Hurrah!

They were being excessively disruptive. Hovering, very closely, with very loud shutters (which on most DSLRs can be muted), and for longer than necessary to collect the desired photos.

The minister has the right to refuse to officiate a spiritual and religious contract if he finds that the parties involved are not participating appropriately. Moreover, he has a moral responsibility to refuse.

1) Not all ministers are paid for the services – in fact, in many circles it’s a rare occurrence.

2) The photographers can do the rest of their job throughout the remaining 6-9 hours of festivities.

3) The minister is not merely providing a service. He is conducting a ceremony for which he recognizes an eternal burden.

4) Many ministers are wisely setting arrangements in early stages dictating exactly where photographers may stand during ceremonies – if they’re permitted during the actual ceremony itself at all. Should this have been done beforehand? Yes. Should he blamed for not having previously imagined that photographers would be so rude that they would hover 1-2 feet behind his head with unmuted cameras? No.

5) Does he retain the right to refuse to participate in a religious ceremony that violates his conscience? Yes.

If you have a religious ceremony rather than a secular ceremony, the religious leader runs the show. In Christian weddings, the couple to be married are not purchasers of a service, they are petitioners of and participants in a service. The minister was correct; the photographers were atrociously rude.

Her argument is sound: recruiters use your profile to identify the best of your colleagues and employees, and the best of your network are either your direct competition for your next job or at risk of being lured away by another company. Donna therefore instructs executives how to “keep [recruiters] focused on your profile and avoid steering [recruiters] to a heap of other contenders for your next job.”

Don’t do it. Not a speck of it.

Employers who try to hide their teams and networks will lose in our continually changing workforce culture. Yes, recruiters will compete for great employees. They will do so – are doing so – regardless of employers’ veils. Employers who champion great team members are employers who attract and retain great team members. Colleagues who recognize and rejoice in others’ great work are people with whom others want to work – and whom great employers want to hire.

The decision to shroud or bring to light one’s team runs much deeper than a LinkedIn profile. This is a matter of your preferred work/life culture.

If the jobs you seek or the workplace you cultivate is severe and, for lack of a more friendly term, cutthroat, then yes – set your LinkedIn profile to obscure your colleagues and employees. Team obscuration fits some workplaces. I won’t cast moral judgment on that as it’s a pragmatic approach to a realistic scenario.

I do reject that culture for my career. Have I lived it? Certainly – but those situations weren’t the right job fit.

Why? That’s not the preferred work/life culture of Millennials. Hiding your team out of fear risks hiding what could be your great personal assets. I want the recommendations I write for my colleagues, employers, and employees to be public. I want my teams and prospective employers to see, know, and analyze what I think. I want an employer who knows that I am constructively analytical. That I am aware of the efforts of others. That I stand for what is right.

Just as importantly, team obscuration is not the work/life culture fostered by present and future technology. Go ahead, hide your LinkedIn recommendations. Hide your contacts. Hide your project partners. I’ll still find them. Any talent recruiter or sourcer operating at such a level will have access to LinkedIn Recruiter, and we’re savvy enough to see with whom you’re working despite your profile settings.

Equally important, if I’m considering accepting an interview or job to work with you… you’d best believe that I’ll find that info before we ever meet. I’ll also find your private social media profiles. I will find your Instagrams of breakfast and your newly painted toenails. I will find the Google Street View of your house (weed your gardens, people). Welcome to technology, friends.

What I won’t find, if you follow the instructions in Donna’s article, is any evidence of you as a human being I want on my team. I won’t find evidence of your interpersonal analytical skills. I won’t find all the people in your life who think you’re amazing. I won’t find you using the tool at hand – LinkedIn – as the innovative, multifaceted social environment that it is.

Shape your LinkedIn profile to accurately reflect you… and the work/life environment you cultivate. Champion your team.

Connect with me on LinkedIn. My email address is hello@lorienjohnson.com. Read the recommendations I’ve written… I’ve been blessed to work with some incredible people. While you’re at it, read the rest of Donna’s blog, AvidCareerist. You’ll find extraordinarily helpful insights for jobseekers, including a great explanation of why you should accept and display endorsements from others!

Her theory?
“A neighbor is a far better and cheaper alternative to government services.”

She recognizes that government is inherently inefficient. She also recognizes, and has proven with Code for America, that private voluntary action is efficient.

One of her examples is of an app designed by a Boston bureaucratic office.
“Boston doesn’t just have a call center. It has an app, a Web and mobile app, called Citizens Connect. Now we didn’t write this app. This is the work of the very smart people at the Office of New Urban Mechanics in Boston. So one day — this is an actual report — this came in: “Opossum in my trashcan. Can’t tell if it’s dead. How do I get this removed?” But what happens with Citizens Connect is different. So Scott was speaking person-to-person. But on Citizens Connect everything is public, so everybody can see this. And in this case, a neighbor saw it. And the next report we got said, ‘I walked over to this location, found the trashcan behind the house. Opossum? Check. Living? Yep. Turned trashcan on its side. Walked home. Goodnight sweet opossum.'”

Her conclusion? We should become “bureaucratically active” in order to change the game of government. Bureaucracy is inefficient. Private voluntary action is efficient. Our current system of governance is bureaucracy. Therefore, let’s volunteer to participate in bureaucracy!

Such an enormous logical gap!

This is akin to Communist China applying limited “capitalism” to its economy while prohibiting who can engage in that economy and how. This is akin to NAFTA applying “free trade” that is anything but (to paraphrase Ben Powell, it doesn’t take hundreds of pages of regulations to say, “let’s just trade.”). The root problems are not solved. The problems are compounded.

The Code for America apps are exceedingly clever. They demonstrate the efficiency and natural brilliance of spontaneous order. The nature of government is to stifle spontaneous, voluntary behavior. Why? Because government operates on control.

The United States were deliberately constructed to minimize control by establishing mere framework within which individuals could voluntarily operate without being violated by others. We’re light years away from that concept now… in fact, in many ways we are less free than China, Cuba, or Russia. How? Bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is fundamentally opposed to voluntary action. Bureaucracy is governance by non-elected officials. Those officials are paid by funds taken involuntarily from private individuals under threat of imprisonment and/or theft of property.

In the Boston example the solution is simple. Question: how much waste went into the Office of New Urban Mechanics? Every penny invested into the system that enables the freedom of opossums is taken forcibly from individuals. This sounds dramatic, but let’s get real – it is dramatic.

Pahlka is 100% correct in her assessment: “A neighbor is a far better and cheaper alternative to government services.”

So let’s empower neighbors. Let’s release Code for America apps – and others! – into the open market. Let’s create private, voluntary mechanisms to allow people to govern their own lives and solve local problems. Do not shackle these mechanisms by bureaucracy. Pahlka proves that it can be done.

Do it.

Challenge accepted.

Share!

Tonya called the police when a man caused massive property damage and invaded her basement while another man was at the side door of her house. Her dog chased the successful intruder out of the basement and the other man ran away. The police arrived at the scene, did not dust for prints or conduct similar investigatory measures, and did not even file a report.

Hours later, the next morning, Tonya spotted a man climbing over her backyard fence and into her yard. She shot at him. He fled. The police arrived shortly thereafter and, according to Tonya, told her that she had done the right thing.

This time they did file a police report – and charged her with criminal use of a weapon.

They did not even tell her that she was charged with the misdemeanor. She only found out when the investigative reporters asked her about the charge. The police now claim that she told them that she fired into the ground as the home intruder was fleeing the scene – she denies both the action and the statement. The police did not find the casing in her yard, and they did not bother searching the grounds beyond her fence.

They just charged her. With a crime. For defending her home. When they were too lazy and irresponsible to file a report about the home invasion from which her dog had saved her just hours before the second attempt.

Contrast this story with an event in Texas in which Vic Stacy, a regular fellow, – albeit an awesome shot with an awesome name – entered a lethal shootout, made three incredible 165 yard shots with a pistol, and saved an officer’s life. Stacy is recognized in Texas as a hero, whereas in Kansas Tonya Beck is charged with a crime.

Kansas City – rally behind Tonya. Demand justice. Contribute to her legal fees. Be polite and be firm. Tonya is a hero who justly used her Second Amendment rights.

Thank you, Tonya, for not being a victim. Thank you.

If you are already familiar with Twitter, click here to skip the intro.

We’ve all heard about Twitter to some degree. Folks who have not yet seen Twitter have probably heard that it’s where people announce what they had for breakfast, as if it’s all narcissistic and trivial. Admittedly… it happens. But it’s usually ironic. Or artsy. People like to take pictures of their food. I don’t know why. Just ignore it. Unless you, also, like to take pictures of your food, in which case… um, enjoy.

Ordinary people are using Twitter to change the course of history. Sounds like hyperbole, sure – but it’s true. Journalists and analysts are keeping close eyes on trends in Twitter because the service provides second-by-second picture of what’s happening all over the world.

