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:

ANYBODY BUT NOBAMA!

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!

Some People May Think I Am Anti-Obama...

and those people would be absolutely correct! But let's not stop there... I am anti-anybody who would take steps to destroy our Republic and change it into a European-style socialist state. I stand against anyone who would introduce economic policies that will reduce the United States of America economically to the status of some Third World Banana-Republic Dictatorship! I am absolutely against anybody who spends our tax dollars frivolously - by supporting those who wish us nothing but harm; who bows to a Muslim king while failing to observe the same courtesy when granted an audience with a Christian queen; and also who snubs - and tries to dictate foreign policy to - our enduring allies.During these hard economic times I am totally UNsupportive of anyone who spends $73,000 of hard-earned taxpayer money for a "date night" in New York City, who rents a 28 acre Martha's Vineyard summer vacation estate for $50,000 a week, and who then hypocritically condemns "lavish lifestyles" and "saddling the rich with higher taxes".

Obama's motto seems to be, "There are some things money can't buy... and for everything else, there are taxpayers!

NOVEMBER 2ND IS LESS THAN SIX WEEKS AWAY! CHANGING OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAY SAVE OUR COUNTRY! WITHOUT THE RUBBER-STAMP SUPPORT OF A PREDOMINANTLY LEFT-WING CONGRESS, OBAMA CAN DO NO FURTHER HARM. REPLACE ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORTED OBAMA'S POLICIES WITH CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES AND RESTORE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES TO OUR GOVERNMENT!
PERHAPS THE NEW CROP OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL GET THE MESSAGE -
"WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD!"

TEA PARTY FRACTURED - What Does It Mean?

The Tea Party... is it a political party... or more like a "toga party"? As of today the Tea Party is not an official political party, nor is it seen as such by most Americans. Actually, outside of the Tea Party movement itself, most Americans don't have a real "handle" on what the Tea Party believes, does, or is.

There was a Tea Party conducted here in Grants Pass Oregon, a small town of approximately 30,000, on April 15th of 2009. "TEA", in this case, is an acronym representing the phrase "Taxed Enough Already". You should be able to deduce from that acronym - and the date upon which the nation-wide Tea Party was held - that the primary thrust of the movement is stabilized, preferably reduced taxation, and fiscal restraint demonstrated by our government. In fact, inasmuch as the beast of government survives only off the earnings of We the People, doing the first would necessitate the second.

You can now see that the Tea Party movement is (1) against increased taxes, (2) fiscally conservative, and (3) supports the concept of smaller, less powerful federal government - government within the confines of our Constitution.

The liberal radical left wants the world to believe that the Tea Party movement is not a true grass-roots movement, but rather that those extremely intelligent, "rich Republicans" are behind the whole idea. They few are the puppet masters, manipulating the rest of us poor, ignorant Bible-loving, gun-toting, freedom-addicted, Constitution-following dummies into supporting their desire for power. That's how they say they see us, because that's how they wish we really were. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Tea Party is made up of Republicans, Independents, and even some disenchanted Democrats. I'm fairly certain that some of the Republicans are "rich" - as are some of the Independents and some of the Democrats. However, I didn't see any truly exotic or outrageously expensive vehicles at our Tea Party. A few Cadillacs, a couple of Lincolns and a Mercedes or two. Not a Rolls, Bentley, Ferrari or Bugatti anywhere in sight. There were no YSL suits or A. Testoni shoes on the men. No Louis Vitton handbags or Prada shoes worn by the ladies. I saw one sport coat, and two ties in the crowd of 750. This was a working-class, jeans and t-shirt crowd. This was the backbone of America making itself heard!

The turnout here in Grants Pass for the Tax Day Tea Party was 750 people. That works out to 2.5% of the population. Since total figures for the national Tea Party are quite elusive, lets just use that 2.5% against the national population of 306,000,000. That calculates as 7,650,000 participants nationwide. This does not include those who may have been working, hospitalized or otherwise indisposed and were therefore unable to attend - we can consider them as "Tea Party Sympathizers". I won't even attempt to assign a numeric value to them, because I have no idea how many "sympathizers" there may have been. There could only be ten... or as many as ten million.

