose. Government agencies should not photograph them in the nude, ogle, harass, hassle, grope or molest them in airports, seaports, rail stations, or road checkpoints. The same is true whether they are going to South Carolina or South Korea. If the mode of transportation is privately owned, the owner should make the decisions, whether he is driving himself across town, or flying his customers across the ocean. This means deciding who and what are allowed aboard, as well as the destinations.

Pure Interventionism: It is dangerous to let people move about unchecked. Government agencies should be vigilant and take action in any way they can to prevent all possible risks. Even people not in some way associated with terrorist organizations should be considered a threat. Better safe than sorry. If they are flying from Milwaukee to Denver, they should be scanned or pat down. If they are US citizens driving back into this country from Canada or Mexico, they should have a passport, even if it was not required to enter those countries. If they are flying to nations harboring terrorists, they should be put on a watch list. If their name happens to be the same as someone’s on a no-fly list, they should not be allowed to catch their flight until they are cleared. If they refuse to submit to lawful orders, even ones that might not be necessary or fair, they should be arrested or grounded. Businessmen and corporations should have special licenses to do business with or within nations such as Iran.

With emigration just as with travel policies, it should be clear that the two positions with the most similarities are Isolationism and Interventionism, which both seek to curtail the natural right to mobility for security reasons that are blown out of proportion, instead of looking for a solution that is not only more effective (because it is more discriminating), but upholds individual freedom. Noninterventionism, however, looks the right to protect one’s property and the right to self-defense in questions of security, such that all people are free to choose which risks or precautions they take without inflicting those inconveniences on others.

Real Isolationism: Part Three

Real Isolationism: Part Three.

Freedom of Movement is an essential human right. Apart from the obvious need to get away from people and conditions that are detrimental to one’s person or one’s rights, it also includes the right to go anywhere one desires for whatever reason provided someone else’s rights (most notably property rights) are not violated in the process. It therefore excludes trespassing and other possible types of physical intrusions. For those who accept the idea of the state, or more precisely, national boundaries, such physical intrusion might extend to invasion, or even immigration.

Given that foreign policies such as isolationism, interventionism, or noninterventionism are ideas that generally accept the notion of the nation-state, it may not even be necessary to address the allegedly purist libertarian/anarchist position that states that men are free to roam wherever they please, including in violation of immigration law, however lenient or stringent. However, within the scope of this piece, I maintain that it is possible to agree with the notion that immigration could be restricted without loosing one’s libertarian credentials. Note that when I use the word “restriction,” I don’t mean it in the sense that most would, just as some who use the word “regulation” understand that the Free Market can regulate itself without passing some harmful or useless piece of legislation.

My views (much like Obama’s on state sanctioned/imposed “marriage”) on the subject of immigration have been evolving over the last few years. Rather, they are in a constant state of flux, not evolving towards any decisive position in particular. I have yet to examine and weigh all the arguments for and against the various types of immigration.

Having come this far (pun intended) without doing much more than apologize for my myself, I will now broaden my focus. This is about ideologies and not just personal opinions. In this piece I will touch on the isolationist, noninterventionist, and interventionist positions on immigration, attempting to compare and contrast them, with the goal of showing which two foreign policy ideals have more in common.

Immigration

Pure Isolationism: Immigration into the United States should be strongly curtailed or eliminated. Laws in place that already do this should be enforced at all levels. Illegal immigrants should be severely punished or deported. Legal immigration should not be an option in most or all cases. Immigrants tend to have one or more of the following undesirable traits: They steal work from people who are already citizens. They bring their inferior culture with them and delude our own. Even if their culture is not inferior, it is still different and keeps them from assimilating. Many of them are criminals fleeing justice in their home countries. Others are in the service of their home nations’ governments, or at the very least, their interests and motives are questionable. More still are needy, disease-ridden, bug-infested refugees looking for a handout. Even those that come here temporarily to compete against our own workforce are guilty of the majority of these charges.

Pure Noninterventionism: Immigration to the United States should not be needlessly restricted. Some undesirable elements should be kept in check, but the greater proportion of these only exist because of other misguided policies, such as the war on drugs, the war on poverty, trade wars, and shooting wars, on our part and on the part of other nations. All other things being equal, immigrants come here to improve their own lot, and in so doing, that of society. They don’t want to feel unwelcome, so barring some policy that encourages or subsidizes their “acting out” or being a burden, they will assimilate and contribute. They will keep various aspects of their own culture, but on the whole, this will not be to the detriment of the rest of the nation.

Pure Interventionism: For the most part only people coming from friendly nations (those we have not bombed or placed sanctions on) and members of the opposition in countries we have cut off ties to, strained relations with, been in conflict against should be allowed to immigrate. And even they should go through every bureaucratic trial we can muster and be probed in every manner imaginable. They should be made to learn English and prove their economic proficiency. If they are good little voters, we will reward them with all the benefits that those born here have been bribed with to keep us in power and our policies in place. Those that step outside our comfort zone should be frowned upon, marginalized, or penalized no less (but perhaps more) than native residents who do the same.

As you can see, according to how I have described (I don’t try to disguise my bias to much and I hope that the reader can detect it) them, noninterventionism and interventionism both desire immigration. They both recognize that immigrants add to society more than they take away. The difference, apart from how they determine who can immigrate, is that noninterventionism thinks of that addition in terms of how it benefits the individuals that make up society, including the newcomers, whereas interventionism thinks of it in terms of how it benefits either the collective or the state, regardless of which or how many individuals are disenfranchised in the process.

Noninterventionism and isolationism both desire what is best for the nation, but the latter assumes that homogeneity is the end, and the former assumes that increased productivity and the fruits it provides to all are the end.

Isolationism and interventionism both tend to distrust ferners to some degree. They both look to antisocial, collectivist policies to enforce their vision of national composition. Neither ideology in its pure form ever considers the notion that people the world throughout are willingly capable of living in peace without severe limitations being placed upon them; that limitations stifle what is good, whereas their absence (the presence of liberty) facilitates it.

Therefore, as they regard immigration, isolationism and interventionism are close relatives, if not blood brothers, but noninterventionism optimizes the personal liberty and economic efficiency of both natives and immigrants.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay.

A couple months back there was this fad amongst Paullinators on twitter to hashtag Things Paul Supporters Don’t Say. I decided to jump aboard at that time and compose my own. Along the way I came across several good ones by other tweeps. I have been holding off from posting these to WordPress until a time when I was either out of other ideas or needed more time to work on other posts. Anyways, feel free to use these if you are a Paul Supporter on twitter.

These first several dozen are my own:

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Tread On Me

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #MiddleEast hates us for our #Freedoms

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: My #Vote doesn’t really count

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I’ll trade you some essential #Liberty if you give me a piece of your #Security. I deserve both.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: There are no #Lessons to be learned from #History

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #Freedom isn’t a fundamental #HumanRight

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: My #Government keeps me #Safe

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I kinda like #PolicingTheWorld

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #WTF?: What’s The #Fed?

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #Recession? What recession?

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I am not an informed #Voter

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Need some #Money quick and easy? Let me put you in touch with Ben #Bernanke.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We should be dropping #Money out of a #Helicopter
– #MiltonFriedman, #BenBernanke

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #PursuitOfHappiness is doing what #Santorum tells you to do

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: There is a fundamental difference between #Taxation and #Theft

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Too much #Liberty leads to #Chaos, and #Unregulated #Plunder

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: That #Hayek guy sure got it wrong. I mean…#Serfdom? Who is he trying to #Fool?

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We can #Tax & #Spend & #Borrow & #Beg & #Steal & #Inflate & #Lie & #Cheat & #Con our way to #Prosperity

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #Money actually does grow on trees

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I like #RonPaul, but his #ForeignPolicy…

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: There is a huge difference between the major #Parties on most #Issues
Re: #Republicrat #Democan

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! I need to pay more in #Taxes. I need to pay my #FairShare.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I’m #Undecided

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We can #KickTheCanDownTheRoad for another decade or so

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: R3volution/ #Revolution? We don’t need one of those. We just need a few ‘sensible’ #Reforms.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: But I’m sure that those other three mean well Re: Rick #Santorum, #Mitt #Romney, #Newt #Gingrich

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: My favorite #President is Franklin Delano #Roosevelt / #FDR

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: My favorite #President is Lyndon Baines Johnson / #LBJ

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: My favorite #President is #Woodrow #Wilson

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: My favorite #President is Theodore #Roosevelt / #TR

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: My favorite #President is Abraham #Lincoln / #HonestAbe / #DishonestAbe

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Let’s #Rob from the #Poor in rich countries to #Give to the #Rich in poor countries

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #TSA just #TurnsMeOn! Those rough, grubby, big, #Masculine hands patting me up and down! Baby! That’s Hot!

