I have to agree with the media and the Obama supporters about Obama’s election and re-election being historic, however, I do not agree with the reasons they give.

Older people have been telling me that Democrats will come and go, and the country still carries on without the world ending.  While I do agree that the country may persist a while longer in some form, I do not agree that this is just another victory for the Democrats that we will recover from later.  The USSR lived by the methodology of taking two steps forward and one step back.  Communists in other parts of the world live by this as well.  With each turn the Democrats have in power they push for something, and maybe they only get half of it but over time it all adds up, resulting in fundamental change.

Never before have I seen so much class warfare as I did in this last election.  It is as though the country has undergone a moral inversion, where sloth and irresponsibility are touted as virtues, and hard work and success are condemned as vices.  It is entirely antithetical to the philosophical basis on which this country was founded.  While I realize that there are many who openly disagree with the foundational basis for this country, it is important to remember that the success we have is because of that, and the further we get away from that basis the more rocky things will become.  And indeed things have become more rocky.

While I am not entirely convinced that this election was not rigged, one thing remains certain, Obamacare is here to stay, and the values that made this country prosperous are going out the door.  Now there is no way to get rid of Obamacare, and Obama will certainly replace any Supreme Court Justices who retire with more liberals.  Too many people have turned their backs on freedom, thinking that freedom is free, and taking freedom for granted.  It’s not, and now the drones are here to stay, as is government regulation of our medical care, and the numbers of people dependent upon the government will only grow from now on. 

Freedom is the most important thing you can have in this world.  Yes freedom entails some risks.  If you make bad decisions you may experience failure, and if you don’t have a strong family to support you then you may have to experience some hardships, but the opportunities of freedom by far outweight the risks.  What you earn is yours, what you buy is yours, and you have the ability to freely dissent from anyone and everyone on any topic you wish.  You cannot go to jail for speaking your mind, you are free to criticize politicians, religions, ideologies, and anything you want.  You have the ability to choose what sort of medical coverage you want, even opting to have none if you wish, and what you can eat.  You have privacy, and you do not have to live in a Big Brother/suveillance state.  These days are gone now.  If anyone is curious about where we are headed they need only look to England.

That last election was a pivot point, and there is no way to turn things back now.

This video pretty much sums up what many of us are thinking now:

I recently saw an article on Yahoo where they attempted to give “advice” to the Republicans to make them more marketable.  I immediately assumed that the “advice” would be some form of gloating or sabotauge because Yahoo hates the Republicans, but I was curious so I checked it out.  The writer was a Yahoo user from one of their comment boards, and Yahoo prefaced the article by saying that this view was indicative of a larger movement. 

The writer said that the Republicans could make themselves more marketable by embracing evolution and global warming in their party platform.  But is that really the case?

Evolutionism:

It is an error to assume that there are not evolutionists or atheists in the Republican party.  It’s just a stereotype that all Republicans are Christians.  They are not even all pro-life or conservative.  The candidates in local elections and House elections are going to come from the communities they represent, which means that, in theory, their world view is going to line up with their constituency. 

As far as I know, the Democrats themselves have not made belief in evolution a part of their party platform.  Why this guy would want the Republicans to do something which the Democrats themselves have not done is beyond me, unless the intent is not to actually help the Republicans.  In fact, the Democrats have recently put God back into their platform, against the wishes of most of the party because they felt it would get them more votes.  That being said, if the Republicans officially put evolution into their platform it would be seen by Christian conservatives as a slap in the face.  Making an official ideological break with their largest consistent voting bloc would cost some votes.

Of course, I would probably still vote for them because I hate the Democrat party more than anything.  To me economics and personal freedom are more of an issue than any claims about religious affiliation.  Romney does not belong to my religion, but I still voted for him because the alternative was much worse.  I would also have voted for Romney if he were an atheist.  I would vote for a Republican candidate of any religion (except for Islam) in order to keep the Democrat candidate out.  If by some strange freak of nature chance the Republicans put a Muslim up running against the Democrat, I would either do a write in vote for someone or I would vote the Democrat (so long as he was not a Muslim).

Most conservatives in the US are not party loyalists,  We vote the way we vote for survival purposes, because voting for the smaller of two piles of crap involves less shoveling for us later on.

