I May Have A Tendency To Oversimplify Politics...

but here's how I see the reasons behind our country's great loss in the recent Presidential Election.

1. There was insufficient differentiation between the Republican and Democrat platforms. So little differentiation, that Romney's platform was widely seen as ObamaLite. Although not unusual for politicians, neither candidate was particularly forthcoming about their "plans" for the country. Obama couldn't run on his record, because he didn't have a single positive achievement to emphasize. So, he made the usual empty promises to those who choose not to work, and those who are feeding from the national teat, and Romney failed to form aggressive responses to verbal challenges by Obama.
2. The Republican masses had a miserable turnout of less than 40%, while Democrats were at almost 48%. Were the registered Republicans too lazy to vote, were they insufficiently motivated to vote, or did they assume "the fix is in" and just not give a rat's ass? 
3. The poor Republican turnout may have been compounded by voter fraud, and other behind-the-scenes active Democrat shenanigans (like [as reported] going door-to-door, and illegally hand-carrying the votes of others to the polling stations)? The default vote in electronic machines was set to "Obama", and there were many instances reported where votes for Romney were registered as votes for Obama.
4. Romney failed to garner enough of the available "Independent" votes, and then there was Gary Johnson, in the (unintentional?) role of "spoiler". Had Johnson encouraged his loyal followers to give their votes to Romney, it may have given Romney the majority popular vote.
5. The "popular vote", which is the voice of the people, is easily cancelled out by the Constitutionally-directed Electoral College vote - which undoubtedly would have gone to Obama anyway (re: "the fix is in", above).
6. The Republican platform for 2012 would have satisfied America's "Mugwumps" (the old joke that a "mugwump" is a person sitting on the political fence, with his mug on one side and his wump on the other). The most accurate description I can use for the Republican party's platform this election is "tepid".
7. There have been many suggestions (probably from Democrats) that the Republicans need to adopt the principles of the Democrats. In my opinion, that would then provide us with TWO totally unprincipled political parties.

There has been little-to-no questioning of the lack of legality - and ethics - in the voting process this election cycle by the lamestream media. I am quickly losing my faith in the intelligence of my countrymen, and have lost all faith in the voting process, and what little respect I had for the media (a few decades ago) has long since been dead.

As long as 538 people have the legal authority to override the voice of the people, then the people's voice means absolutely NOTHING!

Now The U.N. Wants To Own - and TAX - The Internet!

Next month, the 12th World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT-12, will be held in Dubai. At the meeting, the 193 member countries of the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, will consider renegotiating a fairly obscure treaty known as the International Telecommunications Regulations, or ITRs.

The 24-year-old agreement delineates much of the ITU’s rule-making authority over telecommunications. The hope of several countries is that they can expand the ITU’s jurisdiction to the Internet, replacing the current governing system with one that is controlled by a U.N. bureaucracy.

The member nations will also consider an "Internet Tax" designed to collect money from more affluent nations and redistribute it to poorer nations to improve their Internet infrastructure.

The U.N. has no investment of time, money or labor in the Internet, what makes them think that they are entitled to control and tax it? (Except that it is another fine example of the workings of the socialist mind.) Redistribute? The U.N. isn't entitled to benefit from our tax dollars... we are! We don't need any help in digging a deeper hole for our national debt... we have Obama! Redistribute my ass.

 

Is THIS What Really Happened? If So, Shame On Us!

The following are excerpts, that pretty-much express my own analysis of "WTF happened?" in the election, from PoliticalOutcast.com. I have, in the recent past, mentioned Gary Johnson's role as spoiler in the election, as I have the stupidity of  lazy-ass "straight party ticket" voters, the Obamabots, and the "anybody-but-Obama" crowd (of which I was a member). The only "enthusiasm" I had for either candidate was, "Well, he's NOT Obama". Here's the PoliticalOutcast.com analysis, with added highlighting:

"The race was almost split 50/50. Obama got less than one percent of the votes more than Mitt Romney. Of interest, libertarian Gary Johnson got right at one percent. Gary who? Right. How did a guy with almost no presence during the primaries get one percent of the votes? The only other Libertarian to get this much traction was Ed Clark in 1980 with 1.1 percent. But this wasn’t so much a victory for the Libertarian Party as it was a loss for the GOP. How did Gary Johnson get so many votes? Ron Paul. Sorry, but that’s just the truth.
Most disillusioned Ron Paul supporters chose either to not vote, to vote for Gary Johnson, or to write in Ron Paul even though such a vote would be largely symbolic."