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I have nothing to hide. Therefore my #FourthAmendment #Rights are meaningless.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #World is a #Safer place thanks to #Bush

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #World is a more #Tolerant and #Peaceful place thanks to #Obama

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Bomb Bomb #Bomb Bomb Bomb #Iran

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I guess I’ll just be casting my #Vote for the #LesserOfTwoEvils again

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #PATRIOTAct is how a #Patriot would #act

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Things aren’t so bad

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We should each have our own #FEMA trailer

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #Party #Loyalty always trumps #Principle

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #CivilRights #Act of 1964 doesn’t #Violate the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth #Amendments

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Black people that like #RonPaul aren’t ‘down with the struggle’ enough

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #Southern #Poverty #Law Center rocks!

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #Extremism in the #Defense of #Liberty is a #Vice

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The more #Government we have, the better (R.W.E.)

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #NationBuilding is fun, easy, #CostEffective, safe, righteous, just, and moral. It’s a worthwhile thing to do.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I hate #BigGovernment. But I love the #FederalReserve, #SocialSecurity, and the #MilitaryIndustrialComplex.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #Moderation in the #Pursuit of #Justice is a #Virtue

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We are not an #Empire

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #RonPaul is a fearmongering idiot. So was #Cicero in Ancient #Rome. And #Jeremiah in Ancient #Israel.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #Constitution was written for #Racists, by racists.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #Life, #Liberty, and the #PursuitOfHappiness are the #Oppressive terminology of a bygone generation

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #SeanHannity tells me who to #Vote for

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #Rush #Limbaugh tells me who to #Vote for

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #MarkLevin tells me who to #Vote for

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #BillOReilly tells me who to #Vote for

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #GlennBeck tells me who to #Vote for

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #MichaelSavage tells me who to #Vote for

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I am a #Neocon #WarMonger

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: If #RonPaul wins, #AlQaeda and #Iran will overrun the #MiddleEast and wipe #Israel off the map

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I hope #RonPaul uses the office of the #President to shove his personal #Agenda down our throats

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The sign of a true #Leader is his ability to #Compromise his #Principles to get things done

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We need a #Majority to #Prevail. That #Keen, #Irate #Minority stuff is for suckers.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: #FreeMarkets only work properly if the #Government heavily #Regulates them

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: One #President I just can’t stand is Calvin #Coolidge / #SilentCal

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: One #President I just can’t stand is #GroverCleveland

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: One #President I just can’t stand is #ThomasJefferson

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I am not a #Terrorist. Therefore my #FourteenthAmendment #Rights are meaningless.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I am not a #Woman. Therefore my #ThirteenthAmendment rights are meaningless. Re: Women can’t be drafted.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: You can #Fool all #ThePeople all the time

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The message of #Liberty only appeals to sober #White #AngloSaxon #Protestant prudes & ninnies

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The message of #Liberty only appeals to #potheads, racists, conspiracy nuts, Palestinian expats, & subversives

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Whoever lays his hands on me to govern me is not a usurper nor a tyrant, and I declare him my friend (P.-J.P.)

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Yeah. #Republican #Deficits are okay because #Reagan defeated the #Soviet #Empire singlehandedly.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Well, if this #NDAA thing gets off the ground, I doubt they will put us in #Guantanamo or anything

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #Constitution is great, but come on, it’s a new era. Besides…it’s a living, breathing document.

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Give me #Servitude or give me #Death

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The #Constitution does not apply in times of #war as it does in times of #peace

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We should pay $100 WHENEVER the #FederalGovernment abuses its #authority. Why just at #airports?

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: What is wrong with a permanent #stateofemergency? Its not like our #rights are endangered! RE: #EO #NDRP

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: You have nothing to fear under #MartialLaw because you are not a #terrorist. RE: #EO #NDRP, NDAA

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I am politically correct: ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████. See?

#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: Vote for #███████!

These next several are  retweets. I wish I could credit their authors, but I don’t have the patience to look through millions of tweets.

RT: “That’s nice you’re devoted to the Constitution and all, but are you equally devoted to Israel?? –#ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: @CBlackTX I need the government to protect me from myself. #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: Why don’t we just print enough money for everyone? #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: Birth control is a right that the govt should provide me, like food, water, shelter and healthcare. #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay if #DrPaul doesn’t get the GOP nomination I’ll hold my nose and vote for #Romney #Gingrich or #Santorum

RT: The president’s job is to police the world. #ThingsRonPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: All Muslims are terrorists #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: Executive orders are cool. #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: Delegates don’t matter. #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay what’s a delegate?

