Tag Archives: 2012 election

Molon Laba “Come and Take Them.”

Image

These are the words of the Spartan King Leonidas to the Persian King Xerxes at the battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans were asked to surrender their weapons. “Come and Take It,” the slogan of the Texas revolt, was based on this challenge.

When we use these phrases, we must remember that both the attackers, Xerxes and Santa Ana, both came and took them, killing all who uttered these words at Thermopylae and the Alamo. Since words mean things, we must be careful what we say. Are we prepared to give up our lives to preserve liberty and freedom for our wives and our children?

Does this sound extreme? It is July 2012. America has lost the Presidency. Though anything can happen, there is better than a 99% chance that our next President will either be a re-elected Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. From these two really awful choices, Christians have the responsibility to vote for the man who will provide the greatest possible freedom to preach and teach the Word of God. Barack Obama has attacked Christianity as much as he can. But the need to be re-elected has moderated these attacks. I would not be surprised to see anyone opposing him in his 2nd term thrown into prison. Mitt Romney governed MA as a liberal. Mitt Romney will also be restrained by the need to run for re-election.

Solid believers need to vote for Mitt Romney because he offers a chance of providing slightly more freedom. We also need to support him because if we get a better candidate in the future to run in the general election, we will need the votes of liberal Republicans at that time. If we fail to support the party nominee now, why should they support the party nominee then?

The immediate goal of those who wish to invest time and money into providing for liberty and freedom for our wives and children are the senate races. 33 of the 100 seats are being contested this year. Nine of those seats have the current senator retiring. Five have Republicans running for re-election. People who normally vote as a liberal hold all of the remaining 19 seats. While the work is enormous, so are the possibilities for great victory. Whoever is the president ratifies treaties and confirms judges, and not just on the Supreme Court. Wikipedia has a complete list of every election in each state with each candidate.

Once again, if you are going to invest any time or money in any election, invest it in the best possible senate candidate, even if neither senator from your state is running for re-election.

I am constantly asked, “Why do we have such horrible presidential candidates?” The short answer is that liberals have captured the election process. Though there are many facets to this problem, two simple solutions would cure the vast majority of our election ills.

First, we are drowning in voter fraud. While voter fraud happens everywhere, it is by far worse in large cities; Miami, Chicago and LA cannot even consider an honest candidate. My solution to voter fraud is a Constitutional amendment to pay a $10,000 bounty per vote to anyone who proves voter fraud and has the vote removed. Congress will have the authority to raise the bounty, but it will never go below $10,000. This money will be collected as a fine against the state allowing the illegal voting. Congress can define an “honest mistake” exception from the fine. The market will take care of the most outlandish abuses.

Second, the primary process is skewed towards the most liberal candidate from each of the major parties. Simply pass a federal law requiring all presidential primary elections to be held within a single six-week timeframe. Any delegates or candidates elected outside of this timeframe would not be able to vote at the party convention. While congress normally should not interfere directly in party machinery, neither party abided by their own rules for the 2012 primary elections.

Yes, there are more problems, but these begin to fix the most serious problems.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Uncategorized

Irreparably Damaged?

The most important election so far was Virginia. Mitt Romney ran with only Ron Paul opposing him on the ballot. Yet Ron Paul, overall in a distant 4th place, polled 40%. The normal, reasonable, rational reaction is what the exit polls showed. 40% of the registered Republican voters will not vote for Mitt Romney under any conditions. Though it is impossible to know, regardless of polling data, how many of these voters will actually vote for Mitt Romney in a general election if Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the only viable choices, many, many are quite vocal that they will still not vote for Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney supporters insist that he must be the Republican Party nominee because he is the only man left who can defeat Barack Obama. In 2008, Barack Obama had 69,456,897 votes to John McCain’s 59,934,814. If Mitt Romney is the nominee and even a small number of registered Republicans refuse to vote for him on principle, then he will have almost no chance of winning the general election. Mitt Romney will take some democrat votes away from Barack Obama, but it is very doubtful that these will come close to offsetting the Republican abstainers. Mitt Romney has only one real hope. Democrats are even more upset with Barack Obama. It is very likely that Democratic turnout will be record lows. Some are making early predictions of the WINNER having less than 50 million votes.

The real problem is that a Mitt Romney nomination will convince millions that the election process is irreparably damaged. Unlike the parasites of the occupy movement, these are taxpayers who actually make this country work.

As Frédéric Bastiat pointed out in his 1849 The Law, when the majority of those who make a country work are convinced the Law has been subverted to the point where there is no hope, there are only two possible choices. The nomination of Mitt Romney will do one of two things. It will either cause those who believe Mitt Romney to be no better than Barak Obama to lose heart and stop working. In this case America will descend into a massive, Soviet style depression. The other, far more likely, response? Armed rebellion.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, History

Wacky Presidential Primaries; Part 2

Yesterday we posted a beginning to zany, wacky things going on in the Presidential Primaries. I figured this would be a series going on into or past the general election. Little did I realize that Part Two would be the next day.

The State of Georgia challenged Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot. Obama was issued a subpoena which he ignored. Judge Halihi ruled that Obama’s birth certificate is valid. Secretary of State Brian Kemp ruled on February 11, 2012 that Obama may appear on Georgia’s ballot because the birth certificate Obama presented is valid and that he is a natural born citizen.

