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!

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!

IN 2012 THE KEY TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR NATION IS THE REMOVAL OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
(And, come to think of it... we wouldn't notice MUCH
difference if there was NO replacement elected.)

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY... WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

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.

TEA PARTY CANDIDATE FOR 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

WHO THE HELL IS HERMAN CAIN? Besides being the Tea Party's candidate for the office of POTUS next year that is...

I don't see this as a particularly good move for the Tea Party's first ever Presidential nominee. It appears they are taking a page form Obama's play-book - a man without a nationally recognized name, and no political experience, but... he is also a man who appears to have a silver tongue with which to mesmerize audiences. I'm not certain we need another snake-oil pitchman in the White House.

But that's really more about what he is, or isn't, rather than who he is... so, who is he? He is the CEO of Godfather Pizza, and he is a black American. I hesitate to use the term African-American for a couple of reasons:

1. The hyphen is a separator, not a unifier. I don't run around proclaiming myself to be Irish-American. I'm probably at least a 5th generation American of Irish descent, so the "Irish" part of my genealogical makeup is exactly that - genealogy - it is not who I am. I don't "celebrate" St. Patrick's Day, nor have I ever been to the "Shamrock Isle". I am an AMERICAN!

(Personally, I see those who use hyphenates to define themselves, to be more proud of the antecedent nationality than that which is subsequent)

2. Just a guess on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Mr. Cain has never even been to Africa. Probably 90% of black Americans have never made the journey back to the Motherland. How do they then become hyphenated Americans?

The redeeming factor, or at least the single identifiable factor that distinguishes him from Obama, is that he is (apparently) a successful businessman. He has climbed the ladder of success - either by virtue of talent, or political devices, but nonetheless he has reached an enviable pinnacle in the business world. Obama has no such accomplishment on his personal résumé.

Does Mr. Cain stand a chance of success in the 2012 election? I think not. And it won't be solely because of his race, although for some that may strongly influence their decision at the voting booth.

There is a combination of things that will probably cause the demise of his bid for the presidency - chiefly his inexperience in "formal" politics (Yes, big business is fraught with politics, but it's a different kind of politics, and the fate of a nation does not ride upon a choice between pepperoni or Italian sausage). And, yes, some people did elect a relatively inexperienced man as president in 2008, and in 2012 they will have had 4 years in which to regret their decision (but... Americans apparently have become slow to learn from their mistakes, and many of them will choose to make the same mistake again in 2012). He also has to overcome his total lack of name recognition on "The Grand Scale" of national politics! That may or may not be provided by the national media. Then there are suggestions that Cain is a "mugwump", which, in politics, means he sits upon the fence with his "mug" on one side and his "wump" on the other. Herman Cain does not particularly present himself as one thing or the other, although to be the Tea Party candidate, he is most likely significantly more conservative in his "world view" than he is liberal. And then there is the matter of financial backing. The Tea Party better have a helluva "war chest" to promote a virtual nobody into the highest elected office in the country, because it will be an uphill battle all the way.

I guess Newt Gingrich wasn't available, nor was Sarah Palin, or any politically recognizable name. Now that he's really needed, where is Pat Paulsen? DEAD! (If you don't know who Pat was, Google him) If you choose to nominate a political weenie for President, Oscar Mayer would be your best choice. So, when you finally get your buns to the voting booth, remember the name Oscar Mayer! It's a weenie we all know...

Sarah Palin "Stand Up For Our Nation" - The Third Political Party

It has been my contention for years that what we need in this country is a viable third political party. Yes, we do have several alternative political parties, but none that is really viable. There is the Green Party of the United States, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party. Then there are the lesser-known "fringe parties", such as the American Party, the American Independent Party (I'm still trying to figure that one out, since the word independent means non-aligned), the America's Independent Party (not related to the preceding AIP), the American Nazi Party (there's one we can all be proud of, right?), the American Reform Party, the Communist Party USA (another anathema to the Democratic Republic, as is the Nazi Party), and the Freedom/Socialist Party... plus about two dozen other - virtually unknown outside their miniscule membership - political parties.

This creates a lot of simply wasted votes in any election. When we get to the fringe parties, there is not one of them that is the least bit viable, yet there is a substantial number of people who will consistently vote for a non-starter. (These are undoubtedly the same folks who would bet on a 3-legged horse to win the Preakness.) Let's look at the three main alternatives, which - combined - have never drawn 5% of the vote:

1. The Green Party: The informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement. Their "champions" tend to draw votes away from Democratic candidates, and their platform noticeably less than all-encompassing.

2. The Constitution Party: If nothing else, I love the name! On the other hand, I believe that every party should be focused on supporting the tenets of our Constitution, since that is the document which allowed this country to achieve world-class greatness in less than 200 years. The party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control,anti-tax, anti-immigration, trade protectionist, "anti-New World Order," anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, and pro-school prayer. Personally, I find little in that with which I disagree, so long as school prayer was voluntary, allowing those who did not wish to participate to leave the classroom for the 60 seconds it might take, and it was anti-gay special rights.

3. The Libertarian Party: The Libertarians are neither left nor right. They believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, anti-gun control, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of businesses, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade, etc.). I see little to argue with here either. However, I believe that some government regulation of interstate commerce is necessary, as it also is in the pharmaceutical industry. Public safety first!

Let's get back to the "viable 3rd party" idea, though. What has been lacking in all of these alternative parties - thusfar - is not just a nationally recognized name... but a national name with positive recognition. We don't need social radicals, whether they be tree huggers, dope lovers, or preachers. We also don't need to be represented by those who would sell out the people of this country to the interests of big business or foreign governments. What we do need is radical Americans in our government! We need those who believe that our Constitution is the basis for all that is good and right with the USA, and that our laws, as they are currently written, provide for "equal treatment under the law". We need to be represented ONLY by those people whose concerns are first and foremost for our country and its citizens.

Sarah Palin is obviously one of those people. Why else would the left spend so much time, energy and money demonizing her? Why is Sarah David Letterman's favorite punching bag? Why do Adriana Huffington - and her cadré of communist co-conspirators - show such disdain for Sarah Palin?

BECAUSE SHE SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THEM!

She is seen as the single most likely American to burst their temporary, socialist bubble in 2012. Team her with a successful businessman - and experienced state's Chief Executive - like Mitt Romney, and the Democrats will suffer immediate bladder control problems. Sarah Palin WILL "Stand Up For Our Nation". God bless Sarah, and God bless America!

Sarah Palin - Perhaps No Pro, But No Con Either

Sarah Palin is now a household name, yet prior to her selection as the John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate she was virtually unknown outside the state of Alaska. Sarah, as she prefers to be called, may not be a professional politician - which to my way of thinking is a good thing - but she doesn't try to con the American people, either. She presents herself in a WYSIWYG manner, without the typical political smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. Sarah is guilty ... of being an American in the first degree!

This typical American daughter/mother/wife moved up the political ladder more because of her plain-spoken believability than in spite of it. Sarah is easy to look at, and appears to be at ease in her surroundings, whether they be a coffee shop in Wasilla, Alaska or the floor of the Republican National Convention. Unlike most professional politicians, Sarah Palin rings true.

Her background is not that different from most Americans. She comes from a working-class family, attended public schools, graduated from Wasilla High and the University of Idaho fer cryin' out loud! Sarah's background - prior to her election to the internationally powerful Wasilla City Council - is neither a politcal one nor a monied one. She didn't attend Harvard, Yale, or Brown Universities ... she went to a university that would probably even accept me! Sara Palin is one of us.

And that is precisely why the elitist media snobs chose to make light of her exhibited qualifications. Sarah isn't one of them, and that scares the hell out of the liberal left. She doesn't think, talk or shoot fancy - just straight from the hip. Sarah has more executive-level experience than our incoming President, brought new energy and excitement to McCain's hobbling campaign, and created hope amongst the leadership of the RNC that they might actually be able to salvage the country from the grip of left-wing socialists. Almost overnight, she rejuvenated the conservative body of America. Unfortunately, conservative America - once again - turned out to be the too silent majority. Conservative complacency, and an increased number of liberal judges legislating from the bench, will be the downfall of these United States.

So ... what's not to like about Sarah Palin? All of her positive qualities ... if you're a left-wing bleeding heart liberal! I believe we've just seen beginning of Sarah Palin at the national level. If nothing else, her short VP nominee gig did one thing for her. Of the potential Republican Presidential candidates for 2012, Sarah Palin now has the most recognized name in the Republican Party!

I could be wrong about his ... but I'm NOT!