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We’re satisfied with with the Status Quo

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: We’re not Apathetic, we just don’t care

RT: Guns, we don’t need no stinking guns #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: The Government can take care of it, that’s what we pay taxes for anyways.

RT: The Federal Reserve is awesome. #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: That @FoxNews is really honest, I’m glad they can be trusted because they’re “Fair and Balanced”.

RT: Liberty? Ehhh, who cares. Where’s my entitlements? #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay: I don’t mind paying taxes, because the Govt uses it wisely, and is looking out for our best interests.

RT: I trust Fox for all my news #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: Give me liberty or give me a handout. Whatever. #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay more “quantitative easing” please

RT: Who cares about support from the military? #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay

RT: #thingsronpaulsupportersDontsay got hired by #TSA today. Gonna vote myself Frothy! Shut up I have a badge. I’ve seen your kids naked

RT: #ThingsPaulSupportersDontSay Federal Agents arresting Raw Milk Farmers & terrorizing handicapped children & elderly at airports OK with me.

Real Isolationism: Part Two

Real Isolationism: Part Two.

In my May 7 post, I attempted to define the three basic schools of thought in American Foreign Policy. The three are isolationism (best manifested by economic protectionism and closed borders), noninterventionism (best manifested by free trade and diplomacy), and interventionism (best manifested by mercantilism and war). I gave some standard definitions as well as my own elaboration. At the end of the piece I asked a question. I will attempt to answer it in each of my next few pieces. The question is, Which ideology has the most in common with isolationism? Noninterventionism or interventionism?

I will start with a subject, be it commerce, conflict, immigration, or whatever, and state faithfully what the mainstream position of each camp is, contrast and compare those positions, and then, to the best of my ability, determine whether the noninterventionist position or the interventionist position is closer to isolationism. I will do all this in terms of what the policies are, as well as their consequences (intended or not), their ideological origins, and their underlying fallacies.

It is important to note that not all within each of these camps will always adhere to a specific position within their broader categorization.

Take interventionists. Some interventionists like bombing countries unilaterally. Others like to bomb countries multilaterally. Some like to bomb first, ask questions later. Others like to slap sanctions on, wait for the other side to react, and then bomb. Some like to bomb Muslims. Others like to bomb communists. Some like nukes. Others like more conventional arsenals. Heck, some don’t even like to bomb at all, ever. Why should they when there are so many other points at which they could intervene?

How about isolationists (assuming there are any)? Do they all want to slap tariffs on other nations? And if so, to “protect” certain industries, to counter some other nation’s tariff, or to prevent them from surpassing the United States in some way? Do they all want to shut the borders down completely? Or do some just want a fence with some amnesty and some deportation for those already here? And there are probably a few that don’t want a fence, just mass deportation and enforcement of laws on the books. How about that part of the 14th Amendment that grants birth right citizenship? Don’t some isolationists want to repeal that? All of this without even discussing the differences between undocumented aliens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants, which happen to all be different classes. Aren’t some isolationists able to detect these and other nuances?

And then there are the noninterventionists. They can’t really even have their own name! They are just anti-whatever interventionists are usually for, right? Rather, they are deceitful isolationists. Or so goes the conventional wisdom (an oxymoron if you ask me). And I know what else people are thinking. To them I counter: Au contraire, they most certainly are NOT all pacifists, anarchists, skinheads, and States’ Rights nutjobs!

Trust me. I know.

Ron Paul’s Delegate Strategy Dates

Ron Paul’s Delegate Strategy Dates.

These are the remaining primaries, caucuses, conventions, and committees for the 2012 GOP nomination. Not all of these are immediately relevant to Ron Paul’s delegate strategy, as many delegations in some of these states are already bound to candidates, even if the delegates themselves are not chosen. However, I presume that any and all of these delegate nominations could effect any voting at the Republican National Convention on second or third ballots, as well as changes in rules and other motions prior to the first ballot. If Ron Paul supporters are able to fill a good portion of these slots, any number of things can happen at the convention in Tampa.  

