Photo Credit: InfluenceTumblr
Perhaps you did not know this about me, but I am a troll! LOL! Seriously, apparently I am a troll… depending on who you ask of course. It was a recent wave of anti-PJ sentiment that unfolded on Twitter that brought this to the surface. Granted, I did not know about this until now because of my deliberate under utilization of social networking, but it is interesting nonetheless.
So how was it that I became a troll? Well, it was quite simple actually. Crystal
wrote an article in support of a Black Republican the GOP refused to support
. She tweeted the article and I uncharacteristically responded to her tweet in a very characteristic manner – and therein lies the problem… political honesty.
The Establishment Republican has done to Conservatism, what the Modern Liberal / Progressive has done to the Democrat Party – bastardized it. When you think of one, it is the lesser desirable aspect that comes forth in the mind’s eye. Clearly, not all Democrats are the baby killing, war mongering, wealth stealing, race baiting, profoundly ignorant, God hating, gay loving, right restricting, liberty stealing peddlers of political deceit, personal irresponsibility and overt dishonesty that Progressive influences have now made representative of the Left. In spite of such reality, the socially enforced current state of partisanism demands that we see only the worst in that which politically defies us. The mantra of resistance becomes a pseudo-intellectual and sophomoric statement of ideological defiance:
“You don’t agree with me because you are wrong, your political orientation is wrong and you will never agree because you are merely a blind follower of a highly faulted political regime.”
This temperament is of course deployed because forcefully attacking disagreement allows the freedom to not self-evaluate an individual’s own political orientation, personal beliefs and motives. Such self-evaluation would result in the acknowledgement that the aforementioned perspectives are questionable… in the least.
With this in mind, the true Conservative is likened to the more the stereotypical bible thumping, God fearing, overtly judgmental, prudish, gay hating, power grubbing, racist, fat White Establishment Republican in the eyes of the Progressively influenced Leftist.
In reality, these stereotypical, political impotents do in fact exist and it is their perverse distortions of self and ego driven narcissisms that are destroying the healthier sense of Americanism… by first destroying their own from within.
Not making sense?
Please indulge me while I elaborate and explain the whole “troll” thing.
“Daily Troll Alert?” Apparently, this “alert” is used to inform Twitter users when someone is saying something that other Twitter users belonging to a some political clique may not find favor in. It is sort of like high school gone digital – the quintessential definition of sophomoric. It is not being referred to as a troll that is worthy of garnering attention, it is who is so callow to perpetuate such nonsense. If you are thinking a Progressive, you could not be further from correct. Clearly an Establishment Republican (who has the political lack of awareness to consider herself a Conservative / Libertarian) attacking Conservative temperaments that are seeking to only improve the direction of the Right – albeit that Republicanism has reduced itself to the role of lesser evil considering Leftist alternatives).
The fact is Establishment Republicans are just as threatened by Conservatives as the Progressive Left. Both want more control over the people, less liberty and freedom for the people and attack on personal levels when they know they cannot defend themselves with facts of truth.
Let’s take the troll perpetuator, Gloria Mitchell for example. She is quick to launch personal attacks when the current state of the GOP is questioned in a manner no different than a Progressive attacking when Obama is criticized. Calling a person “stupid” is her favorite by far, but she is also quick to state that if you are Black, or of color and even remotely question the Republican establishment that you must be on “CRACK.” (Take the insinuations from that as you may… but the stereotypical Establishment Republican comes to mind. And to think, these same Republicans insist they are not a part of the problem that currently plagues the GOP. Equal parts amusing, sad and pathetic rolled up into a political ball of hate and contempt – mostly self-contempt that is).
Interestingly, our little Establishment Republican, Conservative hater is quick to denounce ObamaCare, yet is proud of her support for Mitt Romney who has also implemented health insurance mandates - and in the same breath, is quick to call others hypocrites, among other things.
Clearly a class act.
