Yup, January is done and America is marching towards March. Where are we on this first day of February? Four GOP dudes are still standing. In first place, with two wins, New Hampshire and Florida, and smiling, and looking, and talking, and being, as fresh as he can be, but still acting, like he’s auditioning for a job at Disneyland, as one of Mickey Mouse walkers, is Mitt Romney. Then we have Newt Gingrich, with one win, South Carolina, and there’s Rick Santorum, with a squealing twenty eight vote win, in Iowa, and Ron Paul, who among this class of dudes, is the only winner. Mitt, the Newtster, Rick from the Sanitarium, and Dr. Ron are the GOP primary choices.

INMHO, Rick from the Sanitarium squeaked by in Iowa, because there are a lot of GOP voters in that state, who think like him, and who should be with him in a sanitarium. There’s room in that sanitarium for the Newtster too.

For a minute, very early on, it looked like the Newtster, then like the Mitt guy, would take Iowa, but somebody out there, in God’s country, which is too Puritan to the extreme for the likes of Jesus to visit, took a look at the Newtster and found him lacking, and so they gave old Newt the boot, and gave their votes to another kook. As for the Mitt guy, well, God’s country doesn’t recognize the “latter-saint’s” man.

However, the Washington Post blog the Fix reports that in yesterday’s election in Florida, “Exit polls showed Romney winning among … born-again evangelical Christians —”a group that has ” eluded him in previous contests.”

Well, In Florida, the Newtster thought that he had them, like he thought he had them in Iowa, but then too many people remembered old Newt, and they must have changed their minds.

Mitt took New Hampshire, because, if he hadn’t won there, he couldn’t win anywhere. He’s from a neighboring state, the “Big Mass,” or the state that a lot of GOP extreme right-wingers call “the big mess.” And it is full of GOPers whom the extreme call “moderates,” whom just love the Mitt guy.

And Mitt who has lots of money to spend. Check out today’s Daily Beast article — “According to a campaign finance report, the frontrunner raised about $24.3 million between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31. That’s almost 10 times what Newt Gingrich reportedly raised, and it doesn’t even include the $24 million his super PAC, ‘Restore Our Future’ has raised.”

The big Mitt guy has lots of friends among the big, rich money guys and gals, who give him money, because he’s one of them, and because, if he gets in, by hook or crook, or by some serious dark sorcery, they know that he will trim the top one percent into the elite tenth of a percent, with not only zero taxes for the really rich guys, but increased federal welfare payments too, called government subsidiaries for the critically greedy.

Then came South Carolina. The more people, who are not like him, who are not rich, and have to worry about things like rent, mortgage payments, food, and the cost of educating their children, take a look at the Mitt guy, the less they like him, and so the Newtster got his chance for a win. Also, one must never forget, that South Carolina is in the South, and if a person isn’t some kind of a Christian, he’s playing with a handicap. Now, remember what Mike Huckabee said about Romney’s religion at the beginning of the 2008 campaign, when he and Romney were contesting for the nomination?

From a Dec 11, 2007 piece in Associated Press newswire — “(2008) Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, ‘Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’ — A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said Huckabee’s question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith.”

The Huckster also said that many people believe that the Mormon faith is a “satanic cult.” This bigoted opinion is held by many in the South.

The campaigners moved on to Florida. And if the Mitt guy had lost Florida, he would not be done, but he would be scorched, like a white sheet left out too long in the sun. The smiling, auditioning for a mouse walker gig, Disney looking guy, toned down his charm, and put teeth into his smile. He went after the Newtster the way Democrats go after Democrats. He went after the Newtster, with his fists flying, his feet kicking, his head butting, and his mouth spewing every fighting word in the dictionary.

Like the more people look at the Mitt guy, the less they like him, the more they look at the Newtster, they remember why they don’t like him. And in Florida, a large part of the GOP voters are anti-Castro Cubans, immigrants and the first generation of children born from immigrant families.

The conservative Daily Caller points out that, “Mitt Romney won the Florida primary Tuesday by a commanding 14-point margin, thanks in no small part to the Hispanic community. A CNN exit poll showed 54 percent of Latinos voting for the former Massachusetts governor, more than all of his rivals combined.”

The Newtsters speeches on immigrants were never winners. And where a large part are the GOP voters are run-away Northerners, holding up in Florida, to escape the cold and the high state and local taxes of the Northeast, the Newtster, over the years has not expressed too many kind words about people who live in the Northeast. These relocated to Florida North Easterners are people who the extremes call RINOS, Republicans in name only. If the RINOS of America don’t go to the Mitt guy, where will they go? In Florida, the exit polls showed that they went to the big Mitt. Today the Fix blog reports, that yesterday, “Exit polls showed Romney “running way in front of his opponents among those who describe themselves as “somewhat conservative” — In other words, as RINOS.

Now, let’s look at Dr. Ron, who is doing just great. Really. He’s building up a base of supporters for the long term. He’s rallying his troops for a multi-year effort. Some of his supporters are saying, in so many words, that Dr. Ron’s GOP primary campaign poses the question to America– “Why replace Obama with the Mitt guy, or with the Newtster, each of whom is Obama by another name?” They are saying that the future for real change is with Dr. Ron. If not this year, with the GOP, then later. These folks see the future beginning with a journey. The starting point is an independent fall campaign to raise the consciousness of America, and to build a new political party.

INMHO, Dr. Ron is a gentleman and a patriot, and I agree with half of his program, and think that the other half, if implement, would destroy our good and beloved America. I don’t lose any sleep over worrying that Dr. Ron will ever become President. If he would buy a picture post card of the Oval Office and put it in his back pocket, that will be the closest that he will get to the White House.

As I see things on the first of February, the Mitt guy is on the road to the GOP nomination. Even if his feet stumbles along the way, or his bus runs out of gas in God’s county, he has enough strength in his legs to crawl, and enough folks hanging on, blowing fumes into his engine, for him to get across the finish line. The GOP biggie-wiggies are pushing him, pulling him, carrying him. Old Bob Dole, the GOP standard bearer in 96, came out of Viagra retirement to help carry Romney along, because, he knows what fellow GOP establishment biggie-wiggies know, just what old Newt would do heading the GOP ticket.

Old Newt would cost the GOP, the House, cost them seats in the Senate, open the graves of long dead GOPers, The old dead grand papas would come back and treat the current GOP leaders, the way small, dense boys were treated back in the 19th century, give them each a strong kick in his rear end, and slap across the head, and that America would call these GOP leaders: dumb, stupid, wretches.

Ah ha, now that I have gotten your attention, this article is not written by a homophobe, but by a concerned citizen who believes that corporations should do what they do best: market and sell the product that has catapulted them to the top of the business world, not take sides of a controversial social issue which, while embracing one sect of society by doing so, will undoubtedly estrange themselves from another.

Last week, The Starbucks Corporation decided to publicly voice their support of homosexual marriage.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/10718-starbucks-officially-supports-gay-marriage-in-washington-state

Though some of you readers likely did a fist pump and yelled out a loud “YESSSS!”, and others may have reacted with a “God help us!”, the point I’m trying to make here is that Starbucks, a corporation with a diversity of customers, should just shut up and sell coffee. For them to support one cause – one that happens to be extremely controversial to the point where few people can actually remain indifferent – means that they are, technically, spitting in the face of those on the opposite side of the issue.

Let’s look at a real life 2010 example from a “sort of” successful corporation, McDonald’s. They made a “gay friendly” commercial in France but, though it was successful there, had the sense to not allow it to be shown here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/mcdonalds-homophobic-comm_n_616458.html

Was this a “homophobic” decision?

Well, it is inevitable that some readers will choose to think so because anything that doesn’t openly bear hug the homosexual-rights cause is often immediately branded as homophobic. Sometimes because people honestly believe it, sometimes because they may not be clear on what real homo- phobia is, and sometimes on purpose, even if they don’t think so, hoping that the accused might get scared and change their position.

But the truth of the matter is that the bigwigs at McDonald’s USA are business savvy enough to recognize what might cause a rift in their market and, consequently, a dent in their revenues. They understand that when one exits New York or New England or Los Angeles or Seattle or San Francisco and drives through other parts of America, that this issue can be very uncom- fortable or, shall I dare say it, even abhorrent. Regardless of what your opinion might be of McDonald’s upper management and their decisions regarding their involvement in the gay marriage issue, you surely can’t deny that there are many people in America whose opinions are quite strong, and quite possibly different. And n0ne of us can deny that McDonald’s must know what they are doing in order to maintain a successful company, and apparently one of those things is to keep their corporate noses out of such a debate.

Starbucks isn’t the only corporation who is boldly walking this new path. There are already companies such as Microsoft, Nike, Group Health, Concur, Vulcan, and RealNetworks who are uniting “to show the support of our respective companies for SB 6239 and HB 2516 recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

Hey, knock yourself out. It could work out.

But if large groups of people decide to unify in a different way and protest and boycott these companies, causing the proverbial hit to the wallet, I guarantee you will see some, if not most of these companies lay their so-called consciences aside and return to business as usual – selling you their stuff. And they know that if a large percentage of their customer base is ticked off, that ain’t going to happen.

On a political note, it appears that these companies sometimes seem to think that they represent the local or even regional voter. But if the lawmakers can get such situations into the hands of the citizens and they can decide the fate of a bill, like the pro homosexual legislation that is being pushed in the state of Washington’s (home of Starbucks) governor Gregoire, it can either affirm Starbucks’ decision or make them take a second look.

Whatever the case may be, this decision by the corporate giant may either cause the coffee business to heat up, or bring it to a grinding halt.

I recently read the following after a discussion on Facebook w/ a friend of mine regarding Ron Paul. He was, I believe, shocked at my stance on RP’s politics, and I was shocked that he was shocked. I had always viewed RP as an “isolationist”…after reading this, though, I see him as more of a “protectionist”.

What follows is not a work original w/ me…rather it is the work and wisdom of George Washington, as relayed in his Farewell Address, rendered on Sept 17, 1796. After reading the content of this speech, I was amazed at how much in parallel Ron Paul is w/ the views of our 1st President.

Here is the full text. Read it, then ponder, before making comments. When did we make this 180 degree turn from his perspective?
____________________________________________________________________________________________

George Washington’s Farewell Address

September 17, 1796

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the Executive Government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.…

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed toward the organization and administration of the Government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.…

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which can not end with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people.…

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.…

Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations—Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western—whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.…

To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. …

Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly over-thrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.…

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despot-ism.…If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear.…

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.…

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.…

Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow-citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government—the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our. mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Once stood in solidarity, the Republican House seems to be divided at the early onset in the electoral process.

Thus far with the Republican campaigns, What had been lacking, were a holistic approach or solutions to pertinent problems at hand facing Americans. The fore-runners so far, Romney and Gingrich, have not done better than trading jabs at each other, where the foundation of the Republican Party – ethics and values, are being shaken away by the very candidates that represent it.

Yes we do understand that the explosion of e-commerce, an unprecendented financial crisis, global debt issues, international trades wars, have propelled the issues we face today to something that many except the younger generations, have not had some chance to deal with. However, the Republican Party, focused on ‘traditional values’, have yet to embrace the advent of the changing world-scape, and to show that it is able to successfully integrate the new with the old.

Innovations, a key element experienced by the population in the past decade or two, selfom if ever surfaces in the Republic debate amid the episodes of ethic alligations, jabbings, and inability to piece the economy’s many clues into a whole.

Without solidarity, the Republican House would remain divided. And while the candidates can still have their 15 minutes of fame, the 15 minutes is all they are going to get.

In the wake of this week’s South Carolina GOP debate, we see that Rick Perry has mercifully bowed out, endorsing Gingrich on his way. John Huntsman has done the same. My prediction is that, despite his success in Iowa, Rick Santorum is soon to follow.

We all know what this means: A three-legged race of Romney, Gingrich, and Paul.

Since it is obvious that Romney and Gingrich both can’t get the nomination, it is predictable that they will empty their barrels on each other until one of them gets the permanent leg up. When that happens, as history would show, the other will end up gluing his tongue to the inside of his cheek and eking out an applause and reluctant endorsement of the other, all in the name of the advancement of the GOP. Of course, the term “advancement” is in the eye of the beholder. Because if either one of those guys becomes president, though the GOP might be moved forward, it is unlikely that America will be moved forward any more than Obama has done it, which isn’t a whole heckuva lot, folks.

The remaining possible scenario is that Ron Paul will run as a 3rd Party candidate, and I sure hope that he does.

Would that decision significantly divide GOP voters?

You bet it would.

Would that decision increase Obama’s chances for a 2nd term?

More than likely.

But it would also give a lot of us Americans a chance to not only vote our consciences, but also make a statement that we are sick and tired of party politics and the total shellacking of the Constitution that each party continually exercises year in, year out. It never ceases to amaze me how there are so many people on both sides of the political spectrum who claim to respect and follow the Constitution, until an issue arises that makes them seem to forget all about it. For Liberals, the Constitution is supposed to protect our free speech and give us the right to disagree with our government, until a Conservative says something they don’t like or the government primarily consists of Leftists. For Conservatives, many of them shout Constitutional freedom all day, until it comes time to declare war or protect our individual sovereignty. In that case, they seem to promptly throw the Constitution out the window in the name of the war on terrorism.

Ron Paul – like him, hate him, or different – is the only high-profile politician in modern history who has remained consistent in everything he says. And he is and always has been a proponent of our beloved Constitution, the way it was originally penned and intended to be kept intact by our Founders. By the way, this is the same “g*d d**ned piece of paper” (as per former President Bush II) that keeps every Liberal and Conservative safe from a police state as well as granting us rights of free speech, religion, etc. That’s why it’s so amazing the number of people from all walks of political life who continue to try to tear it down in some form or another. The only analogy I can pose is it would be similar to a bunch of citizens who resent the fact that a huge dam blocks the sunlight during the last 3 hours of the day. So, for decades they each pluck a pebble from its immense wall hoping that it will someday disappear. Finally, one day, someone pulls out one stone too many and the dam starts to crack and break apart, resulting in a gargantuan flood from the enormous lake that had, for years been securely held back.

The results would be horrifying.

One thing is highly probable: the majority – if not all – of those citizens who had despised that dam would suddenly, at their last breath, understand its importance, in spite of the occasional personal inconvenience it may have caused. Unfortunately, all of the others who understood the dam’s purpose and ongoing benefits, would also be gasping their last breaths at the same time.

As the old cliche goes, “Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it”.

It would have been pretty difficult for President Obama to secure another term, given the sentiments against him in some quarters. Luckily for him, however, a good many Americans have outgrown such petty prejudices. That was even why his qualities were recognised in the first instance.

More importantly, the majority of American people appreciate the fact that Obama inherited what seemed like an insurmountable burden. But without any iota of presumptuousness, he has pursued a foreign policy that has doused the hitherto global upsurge of resentment. What is more, considering the state of the American economy when he took over, the extent to which he has fixed it, it will only be ignorant or downright foolhardy to consider Romney a better option. His tax and health policies may hurt the average Republican, but they indicate the panacea for the impending vicissitudes.

What is it, these days, that we look for in a president? In 2004, I remember hearing some Europeans expressing their desire for a Kerry presidency due mostly to the fact that he looked “more presidential” than Bush.

Uh….okay.

I guess what they mean by that is that he is taller, has the squarer jaw, comes across as more polished. In other words, Kerry must remind them of Mitt Romney. The funny thing about this is that these were people from the socialistic European Union who were likely using Kerry’s more debonair approach as a smokescreen for their desire for a president who is more sympathetic to their liberal and socialistic preferences. No wonder most of Europe and the rest of the world are so ga-ga over Obama.

This is just one of the reasons why Romney would be a perfect replacement for Obama, even if he miraculously wins the 2012 election. Every person around this nation and around the world who is in love with our current president  would find very little difference in how the White House is run, though likely disappointed because of the change of personality and physical appearance.

Some might say they prefer a Kerry/Obama type because they are not “war mongers” like the GOP presidents. Well, Obama has proven after 3 years of being in office, that he has no intention of ending the war either, so this is more of a case of millions of lemmings following the stereotype of their cultural Pied Pipers. People immediately refer to the Bushes as being responsible for the Gulf and Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And, of course, they were. But they seem to conveniently forget that JFK initiated the Viet Nam war and LBJ perpetuated it. Ironically, this is the same war that ended on Nixon’s watch.

No, it unfortunately comes down to the fact that the typical American voter or typical foreign onlooker judges candidates by physical appearances and personalities. The naysayers who are working around the clock to bring up past actions in order to bruise reputations are successful sometimes. But it mostly comes down to personality, appearance, and presentation, sorry to say. It is a good thing for someone like Obama and Romney that most voters don’t care about substance (and in Obama’s case, experience), otherwise things would possibly be very different. And then, for the people who do care about substance, they most often throw that consideration out the window when it comes to election day and vote in a partisan manner, for the sake of their beloved Party (refer back to the Massachusetts, Scott Brown election debacle).

My point? Of all the GOP candidates that are still standing, Mitt Romney, far and away, “looks” the most presidential. Fortunately, however, for Obama Nation (and Obama Global), he is a Barack clone, but with even fewer followers. Not to mention that there is no way that any of the people who voted for our current president would ever vote for Romney, no matter how much Obama has already screwed up. This means, in my opinion, if he wins the Republican nomination, Obama supporters might as well start celebrating in August. Because they will either have The One in office for 4 more years, or will have The One’s fraternal twin brother.

Ron Paul 2012

The 2012 presidential election will center on three issues:

1. The economy
2. Health care reform
3. Crony Capitalism

[NOTE: I have not included Foreign Policy in this analysis because Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have a nearly identical foreign policy]

Mittens Romney is being declared the presumptive GOP nominee already. If he ends up the nominee, Obama will be the president for four more years.

The Economy

In case you haven’t noticed, the economy appears to be moving in a positive direction. It’s is doing so because the privately-run Federal Reserve Bank is creating money out of thin air at a rate not seen before in its 99 year history. Banks, corporations and the well connected are feeling wealthier, and are investing those new dollars into the economy. Job creation is generally on the uptick, manufacturing is starting to rise, and before the summer is over the housing market will start to show signs of growth. The economy doesn’t have to be great, it just has to be getting better for Obama to win on this issue. Advantage Obama

Health Care Reform

Mitt Romney has no moral authority on repealing Obamacare. Hell, his administration in Massachusetts created it. With Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate, repealing Obamacare becomes a non issue. I’ll call this one a tie. Since the tie always goes to the incumbent, advantage Obama.

Crony Capitalism

As 60 Minutes pointed out recently, members of  both parties benefit from sweetheart insider deals. Romney’s past as the head of Bain Capital, plays into that story line. Sure Romney can push back, demonstrating how the Obama administration is staffed by former Goldman Sachs executives, but that line of attack will reveal that there is at least one degree of separation between Obama and the 1%. Romney is the 1%. Advantage Obama.

So I have to ask the GOP primary voters across the country, “What are you thinking?” Mitt Romney is probably the LEAST electable of the GOP candidates. The Obama administration through its Ministry of Propaganda  (commonly known as the main stream media), has manipulated you. It is time to wake up!

Trends in politics can turn on a dime. And things appear to be turning in New Hampshire in preparation for the 2012 GOP primary. With these twists and turns, the “Big Mo” seems to be favoring John Huntsman. With this in mind, following are my predictions for the New Hampshire 2012 GOP Presidential Primary:

1. Mitt Romney – 33%
2. John Huntsman – 18%
3. Ron Paul – 18%
4. Newt Gingrich – 13%
5. Rick Santorum – 11%
6. Rick Perry – 3%.

Romney’s support is falling under the scrutiny provided by the Gingrich campaign. But the big beneficiary of Mitt’s fall seems to be Huntsman. I believe that Huntsman will finish about 8 votes ahead of Ron Paul. Whatever the spread between #2 and #3, it will be VERY close. The “Establishment” cannot allow Ron Paul to finish in second place. And Huntsman is harmless to Romney in the remainder of the early primary states. So look for Huntsman to edge out Paul.

Newt’s attacks on Romney will yield a modest boost to his support, vaulting him into the fourth place slot. He will also receive the “chickenhawk” vote. I believe the 55-64 year old males will vote overwhelmingly in support of Newt, boosting him up to the low teens, say 13%.

Rick Santorum will not exceed 11%, and it could even be as low as the high single digits. It all depends on how much he opens his mouth on college campuses. His responses to college students and the younger voters have not been respectful of their ability to reason, despite the fact that he encourages them to use reason. It will be a less than stellar night for Rick Santorum.

Rick Perry has conceded New Hampshire. He will be lucky to get more than 3%.

I hope to be able to write in this space…”See, I told you so.”

We’ll find out on Wednesday morning.

The three front runners for the GOP nomination, this early in the game, are Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

According to Public Policy Poling newest poll in Iowa, Ron Paul has 24%, Mitt Romney, 20%, Newt Gingrich, 13%. In New Hampshire, Romney has 36%, Ron Paul, 21%; Newt Gingrich, 13%.

And as candidates, they are just dandy, that is, if you are one of those no good rascals who hates America, and wants to see our good country decline, and see our beloved America fall on her knees and cry. If you are a patriot, these three goofs make you want to shake your head.

Dr. Ron, the Newtster and Mitt –What else should one expect from the GOP, the party that is leading America backwards? The GOP party’s polices are designed to do one thing, and one thing only, to make the rich richer at the expense of the middle class.

As real incomes in America have declined, America has declined, the standard of living for Americans has declined, the size of the middle class has declined. And yes, poverty has increased, while America has declined.

Yes, the American Middle Class is being wiped out. America is shrinking — “the inequalities on wealth distribution (has lead America) to economic decline.”

The GOP is the party for taking America backwards. It is the backward party. The GOP is the POG, the Party of Goofs. Just look at its current front runners for the 2012 Presidential Nomination, three big goofs.

Doc Ron is Doctor Fifty-Fifty. His prescription for America is fifty percent good medicine and fifty percent pure quackery. His put America first, America taking care of America, keeping our troops home to defend our borders, and keeping out of other people’s business, and his don’t stir up and start stuff over there — make for good sound doctor’s advice. This is channeling George Washington!

His –”Hey, you, guy? I know you’re an American. But if you think Uncle Sam’s going to help educate your kid, by supporting public schools — not if I’m elected President. And you old people, clinging to your social security? You wait and see what I have planned for you. It’s called starvation. And you middle class cry babies? I don’t like NAFTA. NAFTA helps foreigners. But if you think for one minute that I’m going to help you against the corporate interest that wants to pay you less for your labor? And wants to squeeze you? You’ve got the wrong man. The Doc’s social polices are quack medicine, the kind that will make the patient so sick, that she just might never recover, and the patient is America.

Newt. The Newtster. Mr. Newt Gingrich. Wasn’t he given the boot by his Republican House colleagues? Wasn’t it a matter of ethics, immorality and a lack of principles? Wasn’t the man shown to be a hypocrite and a loser? He wasn’t very popular with his own guys, wasn’t he? Wasn’t he told that if he didn’t retire as House Speaker, he could be kicked out of his party job? Humiliated? Shamed? Well, it’s hard to shame a politician, isn’t it? The 1990′s Newt was a phony, and the 2012 Newt is even phonier. The Newt, the main water boy for the elite corporate interest, main agenda is to cut corporate taxes even lower, to let America go into steep decline, even faster.

From Howard Gleckman, writing in Forbes, “Newt Gingrich is proposing a massive tax cut aimed at the highest-earning American households. Gingrich’s plan would add about $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year. And while most of the nation’s lowest-income families would get no benefit from these tax cuts, the top 0.1 percent (who make an average of more than $8 million) would get about a quarter of the windfall, according to new estimates by my colleagues at the Tax Policy Center.”

Mitt Romney comes across as a phony. His stage mannerisms are awkward and he looks like Mister Plastic Face and Mouth. His jaws keep moving and his mouth keeps talking, when his brain stops thinking. Mister Mitt — “I wasn’t for public health care until it became unpopular with the party activists. I don’t know where anybody heard that.” Mister Mitt — “don’t pin anything on me that I did, that is now unpopular, and once more, I didn’t do what I did.” But Mr Romney has definite ideas. He knows how he want to lead America, and what a Mitt Romney Administration would be like. “In Mitt Romney’s America, Washington exists to serve the interests of Wall Street.”

In the 1960s, when the US poverty rate was about 30%, a lot of forward looking people got busy, trying to help those Americans among us who were suffering. A little progress was being made, until the 1980s and the Reagan Revolution, which started America on the road to ruin. Reagan’s economics, which George H.W. Bush properly labeled as voodoo economics, divided Americans into the “you’s” and the “me’s” And “what’s good for me,” trumped “what’s good for you,” and left “what’s good for America” in the dust. The poverty rate is now at 50%.

From the Las Vegas Sun – “Years of Republican policies have virtually destroyed the middle class and created immeasurable wealth to the top 2 percent, and yet they insist on keeping tax loopholes and subsidies flowing to major corporations while maintaining that Americans who live below the poverty level should be forced to pay their share. If this isn’t hypocrisy, what is?”

I won’t let Democrats off for not rallying and fighting these GOP policies. Democratic Presidents and Congresses have not done enough to rally America, and the middle class, to save America, which is slowly sliding toward a 95% poverty rate. And of course middle class America shares in the blame for its decline, by buying the GOP/POG snake oil and drinking their nasty kool-aid.

Doctor Ron, the Newtster and Awkward Mitt — either one could get us to a 95% poverty rate real soon.