Global Warming:

I would have difficulty voting for any candidate who espouses Global Warming as if it were a scientific fact.  One of the reasons we vote Republican is to save us from the Global Warming crowd.  I do not believe in Global Warming.  Of course, I don’t believe in evolution either, but Global Warming strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to penalize 1st world countries, raise taxes, and drive more production overseas.

It is very telling how the majority of people who support GW are also globalists and socialists.  Globalists are known for their disdain of western civilization and national sovereignty, which is why they can be seen pushing for the UN to regulate our country.  They also don’t like the fact that one country outshines others, just as they hate the fact that some individuals achieve more than others.  They hate achievment, and want to penalize the individual who achieves more, and similarly they wish to do the same with the country that achieves more, which is where we get all those bullcrap regulations from.  It’s an attempt to hammer down the US, and people in the Obama administration have admitted that they want to cripple the US and destroy what we have achieved here.

I don’t want more environmentalism, I want more drilling, as well as the pipeline from Canada, so that the cost of gas can go down, and the cost of living as well.  The environmental hazards I am concerned about are as follows:

1) GMO’s

2) Bees dying off.

Neither of which has anything to do with “Global Warming” even if it were real.

So my conclusion is that this guy was just trying to sabotauge the Republican party.

If the Republican party becomes too much like the Democrats they will never win another election again, because the liberals will keep voting for the Dems, but the conservatives will not turn out for the Republicans. 

I have had some questions about my political orientation and where exactly I stand, so I have decided to explain where I am coming from, and I am going to do it in as civilized a fashion as possible.  I may be 100% civilized and polite this time.  Let’s see.

Parties:

I prefer to self identify as conservative, which is a statement of values and hints of economic implications, vs. “Republican” which is just a political party.  I have not self identified as Republican since I was a teenager, and I have never been a registered Republican.  I do not particularly like the Republican party, and neither do I get excited about them, because they do not accurately represent my views.  I vote Republican simply as a means to keep the Democrats out of office as much as possible.  To me the Republicans encompass a range of politicians that goes from slightly conservative to socialist, and the Democrats encompass a range that runs from slightly socialist to hardcore commie. Neither group represents my views, but one is more antithetical towards them than the other, so naturally I want to keep that group out as much as possible.

Politicians:

I am naturally suspicious of politicians, because rathar than earning a living through a job where they get paid for performing a service, they live off of tax money harvested from citizens, and, they are in positions of power.  Since I am not personally interested in occupying a position of power (more on that shortly), I can only conclude that they are attracted to power as a means of personal security or as a means of exerting control over others.  Since they live off of tax money and are well paid it seems unlikely that their motives would be purely altruistic.  The best case scenario is that they want to do something positive so that they can be remembered by history and bask in fame, which can be achieved by doing something memorable regardless of whether or not it is popular, case in point Obamacare.

So when a politician says anything, I do not focus so much on how they look or the way that they said it, but I focus directly on what they said and what the implications of that policy or statement are.  If a politician makes a statement about his motives I do not take it at face value, unless it is something that sounds particularly terrible, because in order to get elected these people have to portray themselves as being something better than they really are.  I tend to have less negative views of politicians who advocate policies that are either hands off (diminishes the control aspect regarding motives), or will create a better socio-economic climate which will provide better opportunities for everyone.  I tend to more strongly distrust politicians who offer favors to special groups and claim it as altruism, especially if we are talking about monetary favors that involve taking money from one group and giving it to another.  That behavior is the very opposite of altruism, and is nothing more than buying the favor of one group at the expense of another. 

First of all, one cannot be altruistic with another person’s belongings, and aside from that, a thief with a cause is no less a thief.  Either theft is objectively wrong or it is not.  I believe that theft is wrong.  Theft is something that I find truly repellant, no matter who does it.  The self righteous thief is the thief that I find most repellant, and to me it makes no difference whether it’s a godless heathen liberal, or an overzealous church goer.  I cannot, and will never under any circumstances sympathize with a thief.