Here is my problem with today’s Establishment Republican; they make too many Progressives correct when they launch attacks depicting the Right as a bunch of racists based on generalizations and stereotypes.
Too often, we hear the elected Republican elite state how they represent American liberties and freedoms, yet, not a single one of them consistently voted against the Patriot Act
. These same individuals supported the freedom crippling NDAA
, unprecedented First Amendment limitations
have been applied both by Republicans and with Republican support. These Establishment Republicans are blindly supported no differently than Obama is supported by disillusioned Progressives – yet, we on the Right are not secure enough in our political identity to acknowledge the problem. If we are too insecure to acknowledge the problem exists, we will never have the courage to correct the course of the Right. Sadly, the failings of the Right are willfully and woefully protected by “troll perpetuators.”
America has fallen into a state of political despair driven by partisans who refuse to see their own wrongdoings and contemptuousness. Today’s partisans, with all their might, hate any all things that do not represent specifically what they are – even when the end goal of discourse is for their betterment and the benefit of the nation as a whole. It is this ill-contrived hate, which is now equally garnered on both the Right and Left that undermines the natural order of political progress. Rather than correct the wrongdoings, which are indefensible, it is chosen to attack. This only ensures what is wrong and can be improved, stays wrong and will not be improved. Little in the political realm is more disappointing.
Are we to believe that Liberals are the only women having abortions? Are Republicans the only ones in America who believe they have the constitutionally given right to bear arms? Conservatives must then be the only Americans that believe in less government. Such generalizations are completely absurd, but we have become so divided we cannot see how farfetched these assertions actually are. We have not only learned to tolerate these gross and inaccurate generalizations; we have grown so apathetic and submissive to political order, that we actually buy into it them.
It is not that I am “anti-Right” or anything like that, though I have matured enough politically to see the gross republican failings. Hell, that would make me a Liberal… or even worse – an Independent! “A far Right Conservative,” a very good friend more recently called me. It was to say that I tend to be a bit unbending in my political perspectives; rigid and unforgiving – extreme even (which is what “far Right” means anymore). Consider it a “slight of compliment” that was both fitting and at times appropriate.
It was a comment that made me think
Place the emphasis of “far Right Conservative” on Conservative; i.e. not Republican is what was being stated. (I like the sound of that – “Not Republican!” It would make a good blog or website theme these days). I like Republicanism and the associated political ideologies, but before that, the political values of fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, constitutional rights, personal accountability, personal responsibility and limited government must be upheld. Looking at my little checklist: Where do Republicans really fit in to my political value system? In my opinion, Republican officials represent these values in terms of rhetoric only, not in practice. They DO exist in Republican philosophy and mantra, but both current and more recent Republican leadership refuse to practice them. Moreover, I see the Party for how it practices the art of American politicking, not how they wish to be perceived as practicing them. And this is where I simply veer course from the “establishment Republican” – they either do not find such values as important as myself, or they simply refuse to see and accept the truth about what their Republican political leadership is actually doing. It is not that they are bad people; it is just that I see things differently and am accordingly not blinded by party affiliations over personal values and common sense. (Ahem, Not that all Republicans are).
I just don’t get it
Practically, everyone on the Right is fuming over Obama’s Executive Order essentially granting amnesty to illegal immigrants – and rightfully so. What I don’t get is why the actively elected Right has called upon an out of office, professional President wannabe (with no active political decision making authority what-so-ever) to take the lead on the immigration issue. Rather than effect active legislation, those HIRED TO SERVE IN OFFICE BY THE RIGHT have taken a roll of passivity while further relying on a moot political figure, solely because he is running for office. Simply put, Romney is not in a position to right the unilateral wrong committed by Obama, nor is Romney in a position to dictate immigration policy. Elected politicians, inept in their own individual political ability, have hid from the issue behind a Romney shield instead of taking action as they were hired by the people to do. Yet, no one really seems to notice.
