A
strategic proposal written by Joseph A.
“Joe” Glean, former candidate
for the Virginia General Assemby
(2011) and former state chairman
of Virginia For Alan Keyes
(2008).
____________________________________
ALEXANDRIA, VA · As
we’ve now entered those final,
critical weeks leading up to the 2012
general election, I am praying that God
will — in some remarkable way —
enable his people to raise a candidate in
Virginia, worthy of Christian support.
Like many pro-life, pro-family, moral
conservatives, I wish to vote in
November. But
as it stands, Virginia voters remain
deeply disfranchised, many having been
duped into believing their vote might as
well be thrown away unless it is cast for
one of those two “foreign
princes” being run for president by
the political parties.
At this very hour, voters across the
nation are being compelled to abandon
their allegiance to God and country, and
to instead embrace the doctrine of
“party.”
We are being advised — by operatives
on both sides of the bus — to cast
aside our commitment to God’s
righteousness, and to instead consign
ourselves to the prospect of blind
obedience to the political establishment.
This strategy, however, is not at all
consistent with our guiding principles.
For the past several months, I’ve
found myself continually having to remind
friends and neighbors throughout Virginia
that the founding charter of our
Commonwealth begins by acknowledging the
supremacy of our moral
sovereignty . . .
—
that
standard of Right,
common to all human beings, which
“the laws of nature and of
nature’s God” require all to
respect.
—
that
standard of Justice,
established to ensure equal protection
for all, without regard or exception
to any particular class, condition, or
circumstance.
—
that
standard of Truth,
which God has so plainly revealed
to mankind (within the natural order of
things), “that men,” the
Scriptures assure us, “are without
excuse.”
In fact, our rightful claim to the
doctrine of moral sovereignty was
considered so integral to the American
concept of freedom that it was even given
a name. It
was branded the “blessings of
liberty” — a fitting
appellation, is it not?
The
saying was coined by George Mason,
embraced by the Virginia Convention of
1776, and specifically cited in the
Preamble of the Constitution [in 1783],
where it was intended to communicate the
foremost presupposition of natural law
— that we cannot, by any compact,
deprive or divest our posterity “the
enjoyment of life and liberty” or
the means of pursuing and obtaining
“happiness and safety.”
In other words, we are not permitted
under natural law to deny anyone
their moral sovereignty, not even our
own posterity!
Excerpt
from G. W. F. Mellen,
“An Argument on the
Unconstitutionality of
Slavery”
(Boston: Saxton &
Pierce, 1841), pg. 258.
As it stands, however,
there are many who wish to deny this
standard of right. They
are determined to keep it pinned under
the oppressive thumb of Barack Obama. Or
worse yet, they would just as soon
subject it to the likes of Mitt Romney.
No matter which of these two is declared
the winner come election day, the outcome
will represent yet another successful
assault against those
“inalienable,”
“self-evident,” God-given
rights, guaranteed to each and every one
of us under the Constitution.
In my humble opinion, the good citizens
of the Commonwealth of Virginia need to
stand up NOW and take
constructive action, while our freedom to
do so yet exists.
If you are reading this
and would like to exercise your right to
challenge the political parties and their
outright abuse of the electoral
process, I invite you to have a look at
some of the ideas presented in the
articles below.
If you feel led to join us
in this endeavor, please drop me a line
by e-mail (or join me on Facebook) to let
me know of your progress.
An
overview of the tragic situation
faced by voters in Virginia.
Let me begin by saying I do not
pretend to be an expert in the
field political science, not by
any means. However, in recent
years, I’ve felt it my duty
to refresh and sharpen my
knowledge in this field, given
the age in which we live. As John Adams
wrote in 1780, “I must study
politics and war, so that my sons
may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy.”
Earlier this year, when Virginia
held the GOP primary, it was an
opportunity for all to see just
how impossible the political
parties have made it for voters
to draft and run a candidate of
their own choosing.
Among a field of at least ten
prospective Republican candidates
nationwide, only two of them were
permitted ballot access in
Virginia. And when it was
announced that those two
“select” individuals
would be Mitt Romney and Ron
Paul, I think it became clear to
anyone possessing any shred of
political discernment that the
fix was in for Romney to take
Virginia.
Alan
Keyes’ commentary on
the “scam”
electoral process.
Spurred
on by what many of us have
perceived to be an unjust,
corrupt, abusive rigging of our
electoral process, my most recent
studies have kept me busy,
searching for a solution to this
dilemma. My research has
led me to discover that there
does indeed appear to be a way
for Virginia voters to slate a
grassroots candidate at the
ballot-box, and to do so in such
a way that it would qualify the
candidate to receive equal
consideration at the Virginia
electoral college.
In view of this possibility, I
think it’s safe to say that
I happen to share the hope of
many throughout the Commonwealth
who simply wish to see the
electoral college work the way it
was intended to work, by allowing
ordinary citizens to bypass the
political parties, the media, the
money people . . . basically,
every group and every force out
there determined to deny Virginia
a true Reagan American at the
ballot box.
That’s
precisely why I’ve decided
to go ahead and broadcast this
information to the public,
beginning right here in Virginia.
What I propose is a
constitutional approach to the
electoral process that would
enable good Christian folks on
the grassroots level to slate a
candidate of their own choosing
— an approach that would
effectively return the electoral
decision to its rightful place,
taking it out of the hands of the
political elite, and putting it back
in the hands of ordinary
citizens.
Understanding
how votes placed at the
ballot-box are tallied up in a
presidential election.
In Virginia’s presidential
elections, when a vote is cast
for a particular choice of
candidates (the party nominee and
his running mate), each vote is
basically split up thirteen ways,
being dispersed to each of the
thirteen electors nominated to
represent that particular choice. The candidates,
themselves, are not permitted to
receive votes directly. And it’s done
this way by constitutional
requirement. Only the electors
are enabled, under our
Constitution, to receive votes in
a presidential election.
“The qualified voter at a
presidential election shall mark
the square preceding the name and
party designation for his choice
of candidates for President and
Vice President. His ballot so
marked shall be counted as if he
had marked squares preceding the
names of the individual electors
affiliated with his choice for
President and Vice
President.” — Virginia
Code § 24.2-644B
Write-in votes are basically
tallied the same way, with each
vote being dispersed to each of
the thirteen electors nominated
to represent the choice of
candidates named on the write-in
ballot. (Virginia Code §
24.2-644C)
Understanding
how representation [cf.,
affiliation] is established
between a particular choice of
candidates and their electors.
For the purpose of dispersing
votes from the ballot to the
electors, Virginia law employs
two possible methods of
establishing representation [cf.,
affiliation] between an elector
and a particular choice of
candidates:
(1) An
individual elector may
establish it himself
[without having to obtain
the express consent of
the nominated candidates]
by filing Form
SBE-501(1)/542 (Rev.
11/09), through
which he declares his
desire and willingness to
represent a specific
choice of candidates, and
(2) the
candidates may establish
it on their own [without
having to obtain the
express consent of the
nominated electors] by
filing Form
SBE-644 (Rev. 4/11), through
which they declare their
desire and willingness to
be represented by
whichever thirteen
electors they so
nominate.
In a situation
where one particular elector is
nominated [cf. pledged]
to represent more than one choice
of candidates, the elector
becomes rightfully and lawfully
enabled (and thereby obligated)
to represent each choice equally,
under Virginia law. And at the
electoral college, rather than
being limited by the constraints
instituted by the political
parties, such an elector would
have the flexibility to
accomplish what the position was
actually meant to accomplish. He would have the
ability to carefully weigh the
options and, as it would be hoped
(according to God’s enabling
grace), render the best choice
for Virginia.
A
strategic proposal for ordinary
citizens who wish to slate a
grassroots candidate at the
ballot-box.
I intend to spend the next couple
of weeks encouraging ordinary
citizens throughout the
Commonwealth of Virginia to look
among their pastors, fellow
congregants, and peers, so as to
draft and recruit the assistance
of those individuals who best
represent the heart and soul of
our nation’s founding
principles, and who thereby
exemplify the essence of good,
republican leadership.
