Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Who Will Be America's Next "One-Eyed Man"?

The evidence from the 2008 election clearly shows that the USA is truly the land of the blind... for "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King." Our current one-eyed man sees himself as King, but he is in the now underwhelming minority (no pun intended). Understand that - at best - the one-eyed man has no depth perception, and this one is in WAY over his head yet he continues to dig. But that's not really the main thrust of this blog post... it's really intended for those who practice or endorse 'religionism'.

For my entire life (well, up until 9/11/2001) I supported everyone's right to believe as they may choose, so long as their beliefs caused no indentifiable difficulties for anyone else. We KNOW who the Democrats will run for the office of POTUS, but who will oppose their one-eyed socialist-progressive? The only viable opposition is whoever the Republican Party nominates. There is no "third party" strong enough yet to overcome the political machines of either of the two established parties, much less the two combined. There is no single "write-in" candidate, with the national name recognition or personal popularity (with the possible exception of Justin Bieber - who doesn't meet the age requirement) to oust the incumbent. That leaves us with the Republican nominee - whosoever he or she may be - as our only hope to restore our Constitution and save our Republic!

I am politically non-aligned. Why? Because I don't believe either of our two predominant political parties have the best interests of our country in their collective minds! As of this writing the Republican field of potential nominees has been reduced to a single handful. Of these five, it appears that - at this time - Mitt Romney will prevail as the Republican nominee for POTUS. I'm not WILD about any of the offerings of either party, but I shall vote for any viable candidate who runs against NObama. What does Mitt have that is working against him as the successor to NObama? His personal arrogance (which is quite common among politicians), RomneyCare (which is only about a nickels difference from NObamaCare), and his religious belief system. The first two items are easily understood by most people. However, his religious belief system is not well-regarded by most mainstream Christians, simply because they don't understand it. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which many mainstreamers consider to be a cult.

I happen to live in Utah (aka: the Land of Zion), and I am not an active member of any religion - which allows me to be a bit more objective than many folks. Although I am not an "expert" on any religion, I have been exposed to many religious belief systems during my lifetime, and find that the LDS/Mormon Church differs from the Christian mainstream in only minor ways. (The following is anecdotal in nature, and is not the result of intense study or exhaustive statistial analysis...)
The Mormons are believers in Jesus the Christ, they are not Satan worshippers.
The LDS doctrine is Bible based, however, their "Bible" is a bit different from that of the mainstream Protestants and Catholics (which, btw, also differ from one another), as is their manner of worship. Although written by man (as are all books), they believe (as do all "Christians") that their bible - and the "Book of Mormon" - are "the inspired word of God" (nobody's "holy book" has ever been carved in stone by a lightning bolt).
They do not perform sacrifices of any kind - human, animal, vegetable, or mineral.
Neither the Mormon congregates nor their leadership have horns - which some people actually believe.
An LDS house of worship and "altar" is quite minimalistic compared to that of the Catholic Church, and impresses me as similar to those of the Baptists, Methodists and Evangelicals. There are no unnecessary decorations; no stained glass, no banners and no representation of the crucifixion of Christ on display. There are no frills or gee-gaws in a LDS Church.
IMHO, the Mormon Church - as an organized body - does a much better than "average job" of shepherding/guiding and caring for their own... and - frequently - assisting those who are not members of their church.
John F. Kennedy, a member of the Catholic Church, was elected President even though there were those who believed that - as a practicing Catholic - he could not win the election because his first allegiance was to the Pope.
On the whole, I see where the "gentiles" (those who are not of the LDS faith) really have nothing to fear from the LDS Church membership or leadership. They are generally responsible, good and caring neighbors who will lend a hand when needed.

We all have our personal faith-based belief systems, even if we put our faith in non-belief, and that's why these beliefs are referred to as our "faith". Mitt Romney may not be a "saint" in the generally accepted sense of the word, but then, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". We tend to fear that which we do not understand, and accept as fact those propositions which feed into those fears.
RomneyCare is virtually identical to NObamaCare, so there's no real point in discussing it. It's expensive on both ends, and - in violation of the Constitution - the government is telling us how we must spend our money. Where do we get the qualified medical personnel to effectively care for 50,000,000 (fifty million) additional patients in a timely manner... as in, before many of them die from lack of, or insufficient treatment?
That takes care of the few negatives surrounding Romney's campaign. What positives are there?
Romney is a successful businessman, he is an experienced state executive and he claims that he would seek to reduce the size of our government. The people of Massachusetts seem satisfied with his job performance, but that doesn't mean that the entire country would be equally satisfied with him at the helm of our "ship of state". And all politicians claim to want whatever it may be that their audience of the moment desires. Sadly, we are more-or-less forced to vote for the one whose lies are most in agreement with our own desires for our country. We will never find a candidate whose position is completely in agreement with ours... unless we run for the office ourselves!

My personal mantra for November of 2012 is:

If NObama is re-elected, the United States of America LOSES!!
The preceding is just one man's opinion, and most of us know what opinions are like... if that's true, we have an "opinion" sitting in the Oval Office!

Sunday, January 8, 2012

The Next Election Is Not About Who Will Become Our Next President...

it's about who will work to restore our Democratic Republic! The socialist who is in the White House right now has shown that he is totally incompetent as your president, but extremely competent at destroying this once-great nation. The upcoming November 2nd election is all about saving the USA! If you don't vote against NObama, or don't vote at all (which is essentially the same as voting for him), you will voting for the continuation of this Constitution ignoring charlatan's term in your country's highest office.

NObama was put into office by the millions of people who wish to suckle at the government teat (most of whom are shiftless parasites), that prefer to have others pay for their existence, rather than become productive, taxpaying members of our society. They are still out there in sufficient numbers to continue draining our economy, and increasing our national debt. Although the more intelligent Obamabots, which are relatively few in number, have awakened to the pitfalls of socialism, there will always be those who put their personal welfare above that of their country.

