Is the RNC lying to us?...or, what now folks?

There still seems to be some disagreement of who should be the RNC candidate for 2012. This discussion's not about the candidates!

It's about published rules. It's about ignoring said rules. It's about unequal application of rules! Also, about disenfranchisement of voters. And documents certain untruths.

Perhaps it's also about where we shall go from here....can we trust the RNC in the future to follow the will of the voters?

Let us begin:

In a Press release, April 1010 the RNC Announced the 2012 Presidential Nominating Schedule Committee rules.  In a nutshell, the published rules are as follows:

1. The four carve-out states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina may begin their processes any time on or after February 1, 2012.
2. The remainder of the states may begin no earlier than the first Tuesday of March 2012. 
3. Any state (other than the four carve-out states) that conducts its process prior to April 1, 2012, must allocate its delegates on a proportional basis.
4. Any state that violates this Rule will lose 50% of its delegates, alternate-delegates and potentially face many other penalties.

This takes us to violations in SC and N.H. as well as Fla..  RNC chairman Reince Priebus's statement @ http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/10/25/gop-chairman-flori..."However, as a consequence, South Carolina and New Hampshire will also be stripped of half their delegates for the Republican National Convention"

These carve-out states are also defined in  2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf, an earlier document referenced later as well, below.

A misstatement by Chairman Reince Priebus?

Doubtful..clearly stated in both documents. In modern English. Not in "Legalese"

How do the present total delegate counts compare, by applying the RNC's established and standing rules? I ran a quick spreadsheet: the output lines of which follow:

The general council is referencing the 2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf, an earlier document and is choosing  selected references only.... and only one the applicable clauses of rule 16! Without referencing the clauses, either... But let's look briefly at the 2008 document...

Among the clauses misapplied would be South Carolina's halving of delegates, in defiance of 15.(b)(1)

• (1) No primary, caucus, or
  convention to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to
  the national convention shall occur prior to the first
  Tuesday in March in the year in which a national
  convention is held. Except Iowa, New Hampshire,
  South Carolina, and Nevada may begin their processes
  at any time on or after February 1 in the year in which a
  national convention is held and shall not be subject to
  the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this rule.

The RNC council also misstated on Tuesday when he said " In addition, the RNC Rules Committee imposed every available discretionary penalty ..." Reference is made to

• Any state (other than the four carve-out states) that conducts its process prior to April 1, 2012, must allocate its delegates on a proportional basis.
• Note also that  "carve out states" have been injured to greater  extent than the State of Florida, disallowed by the RNC rules to occur before March 6!

Perhaps he didn't lie, since this is a mandatory  penalty that was not applied, not discretionary!

To say that the RNC lacks control....they retain the authority to not seat them, hotel location, guest privileges,VIP passes and everything, really!See 16.(e)(3) for starters.

One can find many, many direct infractions of the rules, in both publications. All I will say is that we are being lied to repeatedly in these matters. You can read or take my word for it....I've provided links,  references, quoted passages and so on.

There's a lot more...I'm just not going to waste my time or yours further at this time! This post is simply getting too long. I've edited out about half of the information

Summary:

• The RNC is applying rules in an arbitrary manner. Rewarding some States while denying others their fair representation, in defiance of RNC's own published rules.
• Delegate allocation to date appears to be a reversal of the actual front-runner totals, while denying   full representation to the 3rd and 4th place candidates.
• In all States to date, the RNC's positions have been in favor of a single candidate, without regard to the desires of the citizens of these Several States. While no proof of intent exists, misstatements at the top party levels are documented above and demonstrated to be false.
• Is it now time to discuss the formation of a party for Conservatives? While I have railed against such an idea, it appears plain the RNC wishes us only for our votes.
• I ask that this discussion not degrade into candidate bashing! Let us focus on the Republican Party! Is the RNC representing the will of Conservatives?

What say you?