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich both failed to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot. This was not due to the 10,000 signature threshold, but due to the 400 signatures required in each of Virginia’s congressional districts. Perhaps Ron Paul and Mitt Romney signed all the registered Republicans in Alexandria?

Rick Santorum was told on February 3 that challenges to signatures on his Indiana filing left him 8 votes short of enough to qualify to be on the ballot. There is a legal question of write-in.

If Indiana and Virginia supporters of Rick Santorum are not allowed to write his name in, then their best strategy is to vote for Ron Paul. That would take delegates away from Mitt Romney and give them to a candidate who has no chance of winning.

Anticipating this strategy, some members of the RNC announced today that if the convention is brokered, that is no one wins on the first ballot, they would “look to someone else.” If Mitt Romney loses Michigan (likely, probable) and stays in the race (also likely, probable) and neither Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul support one of the two leaders, then a brokered convention is expected.

2 Comments

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, History

President Herman Cain

An unidentified man won a bet on the St. Louis Cardinals winning the World Series with 999 to l odds. Long shots can win whatever the odds. This also applies to elections. It’s not over until the last vote is counted. At this point anything can still happen. But the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election is already almost certain.

Gambling houses exist because the odds favor the house. The odds in politics heavily favor the status quo. Our son has asked in despair what he could do to end political corruption, but he didn’t like the answer. If you really want to make a difference, learn accounting and stay out of debt. Follow the money trail to find out who the real good guys and bad guys are. Then learn the system to understand how to make the bad guys pay and help the good guys win.

This would take a lifetime of effort, which is why bad guys often win. It’s too much trouble to stop them. The best example I know of this is the original TV Series Law and Order, Season 8, Episode 21, “Bad Girl.” The DA’s office has decided not to ask for the death penalty in this particular case. Robert Vaughn plays a representative of the police union. He meets with D.A. Adam Schiff in a closed-door meeting and tells Adam that they want this girl, who killed a police officer, executed. Regardless of the rest of the storyline, this is how the real world works. The rich and powerful call a closed-door meeting where they tell others what to do. This is what the current Occupy Movement claims to hate, yet their very tactics support that system. It is this very lack of understanding of the system that will allow Herman Cain to become our next President.

In a grossly oversimplified view, there are three basic types of primaries. Caucuses have party members who have earned the right to vote (usually by just showing up). They vote in a closed meeting. Though the average nonparticipating voter can vote for a representative, he does not directly vote for the candidates. Next are closed primaries. In a closed primary, only voters who register for the party holding the primary can vote. Last are open primaries where anyone can vote, just like a general election.

In states with a caucus system, you campaign to a small number who will vote. In states with a closed primary, you campaign to your party’s base. In states with an open primary, you campaign like a general election, emphasizing your party’s issues.

In the 2012 election, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will almost certainly lose the general election. Yes, the St. Louis Cardinals beat 999 to 1 odds and something could cause Obama to win re-election. But the house usually wins and the house is against Obama. So the Republican nominee will probably win the general election. The odds are massively in his or her favor.

The Republican Party is split between conservatives, generally known as the TEA party movement, and more liberal members. Within the Republican Party, conservatives have more votes and liberals have more money. Several strong conservatives on principal have split the conservative vote. Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are vying for the same voters. Normally, that would leave the only strong liberal candidate, Mitt Romney, with the nomination.

In spite of what the liberal news pundits keep telling us, there are several reasons why Romney is not gaining support and pulling ahead. One is Ron Paul’s campaign. Even if Ron Paul is not the nominee, and his nomination is very doubtful, many of his policies will become part of the party platform. These policies are anathema to Mitt Romney and liberals like him. As various campaigns run out of money and collapse, the votes pledged to those candidates forced out of the running will be transferred to someone else. Historically, those votes go the candidate with the best chance of winning whose views are closest the candidate who dropped out. Of the conservative candidates, Herman Cain has the most support and the most money. Without any support from Mitt Romney and his followers, if Herman Cain picks up the votes pledged to Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, he will have a majority.

The major reason I believe Herman Cain will win is that he is the most liberal of the conservative candidates. His economic program is to simplify the tax code, but keep it “revenue neutral.” That is, no massive reduction in the bloated federal government. Though he says that he is pro-life, he wants to end Roe v Wade and let the individual states decide on abortion. He wants to stop illegals from coming into the US, but he has not spelled out how. Herman Cain is the only conservative that can take votes away from Mitt Romney.

Herman Cain is also likable and honest. His lack of political experience, at least for now, is a plus. The only other candidate that comes across as completely honest is Ron Paul. People are horrified by Ron Paul’s attempts to legalize drugs and close all foreign military bases, but they respect his honesty. Even Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann hedge their statements, which Republican voters are tired of. Even when I disagree with Herman Cain, I know why. Neither of the Bush presidents could claim as much honesty or clarity in their statements.

But in the end it is a numbers game. In the 2008 general election John McCain had 59,934,814 votes and Barack Obama had 69,456,897 votes. About 18 million voted in the Republican primaries, but most states had only a few thousand who controlled the delegate selection process. Probably the most telling sign is in the polls which show Herman Cain ahead of Rick Perry in Perry’s home state of Texas.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics