The “Legion,” Anarchists at the RPT Convention

I’m working on a couple of blog posts concerning the controversies that occurred at the 2012 Republican Party of Texas held in Fort Worth last week, but thought I’d report on the oddest event of the week, which happened during the last few minutes of the Convention.

All week a small group of young men and women who claimed to represent college and high school students testified in several subcommittees (including the one I served on, the “Family, Life, and Health” subcommittee) and then at the full Rules and Platform Committees.

For the most part, the group members were super-serious and neatly dressed in suits and skirts or dresses. They all used very much the same language, telling us that we shouldn’t run off all the young people with our platform. They testified that college-aged voters have ‘moved on' and that we were dividing the party by making statements about life, marriage and homosexuality. They also were part of the group that wanted to record videos of all meetings and persuaded the Rules and Platform Committees to allow video and audio recording of our meetings. (I voted for this change, since so many people have the equipment on their phones and we wouldn’t refuse the local TV station if they asked to video tape us for the news.)

One young man, Ian Quisenberry, who calls himself “the Cynical One” on Facebook, appeared to be learning to wear his green suit and to translate his debate club experience to action in the real world. The 18 year-old, soon to be 19 year-old, red-headed delegate testified to the Family, Life and Health Sub-Committee and then to the larger Platform Committee on Wednesday. When encouraged by the Chairman of the Platform Committee and commended for his talent in speaking, Ian explained that he was a new high school graduate, about to turn 19, and heading for college.

During the last few minutes of the very last General Session, Ian twice attempted to get the attention of the Chair, Steve Munisteri by approaching the microphone and hitting the light switch indicating that he had an “interrupting action,” under Robert’s Rules of order. Each time Ian stood at one of the microphones asking to make a motion, Steve explained that there were no motions that would be appropriate, but allowed him to speak the second time.

The boy introduced himself by name and then said, “I’d like to motion for ‘We are legion, expect us,’” before turning to leave the Arena. You can watch the video, here. Ian’s statement is at about 14 minutes in.

That quote is a slogan used by anarchists, most notably the Anonymous group that “hacks” into the websites of its supposed enemies.

Now, I don’t know why these people didn’t spend their time at the Libertarian Convention, held nearby this weekend.They should know that we Republicans are conservatives and we respect laws and facts. We understand that the “egg” ceases to exist when fertilized, just as the sperm does. What exists then is an embryo, an organized organism. We know that “marriage” can’t be redefined for a political fad or social “eugenics.” We grow weary of their implication that the young are are better prepared to lead than the older, wiser, and more experienced. We certainly don’t want a tent big enough to include same sex unions or redefined marriage.

But how disturbing is it that an 18 year old boy would identify with a group whose symbol is an empty suit and whose motto came from the story of demons that committed suicide after Jesus cast them into pigs?

28And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” 30Now a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them. 31And the demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of pigs.” 32And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the pigs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. 33The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region.

Many of us suspected that they were Ron Paul supporters, but it appears that at least one identifies with anarchists.

Originally posted on



what convinces you that he can win the election in November?

for the lectures. Those of us who woke up yesterday and haven't done our homework are grateful for your enlightenment.  I'm sure you didn't mean to be so shrill and judgmental.

With the exception of Mr. Price, your language echoes the "revolutionaries" from my youth, which I discovered echoed much older utilitarian and even nihilist thought.

Rob, your comments on marriage were probably the most enlightening and re-affirmed my conclusion after years of flirting with (capital L)ibertarian philosophy: the Libertarian Party is not compatible with conservatism, which advocates small government, with a few rules.

These aren't the first time we've heard/read/countered these arguments. Remember the calls for "open marriage" and "do your own thing" in the '60's? Demands for restructuring marriage and the family are pervasive in virtually every historic "revolution" EXCEPT the American Revolution, which was based on Judeo-Christian principles:  from the Enlightenment, to the French Revolution and the various social experiments of the 20th Century.

I can sympathize with the proponents of Libertarianism, having spent years participating on the Libertarians for Life list-serve in the '90's and early 2000's. I even tried to justify "Christian Libertarianism," which I've concluded is an oxymoron. (Check out the blog, Vox Popoli, which, unlike most Libertarian groups, supports traditional marriage.)

I'm sure my experience won't convince any of you, however. If you want to continue, I'm posting most of my argument at

Dr. Nuckols:

To answer your question, I will put forth two scenarios; both are what-ifs at this point.

SCENARIO 1:  The scenario that Ron Paul could have won the GOP nomination.  Many Dems and most Independents would vote for Ron Paul in November if he were the nominee.  That's a significant advantage that Ron Paul has over any other potential GOP candidate.  With Romney as our nominee, those voters will mostly run back to Obama or even third party. 

On to Republican voters.  Many of them support Ron Paul outright, a greater number like Dr. Paul but won't support someone they expect to lose the primary, and many would not support Dr. Paul even if he were in the lead in the primary.  However, what would Republicans do in November if Ron Paul were the GOP nominee?  They would vote for Dr. Paul.  There would be grumbling, sure, but that would be the ticket to free us from Obama in this scenario.  I think this scenario wins the most voters for the GOP nominee because it combines Republicans, many Independents, and many Dems, supposing the elusive fair election. 

We are giving Obama too much credit if we think he can stomp Ron Paul in debates.  Obama has too many broken promises, and his smooth talk won't get him anywhere this time--IF he's paired against a trustworthy opponent.  Plenty of dirt to dig up on Obama.  In contrast, Ron Paul is a veteran, he spent more years as a doctor than as a congressman, a congressman with a voting record unmatched in consistency.  His walk and his talk are the same, and he doesn't do the politician's salesman act.  What will Obama attack Ron Paul on?  I suspect it would be his reputation as "Dr. No".  Obama would try to spin that Dr. Paul hardly accomplished anything in his 22 years in congress.  That attack will fall flat.  For those who oppose bailouts and handouts, favor gun rights, states rights, and fiscal responsibility, we are proud of Dr. Paul for being Dr. No.

SCENARIO 2:  The scenario that all delegates who prefer a candidate other than Romney join together to force a brokered or open convention.  This is where the "True Conservative" gets chosen, or, someone more conservative than Mitt Romney at least.  In this scenario there is good potential of keeping RP supporter votes, and maybe still winning the Independents and some Dems.  It's risky because we don't know who it would be, but I think there's a greater chance of beating Obama in this case than with Romney.

On another topic:  Did you notice the frequent, fond mention of Barry Goldwater at the convention?  It really surprised me for a crowd with more than 50% that don't like Ron Paul.

Thank you for humoring me!

Why are we all so quick to assume this young man is a Ron Paul supporter? For all we know he's one of those crazy members of the Pirate Party, a socialist, or worse!



© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy