Battle lines were drawn yesterday on talk radio following the Republican delegate convention in Colorado. The GOP of Colorado decided last August not to hold a caucus, or, as they called it, a ″presidential preference poll″. Many believe the reason for that decision was the sudden rise in popularity of Donald J. Trump, the rogue, self-funding candidate who is challenging the puppets of the Elites. Talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin quickly sided with Ted Cruz who allegedly won the 34 delegates of Colorado on Saturday. Limbaugh claims, ″Its not cheating, its winning!″ Only Michael Savage, host of ″The Savage Nation″, is standing up against ′Conservative Incorporated′ by calling on Ted Cruz to disavow the results and demand that an actual vote by the people take place.

I listened to some of the shows yesterday by Limbaugh, Savage and Levin. A number of people who actually did participate in the delegate process in Colorado called and voiced their experiences. Even some of those who are Ted Cruz supporters revealed what is obviously a rigged process for the selection of the state′s delegates. They told tales of being ′interviewed′ by their peers from the various precincts and districts. From some descriptions, it seems that some, if not many, of the 34 delegates selected for Ted Cruz were chosen by as few as a dozen or so people each through a two-stage process. Each precinct, typically with perhaps 8-10 representatives, chose two people to be advanced forward to their Congressional District level interview. From those chosen were the 34 delegates whom will represent Colorado at the GOP convention in Cleveland this summer.

There had been an earlier delegate selection event held about two months ago, where people would be chosen to participate in Saturday′s affair. Here is where much of the shenanigans began as many, mostly Trump supporters, were either dismissed immediately or were not informed where to go on Saturday. Some of those who had called into the various talk radio shows described how they attempted to contact their local party officials repeatedly and were never replied to. Some were even outright lied to, told by a precinct leader that they were not chosen but later discovered from a state GOP official that they were.

Limbaugh and Levin treated the whole affair as if it were nothing more than some arcane board game. The rules are the rules and must be followed, even if the rules seem to have been changed or misused mid-game. Only Michael Savage treated the process as a matter of principle. That the lofty concept of the voter franchise was being toyed with. We often hear the phrase, ″One-Man, One-Vote″. Some of us are familiar with the version akin with dictatorships, ″One-Man, One-Vote, One-Time.″ But the Republican Party of Colorado has broken new ground with ″No-Vote, No-Time″!

Forget the Constitution! We don′t need a copy of ″The Federalist Papers″, or even ″The Anti-Federalist Papers″ to know that there was something amiss in Colorado Springs this past Saturday! The state′s GOP party rigged this game from the get-go, fearing a repeat of the last couple of caucuses. In 2008, Colorado went for Mitt Romney, even when John McCain was the frontrunner. In 2012, they went for Ron Paul instead of Romney. So there does seem to be a bit of rebellion in Colorado, which may explain why there was no presidential straw poll during the first delegate caucus back on March 1. If there had been, Trump may have finished on top as a symbol of angst against the Establishment.

Do you agree with Michael Savage and The Savage Nation that Ted Cruz should reject the results of the Colorado delegate convention on Saturday and demand a real vote by the people? Or are you sedated enough to accept the sheepish response by guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin? The rules are the rules, even if they are changed mid-game. That such rules and laws, even if corrupt, are more important than higher principles? Haven′t we been told for decades that democracy is merely mob rule? That as ′small-r′ republicans we are better off allowing ′The Few′ to represent us? Ayn Rand once wrote an essay entitled, ″Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal″. Maybe we need a new essay, ″Democracy: The Unknown Ideal″?