My Background:

I have always been a loner with minimal social needs, I have always had difficulty with concepts like group identity, collective ownership, and collective guilt.  Either something concerns me, or it doesn’t, either something has the potential to affect me, or it does not.  Either something is mine, or it is not.   I have been staunchly individualistic going back to my earliest years. When I was very little there were a few occasions at social gatherings or at church where an adult would chew out or yell at an entire group of children, in which I was included.  They would say, “You all did this, you all did that. Now you all sit here and do this or that,” or, “You all are like this, you all are like that,” etc. etc. Regardless of what they said or how heated they got, I never cared, because they were not addressing me specifically. It had absolutely zero emotional or behavior changing impact on me, because they were not talking to me they were talking to a group. To me that sort of thing was thoroughly meaningless, because a group is not a person, and it is not me either. If they addressed me personally I would take it personally, but otherwise I had no reason to care. I still have that mentality. It is ridiculous to condemn someone based on a group affiliation, unless there are ideological aspects which define that group and one is condemning those aspects.

But I digress, my point is I saw myself as an individual first, and rejected any concept of collective guilt at an early age. 

Another concept I have never been able to identify with is artificial/manufactored enthusiasm.  Over the course of my young life I participated in various groups for church and school, where the adult supervisors required a certain display of excitement expressed as noise in some form or another.  I never understood how people could yell and cheer for such things.  My emotions are not so easily accessable, and there is very little that makes me exhuberant although there are a fair amount of things which can elicit an anger reaction from me.  For example, during 11th and 12th grade I was in band, in Texas (where it gets above 100 for extended periods of time during the summer), and after each outdoor rehersal/practice in the sweltering heat and blazing light the teachers insisted that we engage in an enthusiastic display beneath the watch tower.  Many of the other students seemed to genuinely feel some sort of exuberance, but it was a feeling I could never identify with.  It seemed to me that in order to become excited something unexpected and highly pleasent, or at least long anticipated and highly pleasant must occur, and in those cases the feeling is a short lived reaction, just as the initial rush of adrenaline when experiencing something unexpected and alarming passes swiftly.

So another concept I have never been able to understand or identify with is hype.

Democracy:

People have accused me of being anti-Democratic, or not being in favor of Democracy, and they are correct.  Why?  Because, as one of my college professors so aptly put it, I don’t want all the idiots having a say in what gets done with my money. Democracy is simply a tyranny of the majority.  People on both sides of the fence talk about Democracy as if it were a value, but in their heart of hearts most people don’t want a Democracy.  They only want a Democracy as long as the majority goes along with their needs and wants, but as soon as something is passed into law by them sits ill with certain people, they immediately take it to court to have it overturned.  They use an undemocratic process presided over by un-elected officials to overturn a democratically established law. People on both sides of the political spectrum do this.

Democracy only works under limited circumstances. It works when dealing with small like minded populations which share a common set of beliefs and values, and it sometimes works when participation has to be earned.

Democracy does not work in Empires, because Empires are composed of different people groups.  That is why the Romans switched from Democracy to Monarchy early on.  A people group is not the same thing as a group of people. People groups are defined based upon shared characteristics, such as culture, language, religion, or race.  A group of people consists of whatever people happen to be present within an arbitrarily chosen set of geographic bounds, and need not have anything in common with one another.  Groups of people cannot always be turned into a people group, and certainly not simply because of geographic proximity or because one administrative body governs both. 

Different people groups have different ideas about how things should be run, as they often have different values and ideas about the role of government.  Under those circumstances Democracy creates division, and the various groups direct their enmity towards one another.  Therefore, under such circumstances governments have historically removed Democracy and replaced it with Oligarchy or Monarchy.  Once that occurs the various factions tend to focus their disagreements and hostility toward the government rather than each other, primarily at least.  If one faction becomes strong enough it may overthrow the government, and the different factions which are out of power will focus their hostility towards the new power more than toward the other factions with are also out of power. 

Empires are marked by civil war, and inevitably they break up, regardless of whether they are Democratic or ruled by an Emperor.

The US is an empire.  The American colonies came to diverge from the English over time, and once they saw themselves as a separate people they decided to break with England and determine their own fate.  The same thing has happened again between liberals and conservatives.  We are different peoples with different sets of beliefs and values, and in some cases even cultural differences.  In addition, there are other people groups which have come to exist here due to immigration. 

Now I am not preaching racial segregation, but I do believe in ideological segregation (more on that shortly).  If we are going to have Democracy in the US, we must have either secession, or we must place limits on who can vote.

Regarding limits, I would allow access to voting based on one of either of the two following conditions being met.

1) Military service:  Anyone who has served in the military and fought to defend the country will most likely cultivate a vested interest in seeing it prosper.  Therefore, I am more likely to trust their decisions in choosing our rulers than I will the decision making process of the average citizen, and especially more than those who have not contributed anything on any level.