On the smaller scale, one normal person can spend an afternoon and develop an audience of one or two hundred people. A few afternoons can result in hundreds more. Even more casually, one person with just a handful of an audience can help raise the profile of his cause or candidate just by mentioning them by name. Although that person might only have ten people reading them directly, Google and other companies’ automated system will notice mention of that candidate and automatically consider that candidate a little more more important.

How to Get Started
Go to the Twitter website and make an account. Choose a username that is easy to spell, not too long, and easy to remember. After you sign up, Twitter will walk you through some simple steps to get started.

Basic Terminology
On Twitter, you subscribe to someone by “following” them; others on Twitter will subscribe to you by becoming your “follower”. You can refer to another person directly with @username. My username is lorienjohnson, therefore anyone who wants to refer to me or speak to me directly would type @lorienjohnson in the message. That username also becomes the link to one’s direct page. For example, I can be found at http://twitter.com/lorienjohnson

For more introduction to Twitter, go to their Twitter 101 Guide. It’s clear, simple, and will answer your questions!
 
A candidate’s online exposure increases every time her name is published. Google and other companies judge entities – people, causes, websites, etc – by how frequently they are mentioned online. Want to help your candidate?

1. Talk about them. Mention them by name. Use their username! For example,
“I just read @MyFavCandidate in the Kansas City Star! John Doe is really committed to representing us and protecting the Constitution.”

Simple. No research or creativity needed. Just say what you think. Because tweets are limited to 140 characters, you are freed from having to sound clever. Just mention your candidate by name!

2. Use hashtags. What are they? Read what Twitter says.  Some of the popular hashtags is #tcot – “top conservatives on Twitter” or #tlot – “top libertarians on Twitter”. This helps people searching for conservative and/or libertarian information see your tweet. Do the same for anything relevant for your area, and make your own. Use your congressional district, even. For example,
“@MyFavCandidate is debt-free. That’s who I want in Congress. #fiscalresponsibility #MO2 #tcot #teaparty”

3. Retweet your candidate. If she says something on Twitter, click the “retweet” button that looks like circular arrows. One click and you’ve just made their day a little bit brighter. Nice.

4. Take pictures at events and post them to Twitter. This is extremely helpful. This shows your community that a) your candidate is active and working hard, and b) you care enough to be there to help your candidate in person! Many ways to do this exist. If you use a smartphone, then your basic Twitter app will let you take and post a picture. Personally, I frequently use Instagram because it lets me either let the picture stay as-is or make it look prettier if my phone’s picture wasn’t impressive the first time, and more importantly it lets me post the photo to Twitter and Facebook at the same time. Download and install the Instagram App from your smartphone’s app store. Read Instagram’s guide to taking and sharing photos. Make sure you include the candidate’s username / name and relevant hashtags in the caption. For example, here is a tweet that I once sent from an event for a candidate I support. Click it to view full-size. Note, I should have mentioned @JacobTurk in the tweet to maximize exposure!

5. Increase your audience. If you’re doing the simple steps above then you’re helping your candidate in a significant way. If more people follow you, then you’re helping your candidate in an exponentially bigger way. Start by going to your candidate’s Twitter and clicking on their “Followers” in the upper right area of their Twitter page. This will show you a list of who is following your candidate. Follow those people.  You have a shared interest in that candidate so you likely have other shared interests or values. As you interact with them on Twitter by replying to them or retweeting what they say, their followers will take notice and start to follow you too. Do the same for the Twitter for your region’s Tea Party groups, liberty-oriented clubs, newspapers, bloggers, businesses… and your numbers will grow. This article explains the basic principles of increasing your audience.

An hour spent getting started on Twitter gives you the ability to take one minute out of your day to promote your candidate or cause. How many minutes do you spend complaining – justifiably! – about your government? Commit to spending one of those minutes on Twitter to help your candidate win the election.

One man – Ron Paul – has had the funding, patience, and grassroots support to not give up. Paul is winning caucuses not only due to the diligence of his own supporters but also due to the alliances made between other minority candidates. When the conservatives have worked together, Ron Paul has won. It’s time for the conservatives to unite behind him to defeat Obama.

Curious about how Ron Paul compares with Mitt Romney? A breakdown of Gun Rights, Life, and National Defense:

Gun Rights

Gun Owners of America has given Romney a D- ranking and Paul an A+. Romney has the worst ratings across the pro-gun community of all of the GOP candidates from the 2011-12 primary cycle.