For purposes of personal amusement, let’s take a quick glimpse on Romney and the Latino vote.
Romney’s presidential bid needs no less than 31% of the Latino vote AFTER Obama just rolled over, smiled and swallowed and secured the Latino vote in a monumental way. When pressed on whether he [Romney] would strike down the EO if elected President, he ducked, dodged and avoided answering. [Should probably insert a note here that Romney’s avoidance means he will do nothing if elected]. Romney however, is not dumb, but he may be making a very stupid move to resolve the “immigration” conundrum he faces.
More of the same old thing
Have you noticed how the media consistently covered how “Obama deported more illegal Mexicans than Bush;” all while AZ was attacked for enforcing the same standard Obama was being given credit for? Perhaps you may have noticed when Obama deportation numbers were being dropped in public view; ICE was granting amnesty. This Democrat hypocrisy exists because MOST DEMOCRATS SUPPORT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, NOT AMNESTY. Obama pandered to both sides of Liberal immigration temperament and then sealed the deal favoring the Latino vote over national sovereignty. Suckers.
Here’s another little immigration conflict for ya! Asians now stand to overtake Mexicans in immigration to the US. If they (both Republicans and Democrats) have sold national sovereignty for the Latino vote to this extent; can you possibly imagine what they will be willing to do for the Asian vote once politicians decide to make Asians the next American race issue? That is how they get the votes you know. They make it look like anyone not of a specified race is wrong and racist for not being of that race and then promise they will make things different and better. The whole time making it worse to have something to actually fix, then walking away - after the given ethic group has given them their blind loyalty that is. If you are Black like me, that should sound all too familiar. If you are Mexican, I hope you have been watching closely; you’re next.
Republican vetting against constitutionalism
Rubio is currently being vetted for the coveted VP slot. Not a bad choice in terms of political perspectives, but one cannot help but wonder if this is merely a “Hey! I like Latino’s too!” move to counter traditionally low Latino support for Republican politicians in a time where the Latino vote could well be the deciding factor in the 2012 Presidential race. Though obvious, this is not what makes it a potentially disastrous and stupid move.
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has something in common with the good old Prez. Rubio’s parents “held off” on become US citizens until such a time Marco had already earned dual citizenship. (In case you have not noticed, the commonality is not the Cuban parent part….) Please allow me to digress even further.
The Right hosed the “Birther” issue by attacking it the laziest way possible. Challenged was “where Obama was born” because the Right felt that if it proved Obama was born in Kenya, it would be an open and shut case; WRONG! They almost completely ignored the true issue in that Obama’s father gave him dual citizenship because he [Obama] was born of a father that claimed citizenship to a nation that extended its citizenship to those children of their citizens born abroad. You see, it never matter “where” Obama was born per se, because the dual citizenship is where the constitutional argument lies; an argument more difficult in constitutional terms than that of Obama being born in a foreign nation. Had Republicans taken the higher ground, the “birther” conspiracy would have held the merit it truly deserved. The average American of course, does not know this and the majority of those whom do possess the apathy of those worthy of following only. Be that as it may, constitutional eligibility has been brought back to the forefront by Republicans; incorrectly, but nonetheless by Republicans – and constitutionally minded Republicans at that.
So, that leaves me pondering why a Republican presidential wannabe would venture so recklessly in the deep and murky waters of constitutional eligibility – after making such a big deal about it and all.
What matters is winning the Latino vote, not the constitution. Sound familiar? The system was wrong for allowing Obama to be vetted and consequently seated in terms of constitutional eligibility. Now stay with me here. Yet, because American politicians have failed in the three years since Obama’s election to correct (or even attempted to correct) the failed system that allowed Obama to win the Presidential seat in the name of the Democrats – it is now only appropriate that the constitutional eligibility blind eye now be turned in REPUBLICAN favor. A little quid quo pro if you will. Since when was the constitution relevant anyway? When will we, as Americans, become smart enough to realize that Left versus Right yields no true winner when both are wrong?