May 12

At Large State Delegate Convention for Oklahoma

May 15

Open Primary for Nebraska

Closed Primary for Oregon

May 19

At Large State Delegate Conventions for South Carolina

At Large State Delegate Convention for Minnesota

Congressional District and At Large State Delegate Conventions for Michigan

At Large State Delegate Convention for Georgia

Congressional District and At Large State Delegate Conventions for Vermont

At Large State Delegate Convention for Mississippi

Congressional District Delegate Convention for Kentucky

May 22

Open Primary for Arkansas

Closed Primary for Kentucky

May 23

At Large State Delegate Committee for New York

May 29

Open Primary for Texas

June 2

Congressional District and At Large State Delegate Conventions for Washington

At Large State Delegate Convention for Missouri

Congressional District and At Large State Delegate Conventions for Louisiana

June 3

At Large State Delegate Convention for North Carolina

June 5

Closed Primary, Congressional District, and At Large State Delegate Slates for California

Semi-Closed Primary for New Jersey

Closed Primary for New Mexico

Closed Primary and At Large State Delegate Slate for South Dakota

Open Primary for Montana

June 9

At Large State Delegate Convention for Illinois

Congressional District and At Large State Delegate Convention for Indiana

Congressional District Delegate Convention for Arkansas

At Large State Delegate Convention for Kentucky

Congressional District and At Large State Delegate Convention for Texas

June 10

At Large State Delegate Committee for Pennsylvania

June 16

Congressional District and At Large State Delegate Conventions for Iowa

At Large State Delegate Convention for Virginia

At Large State Delegate Convention for New Mexico

Closed Caucus and At Large State Delegate Convention for Montana

June 19

At Large State Delegate Committee for Massachusetts

June 23

At Large State Delegate Convention for Idaho

At Large State Delegate Convention for Oregon

At Large State Delegate Committee for Arkansas

June 26

July 14

Congressional District and State At Large Delegate Convention for Nebraska

Dates To Be Determined

At Large State Delegate Committee for Florida

Congressional District Delegate Convention for Virginia

Congressional District and At Large State Delegate Committees for Hawaii

This is also on the DailyPaul here.

Primaries Tonight

Primaries Tonight.

Indiana closed its polls at 4 PM. Romney appears to have won by a wide margin despite it being an open primary. Romney 64.10%. Paul 15.35%. Santorum 14.12%. Gingrich 6.43%. The at-large state and congressional district delegates will be elected at conventions on June 9. Indiana is a no-allocation, winner-take-all state (I am not sure if this is according to the primary or the convention, and if it is state-wide or on a district by district basis). It has 3 superdelegates (who are party officials and can do whatever they want), 16 unbound at-large delegates selected at the state convention, and 27 bound congressional district delegates selected by district conventions. Paul could possibly garner a sizable portion of these if the winner-take-all rule is not state wide.

North Carolina closed its polls at 5:30 PM. Romney appears to have won by a wide margin. It was a semi-closed primary. Romney 65.74%. Paul 10.90%. Santorum 10.39%. Gingrich 7.14% No Preference 5.14%. The at-large state delegates will be elected at convention on June 3. North Carolina is a proportional state. It has 3 superdelegates (who are party officials and can do whatever they want), and 52 bound at-large delegates selected by the state committee. Paul will likely take a few delegates given that there are more than 50 of them and he came in second place.

West Virginia closed its polls at 5:30 PM. Romney appears to have won by a wide margin. It was a semi-closed primary. Romney 69.57%. Paul 11.90%. Santorum 11.38%. Gingrich 6.16%. Roemer 1.00%. The at-large state, congressional district, and bonus delegates were directly elected on their candidates’ tickets. West Virginia is a no-allocation state. It has 3 superdelegates (who are party officials and can do whatever they want), 1o bound at-large delegates, 9 bound congressional district delegates, and 9 bound bonus delegates (who are basically the same as at-large delegates). Paul could have done well in this state were it not for the direct election of delegates, as West Virginia was a no-allocation (Paul’s advantage in Indiana) state and was not a winner-take-all state (Paul’s advantage in North Carolina).

Paul’s chances in Indiana and North Carolina are probably fairly good. His chances in West Virginia are dismal. However, some of the Romney delegates may yet turn out to be Paul supporters. Unless the Paul supporters among Romney’s delegates abstain on the first vote (which they may do if their state does not prohibit it and if the current Republican National Convention rules [notably rule 38, which luckily has been in place since 1964] are not adversely amended), Paul’s only chance at the nomination is a second or third ballot, i.e., a brokered convention.

There is much debate about whether a delegate can abstain and/or vote their conscience even on the first ballot even if their state binds them. I really am not sure what to think, but according to this piece, which I read a few days ago,

“As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.”

Or as Paulestinian rp4pres on the DailyPaul put it,

“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by ANYYYYYYYYYYY attempt of any state or congressional district to impose the UNIT RULE which is RULE 15 that allows the states to bind their delegates.”

This is also posted here at the DailyPaul.