GOA on Mitt Romney:
Gun Rights and Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney Won’t Take Stand on UN Guns Treaty

Where Does Romney Stand Today on the Second Amendment?

GOA on Ron Paul:
Rep. Ron Paul: A Second Amendment Champion

Rep. Ron Paul – A+ Voting Record

Life vs. Death by Abortion

Romney has a long track record of supporting and funding abortion. He started to publicly shift positions when he hit the national stage, but then he waivers back and forth. Extremely inconsistent. I haven’t checked out this organization, but this website’s list of his track record is awesome: Mitt Romney, Former Gov. of Massachusetts (R), Tier 4 – Personhood Never

That same site, however, does give very inaccurate portrayal of Ron Paul’s positions on life, so I’d take it with a grain of salt. Glancing through their list of Romney’s votes it looks accurate. They don’t seem to understand Paul’s constitutional method. Paul and Santorum have a public disagreement regarding how to stop abortion. They work towards the same goal, but the difference is in approach.

Rather than pushing for a federal ban on abortion that a) probably won’t happen, b) will take years more to happen if it does, and c) increases federal government power, Paul has a two-pronged approach. First, Paul has introduced to the House the Sanctity of Life Act, which takes away federal authority from abortion. If passed that would overturn Roe v. Wade immediately. Dr. Paul is a Baptist, an OB-GYN from the Houston area, and has delivered over 4,000 babies. Paul says that abortion is murder – always, no exception, it is murder. Murder is a state crime. If we give the federal government authority over it, then a) they have the power to legalize it again, and b) we make abortion a different legal classification from what it is – murder, plain and simple.

Step 1 – make it a state issue so that it can be properly classified as murder at the state level. This worries a lot of folks, because what if a state does not consider it murder? First, it’s easier to get a state to consider it murder than it is the federal government. Second, with the exception of California and Massachusetts, if I recall correctly, each of the states is significantly more pro-life than the federal government. My extremely pro-abortion constitutional law professor – who was brilliant, lovely, and very kind to me as a conservative student even though we completely disagreed on abortion – taught us that abortion MUST be kept a federal issue… because, except for CA and MA, every time a state gets control of the abortion issue it results in tougher abortion laws. As more states get control, abortion is increasingly prohibited. The only thing that bars most states from banning it is Roe v. Wade – which Paul’s Sanctity of Life bill would overturn.

Step 2 – Personhood amendments. Paul supports amendments to the U.S. and state constitutions that would define life as beginning at conception.

The net result of this approach would be rapidly decreased access to abortion, more rights of the states to classify it as murder, no federal interference, and as soon as constitutional amendments of personhood are passed in individual states and nationally, a 100% prohibition of abortion and classification of it as murder. Not just a prohibited medical action, but murder.

Paul also, it must be noted, opposes any funding of Planned Parenthood, including for contraception. I don’t know about Gingrich or Bachmann on that one, but I know that Romney and Santorum both either supported (Romney) or voted for (Santorum) funding Planned Parenthood.

Military and National Defense

Ron Paul has the strongest position on national defense, secure borders, and taking care of the military. He is the only military veteran running for president. He was U.S. Air Force and National Guard, served on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and when he was drafted he did not claim the available exceptions… he went anyway.

He has more private donations from active military personnel than all of the other candidates – all those who have dropped out included – combined.

He uses the more accurate terminology by differentiating between “overseas military” spending and “defense” spending. In the past few decades these have been combined in terminology and in congressional bills, but Paul holds to the traditionally conservative approach. Paul wants to withdraw from the United Nations. Paul wants no U.S. troops under foreign leadership. Paul does not want to interfere with other countries by using our military to destabilize or police other countries… no Libya involvement, no Syria involvement, no Uganda, no Sudan, etc. If our national security is not directly threatened, we should not be involved. It violates the Constitution, bankrupts our country, and abuses our troops.

Instead, Paul wants to massively ramp up our national defense. He has been pointing out for years that our country is very insecure. He wants to open NEW bases in the U.S. He wants to adequately and efficiently fund our bases… instead of the $1,000,000,000 dollars spent on the Iraqi embassy. He wants to pull our troops out of unnecessary foreign locations and put them on our borders… keeping in mind that he’s a Texan, Paul wants to fully secure our borders.