2) Land ownership:  If someone actually owns land, then they probably had to work for it, which means that not only do they understand the value of hard work, but also the importance of opportunity for upward mobility, and they are more likely to make sound financial decisions.  A person who is more likely to make sound financial decisions is more qualified to select leaders who are capable of doing the same.

Theocracy:

I have been accused of advocating a theocracy, even though I have never once advocated any such thing.  The only type of theocracy that would be viable is if God himself literally and blatantly came down to Earth, stayed here permanently, and ruled from his molten lava looking throne.  If he leaves then people are going to rebel again in a few generations.  If God comes down to stay and rule I’m fine with that, but I’m not fine with human led theocracies.

First of all, typically when people claim to speak for God I don’t believe them.  I believe that many, if not most, of those people are either delusional or attention seekers, perhaps both.  Now, that is not to say that I believe that there is no God, or that he cannot communicate with humans, or that he does not communicate with humans.  But my nature is not to trust people I don’t know until I have some reason to trust them, especially not people who are seeking political power.  I don’t have a concrete objective basis for determining if any particular “word” is actually from God when dealing with people I don’t know.  If something clashes with the Bible I can assume that it’s not from God, but on the other hand I have no concrete objective basis, which I could apply to any scenario, for determining that it is.

Another problem with human led theocracies is that some people have a tendency to impose their own doctrine on scripture (case in point, the medieval Catholic church), and then to turn around and impose that same doctrine on everyone else. 

For example, when I was in 8th or 9th grade (can’t remember exactly) I had a very bad experience in a church.  For a year or so my dad compelled both my brother and I to attend a church youth service every Wednesday night. I did not want to go for a variety of reasons.  I did not like going out on school nights because I always found it difficult to get up early in the morning, and I preferred to have control over what time was left for me after homework.  That was typically when I did most of my drawing and reading.  I also wanted to catch the new episode of Voyager each Wednesday, and I was unaccostomed to going to church on Wednesday nights.  But I digress, the main point is that I did not want to be there and I did not find that service particularly stimulating, and I had no interest in the other people who were mostly in their late teens and early 20′s.  One night however, I did manage to connect with a kindrid spirit.  The guy was older than I was, but he was interested in fantasy literature.  He was a table top RPG gamer, and he asked my brother and I if we could draw some concept art of goblins for him.  We said yes, so we proceeded to draw and we stopped to show him our designs once or twice before resuming work. 

Since we were sitting towards the back of the room and this rather large guy was in front of us I assumed that we would go unnoticed, but without warning one of the huge 20+ year old men walked by and abruptly snatched both of our drawings away from us.  His upper arms were nearly as big around as my head at the time.  It happened so fast that I could do nothing, but even if it happened slowly at the time I was only 135 pounds and 5 ft. 2 in.  I had not yet begun my Kung Fu training or weight training, and although I typically won physical confrontations with peers there was very little I could have done to thwart the onslought of that individual who was both physically superior and who was trained in martial arts.  As he took my art he said, “If you guys are going to draw then church is over for you.” 

I was terribly confused and offended.  Of course I did not particularly care what those people thought of me, but I was irritated that someone would have the unmitigated gall to steal my property.  When my dad arrived he proceeded to upbraid me on the way home about drawing evil things in church, and that the men at the “youth” service were very concerned and praying for us.  They should have been praying that God would forgive them for being thieves, and that I would find it in my heart to forgive them.  My dad tried to accuse me of drawing something evil and causing a problem at the church, but at the time I could not have cared less about what they thought or said because they violated Deuteronomy 5:8; “Thou shalt not steal.”  To me it seemed hypocritical for them to be concerned about my spirituality just because I was drawing something wierd in church, when they were in blatant violation of the 10 commandments. 

I have no level of sympathy or respect for people who steal, no matter what sort of fake righteousness it’s clothed in.  Theft is theft, and no thief will ever be my friend or have my respect, especially if they steal from me. 

I did not share this story to gain sympathy, or to stir up ire towards my co-religionists.  I just mentioned this to show where I am coming from so that people will understand why I do not advocate a theocracy.  Theft and power tripping can occur in the name of righteousness even as they can occur in the name of unabashed wickedness.