When both are wrong; all lose
And that is the underlying theme of all of this anyway isn’t it? Both sides are wrong and they are wrong on all of the issues. When it comes to the political elite; they are of the same agenda, just with different means to their ends. Obamacare was so wrong, yet we nominate its architect for President? Never mind Nixonian Republicans and their attempt, ignore Clinton’s attempts and Gingrich who pushed it while Speaker of the House. Illegal immigration is wrong, but Reagan passed Amnesty; now Obama pens an EO for the exact same reasons Reagan pushed it through. I mean really, with such hypocrisy; who should take the establishment Republican or modern Liberal seriously? When is the last time an administration, albeit Republican or Democrat, effectively reduced government, regulation and spending? Chirp, chirp. (Hint: WWII for those not taking the question with its posed rhetorical intent. BTW, it was the sharpest recession recovery in US economic history – yet today both Republicans and Democrats see it only fit to increase spending in order to provide entitlements in barter for votes). The big difference is that Democrats have arguably done a better job of exposing Republican failures than Republicans have exposed the egregious failings of Democrats. What’s funny is that Americans are ever so bitterly divided – all while their given elected officials pursue a common agenda against the good and freedoms of the people. Well, that’s not really funny is it? Please interject sad, pathetic, pitiful or any other adjective you deem most appropriate lieu of funny.
The problem is that, to an establishment Republican, I maintain an “extremely conservative” political perspective. (The word they are looking for is DIVIANT, not so much extreme – while fully admitting extreme can fit in several places). ;)
It is this deviance that separates Conservatives from establishment Republicans. It is almost as if establishment Republicans have not yet awakened to the fact their political elite do not share their agendas, or at least I hope they don’t (given all the unconstitutional laws passed and what not).
It goes to reason why so many people refuse to follow politics. It is truly a culture of deceit, corruption, hypocrisy and destruction. In not following, you are spared the frustration and don’t have to look like a hypocrite for supporting one side over the other; you win by not playing. What’s better than that?
I hope at this point you realize our problem is not so much what the Left is doing versus what the Right is doing. They are doing the same things and we only find political wrongs “un-American” and unconstitutional when it is the other side penning the legislation. It is as shameful as it is true. Perhaps what is most shameful is supporting this Two Party system solely designed for internal destruction and expecting someone to take you seriously.
I have to admit, it is good to be a work in progress; it allows you to be wrong from time to time as it grants the freedom to grow and learn through identifying inaccuracies in concepts, thoughts, ideologies, and predictions. In this case, it was a conceptual inaccuracy about Herman Cain’s once fleeting and “marginal at best
” support base. His win in Florida, though followed by an almost immediate and abysmal defeat within the same polling group, was answered by a wave of support as Perry lost steam fueled by his more “mainline Republican” positions that are fouled and marred by a classically Republican dichotomy.
This is not to say that if Perry were not being exposed for his questionable positions on illegal immigration, borders, and trade that Cain would not have surged. In fact, as I look back, Cain was likely to surge with or without Perry’s history or debate strategies, which are “not [his] strong point.” Cain is on fire; a game changer that is indicative of a very telling bifurcation in the Right. While I still feel Cain is far too green to bear the burden of a nation in crisis, knowing the direst of Cain consequences will be felt not by me, but by my children – the man’s momentum is undeniable. Either way, it is important to note that Cain and his 9-9-9 driven support represent an important divergence from the common and arguably inept GOP support structure as demonstrated by those on the Right still supporting the problems represented by “Republican” in candidates like Romney – the “Front-runner Farce.” Not one of those guys
Cain differs from the Romneys’ in that he stands against the traditional GOP standard that has set the wheels in motion for an essentially uni-dimensional candidate field designed solely against a train wreck of a President
. In doing so, the GOP candidates are starved on issues like foreign policy and have in turn (Romney) designed foreign policy proposals markedly similar to that of the Obama administration. Republican supporters ONLY SEE no Obama and refuse to address how both Romney and Perry will advance policies that they today stand against. Like I said, Cain is the “Easy the Choice
” for the Republican voter weary of the current GOP direction, but not quite courageous enough to fully embrace the true Conservative values driven into existence in the 1960’s when it was determined the Republicans were actually part of the American problem. Cain, well, he just is not one of those guys – and for that reason (among others) Cain supports are to be admired. You can decide whether or not to admonish the ideologies behind Romney supporters for failing True Conservatism and remaining part of the antagonism destroying America.