Together, let’s endeavor to
nominate as many true Reagan
Americans as we can muster,
giving our greatest consideration
to those individuals who believe
in the preeminence of God’s
authority. Those who
recognize the sanctity of human
life. Those who
understand the importance of
preserving our nation’s
moral sovereignty. Those who
acknowledge the true supremacy of
our “inalienable,”
“self-evident,”
God-given rights. Those who wish to
preserve our nation’s
time-honored doctrine of
independence and religious
freedom.
Unless and until we’ve made
it our practice to only support
candidates of such upright
character at the ballot-box, what
reason shall you or I ever again
have to celebrate the results of
an election? — Especially
given our present state of
affairs, in which it has become
strangely acceptable for the
outcome to be dictated to us in
advance.
For the past several months
we’ve been told repeatedly
that the winner of this upcoming
election shall either be Mitt
Romney or Barack Obama, and that
no other candidates ought to be
taken into consideration.
If this
prophecy should indeed come to
pass, then perhaps we ought to
begin asking ourselves, What
purpose does the general election
now serve except to ratify
a choice that someone else has
already made for us, long before
the ballot ever entered our hand?
Alan Keyes
asks: ‘On what
grounds are voters of
conscience expected to
prefer Romney over
Obama?’
We are
not alone in saying that the
outcome of the 2012 presidential
election has essentially been
engineered in advance. And to the extent
that it has been, I suppose the
casting of our ballot will then
have nothing to do with the
advertised objective of
“choosing” or
“deciding” our next
president.
In reality, there is no longer
any purpose for our participation
in this ritual, except to
demonstrate the public spectacle
of reverence and submission to
those in power. In the old days,
our forebears were expected to
bow before the king. Today, we are
expected to bow before the
political parties.
But we have an opportunity in
2012 to set things straight. As God-fearing,
liberty-loving patriots, we must
reject both of these phony
“choices” engineered by
the political parties. And we must
exercise the right to construct our
own choice.
After all, here in Virginia, we
see no victory in voting for that
“select” candidate who
we are told in advance will win. We believe,
rather, that the victory comes
only when ordinary citizens are
enabled to bypass the political
parties and each is enabled to
exert their moral influence. Not necessarily
for the sake of winning the
election, but for the sake of
honoring our allegiance to God.
Please be aware that the time
remaining for us to take action
is rather limited. I am including the
key dates. And for what
it’s worth, I will even
providing copies of the required
candidacy forms, pre-filled as
much as possible.
Byler
/ Putbrese ELECTORS -
AT - LARGE
Frye
/ White ELECTORS -
AT - LARGE
In the
instructions below, I intend to
provide all of the information
needed to allow Virginia voters
to slate a grassroots candidate
at the ballot-box, and to do so
in such a way that it would
qualify the candidate to receive equal
consideration at the Virginia
electoral college.
My recommendation is that you
plan to submit two Joint
Declaration forms on behalf of
your chosen candidate, each
containing the name of a stand-in
Vice-Presidential candidate (for
provisional purposes only).
[We will
discuss the purpose of this more
in Step Three.]
On the
first declaration [which
would include the name of
Vice-Presidential
stand-in #1], you will be
cross-nominating the
“Byler / Putbrese”
electors [the group of
electors pledged
(currently) to the
Republican party.]
On the
second declaration [which
would include the name of
Vice-Presidential
stand-in #2], you will be
cross-nominating the
“Frye / White”
electors [the group of
electors pledged
(currently) to the
Democrat party.]
The
deadline for this filing
is Saturday,
October 27, 2012.
Byler / Putbrese ELECTORS -
AT - LARGE
Frye / White ELECTORS -
AT - LARGE
In so
doing, regardless of any oath or
promise these electors may
believe they have made before the
party bosses, pledging themselves
to consider only one choice of
candidates (the party choice), to
the exclusion of all others, this
filing will have the effect of
releasing them from any such
oath, and relinquishing them from
the bonds of any such pledge. In effect, you
will have helped to liberate
these electors from any imaginary
bonds placed on them by the
political parties.
