Writing about politics found me; I never really sought it out.  It was the most dynamic, fluid, important and meaningful subject to cover.  Studying politics just made sense; writing on it just came naturally.  Unfortunately, to write, you must first self-educate - and studying politics reveals a truth that no one seems to really want to fully acknowledge, let alone accept  it.  Living in a world of political truth is a lonely place where all around are essentially lost to their self-insistence of denial.
 
To many, Barak Obama is a great president. Denial. Mitt Romney for others, represents a return to a better America.  Denial. Herman Cain is (somehow) the Tea Party favorite.  Denial. Americans, desperate to hide from political truth, use denial to provide themselves with a false sense of security in hopes a better future will magically blossom from blind hope - and the efforts of the more aware and more assertive American.  The truth is as obvious as it is a lonely reality.
 
Voters, both Democrat and Republican alike, have articulated the need for America to return to a nation led first by its constitution, and its politicians second.  It is felt that in order for America to prosper in the future, she must again become a
state which is more in keeping with the Framer’s intent.  Problem is, little more than articulating the need is being done.  Americans say they “want,” but do little to effect the change required to return to a more conservative state where individual freedoms, as prescribed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, can reign prevalent.
 
Bi-partisan contempt for constitutionalism
 
Americans live in a world where the most concrete aspects of constitutionalism are subjective at best. Freedom of speech, while the most widely recognized right, has more conditions and restrictions than ever before. The Right blames the Left for this, but
the Right was instrumental in the development of “free speech zones” that serve as designated [restricted] areas where speech of dissent of America’s course can be expressed “freely.”  Plainly stated, if American citizens wished to protest former President Bush while he was traveling, they could only do so in areas segregated from the President himself, his course of travel, and out of eyesight and earshot of the mainstream media. 
 
Americans have the right to bear arms; that much is distinctly clear.  Yet, Second Amendment rights narrowly survived the SCOTUS in a 5 - 4 vote. Conservative Justice’s ruled in favor of the clearly constitutional right to bear arms while all Liberal Justices voted against it. The Left’s anti-Constitution position grew so fierce local governments like Chicago implemented laws making the right of gun ownership so difficult it was impractical to own a gun and virtually impossible to meet the requirements
to purchase a hand held firearm – in direct defiance of once unquestionable Constitutional rights. 
 
Recently, President Obama has fallen under criticism for “not thanking God” in his giving of rightful thanks. This criticism is driven by the “non-secular” Right which has forgotten the right to not express religion is equaled only by the right to express it
freely. 

Every right granted unto the people through the Constitution and Bill of Rights is now subject to the interpretations of the nation’s controlling party.  Clarence Thomas has recently fallen under attack for this very reason. The weak, unorganized and ill-fated attack was a baneful attempt to remove the Conservative Justice and replace him with a Liberal Justice appointed by an increasingly progressive regime (likely, in attempt to shift the Conservative hold to a Liberal advantage prior to the SCOTUS hearing arguments on the constitutionalism of an increasingly unpopular Health Care Reform Law). 
 
Voter denial bests political truth; a snapshot 
 
The Republican Right refuses to acknowledge President Obama is not wrong for his lack of evoking God despite his glaringly obvious right to refrain from religious context; a right based upon the constitutionalism Republicans claim they want back. The Left, also calling for a return to constitutionalism, does not want to accept the fact Americans clearly and unquestionably have the right to bear arms.  Both contend they wish a return to a more constitutionally driven nation; neither make an effort to arrive at the fact that both sides only use the Constitution when it suits their needs and agenda at a given time.

 Presidential candidates of today represent this exact same set of shortcomings.  The Perry’s, Romney’s, Newt’s, Cain’s, Obama’s, and Clinton’s have all, with great detail and very overt expression, defied both the conditions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  In doing so, the Framer’s intent Americans to wish to return to is discarded as irrelevant, unnecessary, and meaningless; yet, these same Americans calling for a return to a better America support them. Disgraceful.
 
The truth behind the denial
 
It was not until a recent dialog that I realized my own frustrations with Americans support of the un-American President and the un-American Presidential Candidates was out of their own foolish self-denial of political truth.  Though, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why any sane American would support President Obama, but they are free to do so.  The last thing they actually want is a return to constitutionalism. (Hell, they are not reading this anyway – in that Team Obama has not directed them to do so).  Those whom support this laughably incompetent, anti-constitution embracing field of the Presidential Candidates only see them as a means to and end with no President Obama - while none of the aforementioned candidates and political figures are even remotely capable of delivering America to a better place, let alone an America where constitutionalism is relevant. This is to say very directly; if a person supports anyone other than Ron Paul, they do not wish to return America to a nation in which the Constitution governs the land over political agendas. Sorry, but that is the truth and even the most deeply rooted denial must yield to it on order for America to progress healthily as a land reputed for  individual freedom.
 
Like versus American need

We like candidates for the wrong reason. Well, perhaps I am applying the wrong usage of the word like. We “select” our candidates because we “like” them.  What Americans should be doing is selecting candidates that America needs at a given point in time.  It is not a matter of “liking” them per se, it is a matter of fitting the right person into the presidential slot at the right time.  It is the economy that is driving electoral support, even though people are calling out for individual freedom and 
constitutionalism. Misguided?  Not really.  The people have long since been duped into the personal favorite game then selecting politicians.  The whole idea behind this was to lure voters away from the political truth with the perceived likability of a given candidate!  We fell for it and what we have today is its direct consequence!  So yes, Americanism has been lost, but its recovery lies in the American people placing the truth before their preferential prejudices of denial.

Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @PJ43033, add me on my personal Facebook , or like my Facebook Fan Page.

Already people are speaking of the debate from a “who won” perspective.  I hate to be the one to say this, but it not as much about “winning” as it about a process of discovery.  The smart voter is not looking for a winner; the smart voter is looking for commonality in values they most cherish and what candidate best demonstrates these values.  The danger in assessing a debate as win lose is that people simply do not like to lose and if they have a candidate they support, they will specifically seek out the responses of that candidate for purposes of validation.  In doing so, they most often overlook the candidate that actually meets their needs if elected.  So, who one?  No one!  Who best embodied your values?  Only you can answer that; if you objectively assessed the lot of candidates that is!

My take

They all did extremely well in their own right.  Michelle Bachmann did far better than I thought she would or even could!  This is because she articulated fiscal conservatism, embodied the three legged Right perspective (which few on the Right even know about) and a few other things.  Early on, I dismissed her, but listening objectively, she showed me that she has serious potential.  Romney spent too much time doing exactly what I thought he would do and pile on the “Obamney Care” disclaimers.  However, Romney is representative mainline Republican.  Because of that, he will never appeal to my values.  If Romney is indeed the front-runner, it is due the three legged Right where Conservative/Libertarians like me prefer the values the mainline Republican platform have long since lost.  Cain faltered where he should have pounded his fist.  In doing so, he gave the floor to Newt who stole his thunder.

Here is the problem:   Islam IS the enemy!  I am just waiting for someone to pull up their skirt, grab their balls and become man enough to say it!  Is it politically correct to say it?  No, but since when does being honest need a political correctness seal of approval?  Even though Cain (nor any other candidate) understand the nuances involved with Taqiyya and the Sixth Pillar, he should have pounded his fist and said, “You’re damn right I said it!  And you best believe I meant it!  Freedom has a common enemy and that enemy stems from the religion of Islam.  As President, it is my responsibility to ensure this threat does not infiltrate my administration.”  [Interestingly enough, the way Taqiyya works, he would never know who is Muslim with interests vested against American freedom].

Pawlenty did surprisingly well.  He had an opportunity to sink the Romney ship with Obamney Care, but opted to play nice.  In doing so, he allowed Romney to place disclaimers all over his health care program and effectively yielded both the helm of the discussion topic and the coined Obamney Care term.  Very poorly played!

Ron Paul based his positions on constitutionalism, freedom, and personal liberty, while emphasizing how our involvement in current conflicts is its own risk to national security.  Few will have noticed how other candidates began changing their positions (less Bachmann) once he took charge.  Cain fell quiet being a businessperson and not a studied and versed politician.  Not really is fault per se, but it is what it is.

Those not mentioned were more or less non-factors based upon my value set.

When it comes to my assessment on the debate, it is a matter of which I would trust as president to uphold the U.S. Constitution, practice fiscal conservatism, support individual liberty, understands freedom and can accurately define the threats against such.  In this group – President; Ron Paul and very surprisingly, Vice President; Michelle Bachmann.

Obama was fully exposed.  Collectively, the candidates ripped his politics apart, but only Paul articulated the Keynesian economic failings of the past 70 years that have delivered us to this precipice of economic destruction.  Bachmann stated how this election would be about economics and fiscal responsibility while Romney completely flubbed when it came to the consequence of failing to increase the debt ceiling.  Cain went into business mode.  Again, you cannot fault him; it is just that there may be more depth needed.

My requirements for a U.S. President are very simple and based in founding principles.  Unfortunately, only two candidates are oriented in this direction.  A sign of the times that should be alarming to all!

I get it.  People are going to dispute Paul because he is not that savvy orator and point out the minutia of the most judgmental aspects.  That’s cool.  People are shallow like that and I know what I appreciate and what is best for me and my children.  I want my children to enjoy the freedom and liberty accompanied with personal responsibility and the risk of failure.  Life in America is not about equal outcomes and entitlements.  It is about the individual pursuit, not the ideologue’s guarantee of deception.  I want liberty and for my children, I want their liberty until such a point that they are old enough to determine for their selves that wish to relinquish it.  Cain in his way wants best for the next generation.  His vision simply is not rooted deeply enough in their constitutional rights, freedom and liberty for me.  Romney wants what big government wants for my children and I must not enable that.  Newt just wants to president; nothing more, nothing less.

Again, it is not a matter of winner.  It is a matter of who will implement the values you embrace for the next generation.

Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @PJ43033, add me on my personal Facebook , or like my Facebook Fan Page.