One of the key support elements lies in the flat tax of the 9-9-9 plan. Nine percent tax to be paid by every American. A fair share paid by all. The poor will say, that the 9% affects them more adversely than the rich. The Left will declare it class warfare – personally, I like the flat tax as an economic adjustment tool that can serve to return equilibrium. (If you do not know what I mean by that, look it up – no time to explain all the details now).
Many will assuredly declare Cain “won” last night’s debates. You don’t “win” debates
! All candidates do is present their ideas compared to current policy and that of other candidates in ways they think you want to hear it. You either like what a person has to say, or you do not. Over the string and series of debates, you then narrow down the candidate that best addresses your personal values and beliefs; clearly, no one “wins” – the media just uses that to sell candidates. Look at it this way; how many times has Romney “won” a debate with horrid performances? Not picking on Romney or his supporters, but we must understand he is saying what many Republicans wish to hear. Trouble is, horrid is subjective. What is awful for the Conservative is often grand to the Republican – that is how different we can be!
Blackness; a rant Unfortunately, Cain is now a matter of Blackness. Well, not to us, but to the Left where race is the pinnacle issue. To combat Cain Blackness, the Left sought to demonstrate Obama still maintains control of the Black vote – and I am sure he does. What made this interesting is how the Left, through the media, concluded Obama is still (the one) supported by the Black vote. To accomplish this, the Left turned to the most reputable polls. The discovery was what one might expect; Obama support was rapidly waning in the one area they hoped would be steadiest – during the most challenging times, Obama’s Black support dropped an astronomical 50%! Not thwarted by the truth, the Left sought out a poll that would show the most marginal loss of Black support. They resorted to a poll that directly asked respondents to overlook Obama’s performance as President. "General impressions of Obama rather than focus on the job he is doing as president" to be specific. This ploy resulted in a 5% drop in support when compared to his Black support immediately following his election. This of course failed for obvious reasons. The US Presidency of today is about getting the damn job done. Obama has been so bad, that in order to find support they must dismiss the single reason Obama is being polled – disgraceful. Following this failure, Team Obama ambassadored Team Sharpton to discuss whether or not Cain is Black enough for… being Black I guess – never mind the fact Obama is half White and half African (which equals zero percent Black as we currently understand Black to be). In dissent, Cain said both the best and worst things imaginable on being Black in America. If you are poor, it is your fault and if that was not both good and bad enough, he followed it with having “left the [Liberal] Plantation a long time ago.” Moreover, he said the Black, as a victim, is doomed to an eternity of second-rate failure while wallowing in self-contempt and the continued disbelief in individual competence through truer equality. All of a sudden, it was as if Cain was speaking directly to me after reading some of my blogs. Granted, Cain is not the Black Conservative Antithesis (yet), but he fundamentally understands the plight of the Black community driven by the irrational need to vote Democrat. Cain is saying that Black support for Obama is essentially a self-fulfilled prophecy of Black failure. He is correct, but the Black community is nowhere near ready to understand the depth of the implication, nor change their voting habits to match the values and conservative principles taught in the home. In translation – Cain will never attain the Black vote preaching such concepts of contempt for Blacks who refuse to awaken to our own reality. Oddly, the Black community, which shuns Cain, will highly benefit from Cain as they become less dependent upon the clearly oppressive Left. Gotta love the multitude of ironies! Speaking of Black; have you been keeping an eye Justice Thomas? Big, bad is brewing with deep, far-reaching implications.