How is the Tea Party "fractured"? It is fractured by its very structure - or lack thereof. There is no clearly recognized, single focal point for a "National Tea Party Headquarters". The "leadership" is fragmented within geographical regions and even within states -
(1) Judson Phillips is the founder of the Tea Party Nation
(2) Tom Knapp claims to be founder of the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party
(3) Eric Odom is the founder of the American Liberty Alliance (ALA), the group that launched and organized the tea party movement across the country
(4) Constitutionalist grass roots activist Chad Peace - as part of the original team of people who organized Boston Tea Party re-enactment protests in 50 different cities in late 2007 - claims to be the co-founder of the movement.
And recently, some moron lawyer/radio host in Florida filed a lawsuit to be granted copyrights to the name of Tea Party. There are even more claimants to founding the Tea Party movement!

Such fragmentation makes centralizing power difficult at best, and impossible at worst. The saving factor is that the goals of all the individual groups are the same - lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, and smaller government within the framework of the Constitution. There is, however, one consistent focal point within the movement - Sarah Palin. Sarah is not an official in any of the multiple branches of the movement, but she is the only physical common thread between them all.

The Tea Party Convention was attended by only 600 people. Perhaps there are only 600 "rich Republicans" in the movement, since - at $549 per ticket - it was out of the question for most of us who are associated with the movement. Had it been free - or even $100 per ticket - I'm sure there would have been thousands of attendees. The Tea Party movement has the potential to become the 3rd nationally recognized, viable political party - but only the potential at this point. What seems most likely is that the Tea Party will put its weight behind those candidates who have either proven track records as conservative traditional constitutionalists, or, those political newcomers who show the most promise of demonstrating those traits.

The only thing that is OBVIOUS about the Tea Party movement, is that America is still in the mood for "change", and that we are very unhappy with the ones that have been proposed during the past year by our government. Does government respond to those
indicators in a positive fashion? No... instead of adjusting their behavior, they "go to the mattresses" and begin their siege on Americans - insisting that the 535 people in Washington D.C. know better than the other 306,000,000 what is best for the country.

EXACTLY WHAT IS A POLITICAL "CONSERVATIVE"?

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values. According to my dictionary a political conservative is one who is:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate; avoiding unnecessary risk taking.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit; conservative in speech or actions.
Now that I have defined the term for us, and we're all on the same page intellectually speaking, let's look at what makes a political conservative "tick". Everything from here on down is my personal world view, which may or may not be in agreement with the world view of anybody else... and it doesn't have to in order to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative is one who believes that our culture, traditions and Constitutional guarantees are invaluable (that word means priceless - it does not mean without value, Bubba). The conservative believes that change may become necessary in many things, but holds culture, tradition, and the Constitution to be sacrosanct (consult Webster's). He believes that it is a personal responsibility for all true Americans to preserve those things so that future generations may enjoy them. Yes, you read that correctly. The conservative considers anyone who does not hold those same values in the highest esteem to be something less than a true American. The good news is that conservatives do not see those people as subhuman... just as terribly misguided and irrevocably ignorant.

Conservatives attempt to choose their words with reasonable care, so as not to unwittingly offend another person. They also see offending the sensitivities of others as acceptable when the ignorance of those "others" cannot be overcome by pure reason.

Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, perhaps to a fault. This belief includes all human life, from the moment of conception to the moment of unavoidable death . At the same time, they believe in the penalty of death for those who have committed crimes deserving of that penalty against others. A conservative's sympathies are with the victims of crime, not those who commit the crimes. They also believe that there are those among us whose characters are not salvageable, and therefore unfit to live among civilized persons. And why should one who has taken a life, other than in self-defense or in defense of the life of another, be allowed to live out their life to its natural conclusion at the expense of the honest citizen? A swift application of Mosaic Law (that's the "eye-for-an-eye" thing) would make the world a safer, better place. A lawful death sentence in the USA takes an average of 17 years to reach its conclusion.

Conservatives understand that children, who are the most innocent and defenseless among us, should be protected to the "nth degree" of the law, yet our liberal courts are (for the most-part) issuing judicial slaps upon the wrist to those who molest and murder children. We are not happy about that.

Conservatives believe that personal satisfaction comes from a job well done, and that a person should be able to reap the rewards of their own labors, skills and talents without having to support those who choose not to labor for the rewards our society can provide. Those who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way should be required to do so. There is no birthright to success. Just a birthright to be afforded an opportunity to become successful through personal effort. You have no right to ask anybody to give you some of what they have earned because you are too lazy to work. The world owes you absolutely nothing. The fact that you are simply present on this planet is not a particular blessing to the rest of the occupants until you apply yourself, and become a productive member of the society in which you live.

Conservatives support energy conservation - and, by and large, we think that Political Correctness is a ridiculous waste of energy. How did Americans ever let it become incorrect to speak one's mind using the normal everyday words of the English language - including idiom, cant, colloquialisms and jargon? Why should we have to search our entire vocabulary inventory to avoid the possibility of offending somebody? Nowhere is it written that we have the right to go through life without ever being offended. If you should find yourself offended tell the other party "I find that offensive." (Then either stand your ground and prepare to argue against whatever it was that offended you, or turn on your heel and leave the area. After which you should just suck it up and get on with your life.) Other than that, we also support the conservative management of our natural energy resources! The natural transition from this point would be to explore...

"Hate crimes". Hatred is not a "crime" in the real world. Hatred is an emotion... an attitude... a state of mind... the end result of a thought process. It is the physical expression of that emotion, in some otherwise illegal manner, that may constitute a crime. Hatred is at the extreme negative end of the love-hate emotional continuum, and is a particularly unsatisfactory - but natural - emotion. Hatred is a learned emotion, and hatred of a person or thing may be learned from a very negative personal experience, or it may be unintentionally - or intentionally - taught. (Neo-Nazi's teach their children to hate "niggers and Jews" from an age that predates reason and the ability to fully understand. The children, seeking the approval and love of their parents, learn and recite these mantras of hate by rote.) The terrorist attack of 9-11 generated a significantly strong and wide-spread dislike for anything Muslim among the people of the United States. In some it instilled fear, in others anger, and in many it instilled hatred of the Muslim culture, all things Islamic, and anyone who even appeared to be of middle eastern descent. But, in almost all Americans, 9-11 instilled some degree of distrust! Human beings tend to be distrustful of anything out of the ordinary... especially if they can easily identify those "things" from their size, shape, manner of dress, speech, or color. Look upon that distrust as a survival mechanism.

Conservatives had a self-imposed "vow of silence". Until recently conservatives were the fabled "silent majority". You did not see conservatives rioting in the 1950s and 1960s. You did not see conservatives "dropping out" and running off to join the drug infested liberal "hippie" communes of the 1960s and '70s. However, in 2009, the "silent majority" realized they were not being heard over the tumultuous clamor of the socialist/Marxist liberals. The cacophonous whining of the "entitlement whores" (those who think the government owes them something for simply existing) and their "pimps" (the bleeding heart, liberal politicians who wish to increase their voter base by giving the first group anything they ask for) echo through the halls of the Congress, reverberating almost as loudly as the big money of corporate America and labor unions. We know that "money talks while....". Seeing the direction in which the NObama Administration was taking the country with bailouts, stimulus packages, increased entitlement programs, amnesty for illegal aliens, B.O.'s Global Apology Tour, and mortgaging the country to China (of all people), conservatives organized, mobilized, and gave birth to the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party. For those of you who have never attended a Tea Party, it is a non-violent demonstration of the people's frustration with gargantuan government continuing to grow, and consuming everything in sight in order to keep the beast moving. There have been no calls for a revolution, or even a coup d'etat... yet. We are not happy with the government, and we see nothing on the horizon that might mollify us. We are, in typical conservative fashion, expressing our displeasure peacefully.

Conservatives generally accept and support everybody's religious beliefs, but without internalizing those beliefs or adopting them as their own... as long as there is no harm to man or beast in their "worship services". Conservatives may disagree with the practice of "Religion X", but they will not try to stop anybody else from the practice of that religion. Conservatives may believe that anyone without a religion is foolish, but they won't try to force their beliefs on others. If you have chosen to be an atheist, and someone approaches you to proselytize for "The First Church of XYZ", a simple "No thank you." should suffice. A loudly yelled "Get outta my face, Buttlips!" should work equally well, but that approach is a bloody nose looking for a place to happen... and may even initiate some hard feelings. You do not have a right to never see or hear something religious, but if you find it offensive you do have the right not to look or listen. Conservatives also don't believe that you have a right to try to ruin the holidays of those who do have religious convictions.

Conservatives are the folks who will literally stand up for the Constitution, when the left-wingers try to repeal it. Being conservative doesn't mean you have an insatiable desire to consume the seemingly interminable supply of male bovine excrement that political Washington D.C. keeps feeding the nation. We are not mushrooms... if we are kept in the dark and fed BS long enough we will turn bad!

Conservatives believe that our Constitution is the oldest "living" document in the world. But it is fully mature, and needs no further "growth". It is complete and perfect the way it reads today, just as it was 233 years ago. The bad news is that there hasn't been a true conservative in the White House since Ronald Reagan!

That may not be, as my heading claims, "exactly" what a conservative is, but it's close enough to get you thinking about conservatism!