The portion of the North American landmass we occupy is known as the United States of America, or USA. It is NOT the United Socialist States of America (although, with czars as the senior advisers to the current occupant of the White House, we are rapidly heading toward becoming the USSA). You can see a complete list of NObama's czars in my blog of July 26, 2011, complete and correct as of that date.

Granted, the Republican candidate for the office of the president, will be nothing to get excited about, and there are no Democrats other than the incumbent who have officially announced their candidacy for the office, so our choices are quite limited. Personally, I would vote for almost anybody other than Barack NObama. He has done nothing to improve our lives - his policies give with one hand, and he takes away with the other. Obamacare promises medical coverage for all... and then it limits what care you can get, and establishes conditions and limits on when! At the same time -as good as 'healthcare for all' sounds to some - the odds are severely against the timely availability of critical care, because of the sharply increased patient-to-physician ratio! His fiscal policies are bankrupting our country, and I have reached the point where I would vote for almost anybody who runs against NObama - including Rocky Suhayda, Chairman of the American Nazi Party. I realize that is a very extreme position to take, but at least Suhayda is honest and upfront about who and what he is - a white supremacist, life-long racist and Aryan revolutionary. I don't agree with his views any more than I do NObama's policies, but I will vote for the opponent of NObama regardless of who he or she may be. And, keep in mind that if you vote for somebody just because of their race, you're as much a racist as anybody who votes against that person for the same reason. My vote will be a "just because this person is not NObama" vote, and has nothing to do with his race. I would vote for Alan Keyes, Alan West, Condie Rice or any other person of color that ran against Obama... IF they were Constitutionally conscious, fiscally aware, and American by birth!

(And, come to think of it... we wouldn't notice MUCH
difference if there was NO replacement elected.)

Tuesday, January 3, 2012


Of all the things that are bought and sold in this country, there is one that you and I have probably never purchased. Partly because, We won't find it on the shelves at WalMart, Kohls, Target, or any of the other places that working-class Americans usually shop. However, if you book a flight into Dulles Airport or National Airport you'll be in the general vicinity of this rare commodity. It's just a taxicab ride away from either airport. A left turn here, a couple of right turns there, and before you know it you'll be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an old - but very spacious - residence. Yes, the White House is auctioned off once every four years to the highest bidder.

I was in the car the other day, listening to the radio as I drove, when I heard a newscast that proclaimed (and I am paraphrasing, I'm sure - but I'll use quote marks nonetheless), "Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum are lagging far behind Ron Paul in fundraising..." blah, blah, blah. It was then that I was struck by the thought, "What does 'fundraising' have to do with the character (or other qualifications) of candidates to occupy the Oval Office, and why should it have any impact upon the electoral process?" Based upon our last presidential election, and those of the past 150 years, neither character nor "other qualifications" have anything to do with being elected. It's all about the money!

The next question raised in my mind was, "Where does that money come from? Their personal bank accounts? I'm sure a bit does, but where does the bulk of it come from? Could it be from those $10, $20 or $100 donations 'the little people' in the 'fly-over states' make individually?"

Here's the way I see it... the office of POTUS is bought and paid for primarily by corporate, union and PAC money. These entities don't consider it a 'campaign contribution'... their money is basically gambled on the candidate(s), and considered invested when they are elected. Perhaps John and Jane Q. Public, did out-contribute the big money interests $20 at a time, but... the hundreds of thousands of individuals who constitute John and Jane Q. are not easily identifiable! Who is easily identifiable are those corporations, unions, and PACs that invested tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, or millions) of dollars to make - for example - Barack Hussein Obama president of these United States.

Politics is like WalMart, in that you don't get much for $20 these days, or the "Big Three" motor companies - you don't get much of a vehicle for $15,000 any more (thank the UAW for that). But, they have to make up those campaign investments somehow, don't they? Oh sure... the federal election law prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit, and far be it from me to even suggest that there is anything that is not completely honest and aboveboard in the election process. However, there is a limit of $2,500 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

Now, let us just suppose that - hypothetically - this month, January of 2012, every one of the 1,000 employees of XYZ Corporation gets a $3,000 "performance bonus". There is an unwritten caveat (admonishment) attached to that "bonus" though: $2,500 of it must be contributed to the corporation's presidential candidate of choice, and the remaining $500 is the employees to do with as he or she chooses. That gives the corporation $2.5M of investment in the election of their candidate. Unions and PACs can do the same thing, and I'm fairly certain that they have much smarter (and more devious) people than I, finding loopholes and back-doors that allow them to do so without technically violating the FEC laws.

Poor John Q. Public (or his lovely wife, Jane - to be PC) who toils for a living stands no chance of ever being elected to anything of greater importance than perhaps president of his local Rotary Club or Elks Lodge. The Public family lacks the personal money, prestige and financial/political connections to run for a federal, or even state, political office. Personal qualifications be damned! If we weren't born into big money, or personally accumulated big money, our government will always be controlled by those who DO have big money... their own, or that of someone else; some shadowy figure waiting in the wings for that eventual return on his/her investment. Big money has bought and paid for our government! Government of the people, by big money, and for big money...

Am I possibly cynical? Without a doubt! Is that cynicism justified? Inasmuch as it is my personal opinion, it is fully justified - in my own mind anyway, and that's the only place I really have to justify anything.

The preceding is not meant to convince anybody of anything, it is simply offered as a personal viewpoint. I could be as wrong as wrong can be... and the sun may not rise in the east tomorrow morning.
If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge in New York City and some very wet land in Florida that I'd like to offer you... at fair market value, of course.