The other big factor that has to be addressed, and this is again a strategic decision that is widely debated among conservatives like us, is how can we most effectively support Israel. Paul was the only elected official who stood up against Congress in 1981 to defend Israel’s right to defend herself as she sees fit. Paul loudly supports Israel’s national sovereignty and rights to defense. We use our foreign aid as a leash to keep Israel in line… and Paul says that’s wrong.

Foreign aid is itself unconstitutional and bad foreign policy – the Constitution says that tax dollars can only be used to the direct purposes of the taxpayers. The federal government is NOT authorized to take money from Americans at gunpoint and then send it to other countries. Foreign aid is inefficient, because it usually goes to local bureaucrats and warlords – look at Africa and the Middle East! – instead of the people in need.

Dr. Paul points out that even though we give foreign aid to Israel – and use it to prevent Israel from defending herself – we give several times that amount in foreign aid to Israel’s neighboring enemies. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel does not need American money or American troops… all Israel needs is the freedom to defend herself without American interference. Paul agrees with Netanyahu. Paul’s strategy is to stop all foreign aid to all countries. That’s one of the major ways he has committed to cutting $1 Trillion in the first year and balancing the budget in three years. Stopping foreign aid will cut the leash that America uses to choke Israel, and stopping foreign aid will immediately cripple the economies of Israel’s enemies… because our American dollars are keeping those countries alive and thriving. If we cut our aid to them then they will have to use their money to survive, not to attack Israel or fund terrorists.

As for the war on terror, Paul has the most direct, most effective, least expensive, and most constitutional solution. Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The Constitution authorizes Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. We don’t do this because it is banned by the UN – and Paul says the UN has zero authority over America, Congress, and America’s military. Paul would allow Congress to pay mercenaries to terminate specific targets. He called immediately for such a process to take out Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders. Had we followed Paul’s advice, we would not have needed the type of ground campaign and national building programs that we have had… and we would eliminated Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations years faster. We and Israel would be much safer and much wealthier had we listened to Ron Paul’s advice from the beginning and reject the United Nation’s control.

I am exhausted. I am under-rested. I am ridiculously behind in my final class. I am scraping together my shekels to last through my first paycheck of my upcoming job. I cannot decide whether my love of the classroom and library is greater than my burnt-out will to study. I grieve for the mental illness of a beloved, aged relative. I fear that I am insufficient. I live outside my well-rehearsed plans.

and I am indwelled by joy.

My parents led a total of 31 Christians, mostly teenagers, through the streets of a Texan town yesterday. 1,300 families were invited to participate in a fresh ministry and a loving church family. 31 people reached 1,300 families. 1,300.

My friends each stand at the precipice of new life-points. They each face, in different ways, those points at which they are choosing to move forward and surrender to the future in spite of their fears.

My fellow patriots spend their waking hours calling for liberty and denouncing tyranny. We are succeeding. We will not cease.

In two days I collect the keys to my new home. In five days I watch a friend complete one of her dreams. In ten days I begin the most important job of my career thus far and will spend the next six months striving to unseat an agent of tyranny. In thirteen days I graduate from seminary.

In this moment I am in a forest with laptop and books, very tired and busily working, and I am indwelled by joy.

More importantly, it bakes up to a very crispy-crunchy snack with no gluten or starch. Brilliant.

1. Wash and dry oodles of kale. Really dry.

2. Chop the leaves off the hard stem and try to keep the leaves in fairly medium-large pieces.

3. Toss with olive oil and sea salt. Alternatives: add lemon juice, garlic powdered or minced, or other spices. I add enough oil to coat the leaves. I used an extra virgin olive oil that’s flavored Tuscan Herb to add an Italian taste.

4. Arrange on a non-stick cookie sheet (or sheet plus parchment paper). Single layer!

5. Bake at 300 degrees for 10-25 minutes. The time depends on the amount and type of kale. Just poke it and see. If it’s mushy, keep baking. The leaves will shrink up and darken, and if you bake it too long (like I always do, with everything) they turn brown. The flavor just gets a little smokier as it bakes so the brown kale chips are fine.

6. Store in a zip-loc or mason jar. Enjoy!

Further summary is needed to really explain what happened at the end of the caucus that resulted in the Beat Obama slate. I’ve spoken to the Chair, several delegates, and many attendees in order to compile the most accurate report possible.

The Credentials Cmte. reported 1012 people present, but the highest vote – the one for the election of the chair – only had 970 votes. That’s our starting point of voters present: 970.

The day began with approximately 375-400 Ron Paul supporters. Some are confused because over 550 stickers were passed out to ID Ron Paul supporters. However, the team ran out of one type of the Paul stickers and two people were counting. Sticker types were switched and the stickers that did not state Ron Paul were accepted by non-Paul supporters. The sticker counting system failed and was discounted. The door click system was more accurate, and the team’s best count indicated approximately 375 Ron Paul supporters.

Numbers dwindled throughout the day. The best count tracked these walk-outs/early departures: 80 Santorum, 60 Romney, 12 Paul, and 5 Gingrich. By the final vote the total number of people voting was 768.

The final delegate percentages agreed upon by the 768 votes were:
To the State: Paul 73% ; Romney 27%
To the 5th District: Paul: 44% ; Romney 56%
To the 6th District: Paul: 100%
Alternates: Paul 100% to the State, 5th, and 6th.

How did that deal, the Beat Obama slate, come about?

The Romney and Santorum leaders both approached the Paul leaders about two weeks ago. The local Paul team rejected them completely. After 17 March and the debacles seen then, when Romney and Santorum camps approached them again, they discussed a plan B – a compromise slate – at the Monday night Ron Paul strategy meeting open to Paul supporters.

This group of about 25 people who have been leading the Ron Paul movement in Kansas City with their blood, sweat, and tears, decided that between Santorum and Romney, Santorum was the most dangerous “to the concepts of liberty”. Therefore, they agreed to dialogue with the Romney camp about a possible compromise slate. Later in the week leaders of the local Paul strategy team met with the attorneys from the Romney team and hammered out a compromise.

The deal was strictly a Plan B. Plan A was a full Paul slate. If it was possible to pass Plan A, then Plan A would be voted on. If, however, Plan B was voted upon and lost, then the Romney camp would not agree to Plan B and would go to their Plan C – a deal with the Santorum camp. Therefore, the ultimate decision on the floor of the caucus was down to EITHER pass Plan A OR pass Plan B… and no second chances. If they tried Plan A and lost, they would forfeit ALL delegates because Romney would switch to Santorum.

Even if we’re generous and say that 400 Paul supporters were present at the final vote, that 400 was not the 2/3 necessary to pass the vote (51%) and close the meeting (2/3). The Paul camp did not have sufficient votes to pass Plan A, a full slate.

Also important: two men separately nominated the Ron Paul Constitution slate. Neither of them had been to any of the Paul strategy meetings.*

The first gentleman had good intentions. The Ron Paul slate had been distributed to Paul supporters earlier in the day and had been well-promoted by the team. When it came time to nominate slates, the Paul team captains had already determined that the numbers meant that the 100% Paul slate could not pass. They could not tip their hand to the full room and inform the Paul supporters of every detail, and the first man who nominated the Paul slate wanted to help. Team members spoke with him privately to see if he had additional names to add that would flesh out a second slate and safely give two Paul-centric slates. He did not. He withdraw the slate nomination.

The second man who nominated the Ron Paul slate was a Santorum supporter. He was still wearing his Santorum sticker. He was deliberately trying to divide the Ron Paul vote. He was publicly challenged by the Chair to declare whether he had a full slate of delegates for the RP slate he has nominated. The man didn’t, clearly, and he said as much. His slate was therefore rejected as it was invalid.

The Chair, Mark Anthony Jones, asked each of them if they had a full slate of delegates and alternates. They both said they did not. They had not prepared slates with names of delegates.** These were the two Paul slates that were withdrawn/rejected.

The Paul team had to decide between the compromise slate with Romney that was a definite majority of delegates for Paul, or risking getting no delegates for a slate that was incomplete when they did not have the necessary votes to pass it. The Paul team chose to take the compromise and they won the overwhelming majority of delegates for Paul.

The Romney camp would not have voted for a full Paul slate because they knew they could make a deal with the Santorum camp and get delegates. The Romney votes were far too slim to win anything on their own, but were necessary for either the Paul or Santorum camp to get delegates. Paul had more supporters present than the Romney and Santorum camps individually, but not a 2/3 majority overall.

Today was the best possible victory for Paul supporters in today’s caucus given the number of people present. The team did well. The Chair was honorable and answered the Santorum camp’s concerns. Robert’s Rules of Order were followed. Recordings were permitted.

Ron Paul won the delegates fairly and honestly. Well done, Jackson County!

*   Edited: 04:05PM EST, 3/35. Clarified and expanded situation surrounding the nominations of the Ron Paul Constitution slate.
** Edited: 11:00PM EST, 3/24. Possible inaccuracy removed.