"Most of the people, if not all, who voted for Mitt Romney would have voted for whomever the GOP nominated. No matter what. Anyone but Obama, remember? These people voted pragmatically… er, not so pragmatically now that all is said and done. So most of the people, if not all, who voted for Romney would have voted for the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man if he had been on the ballot with an “R” next to his name. So they really don’t matter in the end. Despite all of the media drivel about electability, any Republican candidate would have gained at least the number of votes that Romney did. But I believe a few of the primary candidates could have gained more. The Republican Party was trying to get some extra votes from the middle, so they chose a big-government-lite candidate with largely liberal social policies that could appeal to “moderate” voters. Wrong plan of action. Moderate voters swung to Obama anyway. All the Republican Party did by putting all its eggs into the middle-of-the-road candidate was jettison the swing voters they should have been appealing to instead: the conservative idealists. Consider it this way: liberal idealists love Obama. And moderate voters like him too. So Obama is the perfect candidate for the Democratic party. He consolidates the base while reaching beyond it. Conservative idealists (the ones who vote on principle alone—damn-the-torpedoes type people) hated Romney. Tea Party conservatives also disliked Romney. But the hold-your-nose-and-vote Republicans weren’t numerous enough to result in a Romney victory. They needed just one extra percent."

"Let’s think about this. What if Ron Paul had been nominated? The 'hold-your-nose-and-vote' Republicans would still have voted for him. And if they wouldn’t, they have no place whatsoever to criticize idealists who wouldn’t vote for Romney. If the GOP machine had gotten behind him like they did Romney, there’s no indication that Paul would have fared any different than Romney. At least as well, as I said. But on top of the hold-your-nosers, Ron Paul had a rabid base of extremely motivated supporters (at least a million, actually… just ask Gary Johnson) who certainly would have voted for him though they refused to support Romney. He also attracted many moderate voters who liked his states-rights stance on illegal drugs and homosexual marriage. Colorado just voted to legalize marijuana, by the way… and it went to Obama this election… again.  So, bottom line: if Ron Paul had been nominated, in all likelihood we would have a Republican President-elect right now. But he’s not electable… And Romney is? Hello!? Any of the candidates would have done at least as well as he did, and I think any of them would have actually done better. Romney wasn’t the voters’ first choice. He was the GOP establishment’s first choice. Let’s not kid ourselves on that one. And this is the same group that gave us McCain. Remember that guy? He was “electable” too. When will we ever learn?"

"Don’t blame the Paulbots or the independents for four more years of Obama’s national train-wreck. Blame the GOP establishment power brokers. Their stubborn unwillingness to listen to their constituency and their blatant disregard for the traditional federal constitutionalism that once made the GOP “grand” has cost us yet another election cycle, perhaps the most critical to date. We can’t afford to place our trust in them anymore. Let them know loud and clear: “Give us candidates who fully support our values, not your agenda! And back these candidates with your full endorsement. We won’t be fooled again. We won’t accept another Romney, and if you give us one, we will not vote for him.” Do we have the courage to do this? We didn’t have that courage this election. We thought too much was at stake. Too much was at stake. And we lost it because of fear. If we don’t gain the courage necessary to stand on conviction, this country is most assuredly doomed."

And now, we must suffer the consequences of:

1. A choice between poor nominees for elected national office.

2. The Electoral College concept - where roughly 540 people can override and cancel out the will of the people, as expressed via the popular vote.

3. The "deal" struck between the two major political parties, several decades ago, wherein they agreed that whichever party got the majority of a state's electoral votes, gets ALL that state's electoral votes.

4. Being stupid enough to re-elect a record-proven, America-hating, Socialist-"progressive" Marxist as our nation's chief executive.

5. Being too lazy to go to the polls and vote.

6. Being energized enough to vote, but too ignorant to realize that voting for a 3rd party candidate at this point in time fails to cancel out a vote for the one you did not want as President. Understand that there is no 3rd party candidate that can be elected to the office of POTUS.

7. Allowing 18 year olds to vote - the majority of whom lack the life experience to vote with anything other than their emotions.

The Average American Voter

How long before the U.S. actually becomes the Greece of North America? We're already close...

 

God save us from our own stupidity!