By cross-nominating both slates
of electors, it will basically be
giving your candidate full
coverage across the board,
without “putting all of your
eggs in one basket,” so to
speak. Whichever slate of
electors wins the vote on
election day, you will have
essentially qualified your
candidate to receive equal
consideration at the electoral
college.
In the event your candidate is in
any way kept from obtaining equal
consideration at the electoral
college, no matter which party
claims to send it’s electors
to Richmond, you will have
established the necessary legal
standing to challenge any such
devilry, provided it can be shown
that your choice of candidates
was indeed slated by the voters,
which brings us to Step Two.
Step
Two:
Your choice of candidates must
be slated by the voters at the
ballot-box.
[This is essential!]
This can be accomplished with
just two write-in votes. One to slate your
choice of candidates who are
represented by the “Byler / Putbrese”
electors. And one to slate
your choice of candidates who are
represented by the “Frye / White”
electors.
Where a particular choice of
candidates has received no votes,
such candidates ought not be
taken into consideration by any
elector (according to my humble
opinion), since it would
represent a choice of candidates
not directly slated by the
voters.
But where
a choice of candidates has indeed
received votes from among the
electorate, even if it were only
one single vote, accompanied by
no others throughout the entire
state, any elector winning the
general election, who is
affiliated with that particular
choice of candidates [according
to the proper filing of Form
SBE-501(1)/542 (Rev. 11/09) or
Form SBE-644 (Rev. 4/11)], would
be both qualified and obligated,
in good faith, to give that
choice equal consideration at the
electoral college.
Step
Three:
Encourage your candidate to start
thinking about a
Vice-Presidential candidate. Perhaps you could
even offer a few suggestions.
After the general election [but
before the electors cast their
final vote at the electoral
college on December 17, 2012],
substitution of a different
candidate Vice-Presidential
candidate is permitted. Ideally, this
should be done before the
electoral ballots are printed up,
but so long as the VP pick is
announced prior to casting of
votes at the electoral college, I
believe this requirement will
have been satisfied well enough.
For the sake of clarity, I
recommend the use of two
different Vice-Presidential
stand-in candidates when filing
each of the two Joint Declaration
forms [Step One]. In order for the
write-in vote to be counted, the
Virginia SBE will need to have
some way of differentiating
between the two filings.
Under normal circumstances,
it’s enough for voters to
simply write-in the name of the
Presidential candidate, and to
leave it at that. But in order to
ensure that at least two
qualifying votes are counted on
behalf of your candidate, and
that they are counted properly,
the write-in votes will each need
to include the name of the
Vice-Presidential stand-in who is
directly affiliated with the
electors intended to receive that
vote.
So long as someone (at least one
person) in Virginia were to cast
a vote clearly naming your
candidate and [Vice-Presidential
stand-in candidate #1] (from the
first declaration that
you’ve filed), it would
qualify your candidate and his
running-mate to receive equal
consideration at the
electoral college, in the event
that Virginia decides to call it
for the Republicans.
Likewise, so long as someone (at
least one person) in Virginia
were to cast a vote naming your
candidate and [Vice-Presidential
stand-in candidate #2] (from the
second declaration that
you’ve filed), it would
qualify your candidate and his
running-mate, in the event that
Virginia decides to call it for
the Democrats.
Meanwhile, your candidate would
reserve the right to name a
different running-mate, anytime
between Monday, November 26, 2012
(when the Virginia SBE meets to
ascertain the results of the
presidential election) and
Monday, December 17, 2012 (when
the electors meet to cast their
vote at the electoral college).
My advice to every candidate
following this method would be to
name their official running-mate
on Tuesday, November 27, 2012,
and to spend every waking moment
from that moment until Monday,
December 17, 2012, campaigning to
ensure that Virginia’s
electors are aware that they will
in fact have a choice to make
when they arrive in Richmond to
cast their votes at the electoral
college.