An interesting element exists in literally 100% of the Cain supporters I have talked with; a certain reservation is present with Cain that is in constant battle with his more likable attributes. People like his willingness to learn. I like that too, it is just that I reserve that as an admirable trait in subordinates where I can assure they develop appropriately. If you wish to lead me, your learning curve requirement best be minimal! As these reservations with Cain emerge, supporters almost immediately go into denial because they have been conditioned by a broken two party political machine to “settle.” Supporters never use the word, but they describe its conditions quite well.
Whether it is his greenhorn role or other issues, Cain, like any other candidate has inherent shortcomings. The more articulate citizen now understands how the Fed is contributing to the nation’s economic doldrums. The Cain supporter not only understands this, but also opts to avoid Cain’s history with the Fed. As the issue grows more critical, the Cain supporter now refuses to address his highly disputable Fed role model of the bubble blowing Greenspan. Once upon a time, I thought Greenspan was an economic genius. You have to understand that this was at a time when I was acquiring my Masters Degree and was attending Columbia – the Left leaning school highly supported several governmental economic programs now under Conservative scrutiny. Self-education and the school of working to actually retire one day (soon) have taught me otherwise. Calls to end the Fed and many other government organizations go largely unheard by not only Cain, but also the mainline candidates like Romney and Perry. Clearly, Cain blends more into the Republican norm and becomes far less of an exception to the typical and now problematic political elite of the Right. Conservatives, shun this and in doing so, look at bit deeper at what both separates and ties Cain to that so troublesome (R) behind his surname.
Looking deeper reveals innate differences between Republicans and Conservatives. Cain will not defend the individual liberties of the citizenry. The reason for this is, like his supporters, he too has opted to “settle” in that the Patriot Act is 90% correct. To the Republican, 10% represents a sort of acceptable and nominal dysfunction, whereas the Conservative views this as a potential showstopper because the said 10% wreaks havoc on individual liberty. The difference is profound. To the Republican, individual liberty is more of an afterthought of policy than it is the priority Conservative Libertarians endear it to be. This is not a good or bad thing per se; it only highlights difference between the two. Not ready for freedom
Truth be told, as much as Americans think they are ready to return to a state in which the Constitution becomes America’s priority, as a people, we demonstrate with no uncertainty we are fearful of being burdened with the level of personal accountability and responsibility required to maintain the freedoms bestowed by the Document. Conservatives are demonstrating that America MUST return to its founding roots and in doing so; government reforms will take hold as politicians become more loyal to America’s intent. These politicians will have no choice but to abandon America’s current course to self-destruction led by both the Liberal Progressives currently in office and the GOP’s failure to assume more conservative positioning.
Republicans (let’s be honest), have not been attentive to the calls from the voting Right. More importantly, their success is deeply rooted in the overwhelming Liberal failure
than it is their accomplishments in office or meeting the needs of their constituents. Many Republicans see this and have abandoned traditional GOP prospects for the less traditional Herman Cain. Good for them and good for Herman!
Me? I am not on board the Herman train because I value things that span beyond the scope of potential Cain represents. If it came down to Cain V. Obama… I would flick the Cain switch. If you pitted Cain against the likes of a strong Conservative cherishing constitutionalism and individual liberty… Can would be assed out of my vote without a doubt. It is my values, I am not voting for myself next year; I am voting for Jamahl, Jasmine, Janece ,and Aaliyah and their future. I want them to be able to look me in the eye and tell me they feel it is possible for their potential to carry them further in life than my potential has brought me. Cain cannot deliver the intent of this ideology without first embracing the true concepts of individual liberty – even though he himself is the direct result of this sense of Americanism! You see, it is not Cain; it is the way WE minimalize our perspectives of what and who these candidates actually represent.
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