On the other hand, I have no objection to societies and governments being formed based on Biblical principles and values, or on the principle of intelligent design, which carries with it inalienable natural rights.  I just don’t want people power tripping or forming thought police.  I hate both of those things.

Anarchy:

Contrary to popular belief, pure anarchy is not on the far left, it is on the far right. Anarchy is the ultimate freeing of the individual from the restraint of other people and institutions. I have argued with communists before who insisted that communism is anarchy, but in truth communism is statism and a command economy. Suppose there is no government, just private individuals each forming their own autonomous nation. If the communists come to my house and ask me to give them all of my things so that they can redistribute all of my property to their friend. I tell them no. Now what are they going to do? They can either go away, or they can try to take it by force. If they try to take it by force there is nothing to stop me from killing them. So much for communism. Communism is collectivism, and collectivism and individualism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

On a personal level I am somewhat of an anarchist, but not on a social level. I do not need laws to make me behave.  Mainly what I want is to be left alone by other people.   I do not wish other people harm, or to exert power over them.  I just want to have my own space, let other people have their space, and if they don’t do anything to me or try to take my stuff then I won’t do anything to them. I respect natural rights which come from God. I am a highly civilized individual, and if I have any sort of dispute with someone else I prefer to settle it with them directly rather than going to the authorities, which is also a Biblical teaching.  To me, people in government are not sacred, they are just people with no one governing them. They are not superior beings with superior intellect or superior virtue, and I do not behave in a civilized fashion out of fear or respect for them. Someone like me does not need government. HOWEVER, that is not true of everyone.

When I visited India I got to see one scenario of how anarchy plays out.  I went to India to visit the girl who would become my fiance, and while there I got to travel through parts of India by plane and by car.  I am fairly well read, and know a good deal more about other cultures than the average person, so I knew that India would be a wantonly impoverished place, but there were still some things there that surprised me.  The average person from the US could not handle being there, even for a visit. 

The government of India does very little, as do the cops, so for the most part the people are left ungoverned.  Garbage was literally everywhere, it was non-stop, and much if not most of it was non-biodegradable materials, such as plastic.  All along the sides of the road and in the fields there was garbage.  In the cities it was much worse, and there were piles of garbage.  There were lots of people, and no garbage service, so when they wanted to throw something away they literally threw it away, as in away from themselves.  There are vast hordes of poor people who lived in such destitute conditions that they make the poor of the 1st world look wealthy by comparison.  Squatting in India is epidemic.  The poor people literally settle wherever there is an open patch of land, regardless of who owns it, and they construct a ramshackle house out of solidified mud.  People who own large tracts of land will often build a large concrete fence with sharp objects along the top around their property to keep the poor people out because the government does not do jack. 

People who have small houses (not the poor with the mud huts but actual houses with facilities) must also surround their homes with concrete fences that have sharp objects imbedded in the top, otherwise their furniture and regrigerators might get stolen, and the cops will do nothing.

There is no traffic regulation.  You drive wherever you can on the road, and sometimes off if there is room, and traffic comes at you from both sides.

I saw no graffiti, at least, not the sorts that you see in the ghetto areas of the US, but I did see advertisements painted on the concrete walls and walls of houses.  There were so many advertisements.  I saw no billboards when I was there, so I assumed that the painted adds were what India had in place of billboards.  But, when I asked my host how much people got paid for allowing the signs to be painted, he said that no one allowed anything.  He said that people painted whatever they wanted wherever they wanted, and no one tried to do anything about it.  He said that if you want to paint something on anything you just go out and paint it.  I kept hearing that the problem with India is that “people can do whatever they want.” 

So not everyone is cut out for anarchy.  Not everyone respects the natural rights of others.  Maybe most people can get along without killing and raping their neighbors, but when it comes to property rights then recognition and respect become more dubious.  Of course, different cultures will handle anarchy at a different level.  Muslims will seize any lack of law enforcement to kill all the religious minorities that are around them.  Ghetto urbanites in the US will riot and break their own stuff. 

But my point is, the reason that we have laws and religion is to regulate those people who are either too immoral or too ignorant to respect the natural rights of others.

So I do not support anarchy because I have seen it empirically demonstrated that not everyone can handle it. 

Authoritarianism/totalitarianism:

I do not support totalitarianism any more than I support anarchy.  In fact, if I had to choose between totalitarianism and anarchy I would choose anarchy, because at least in anarchy I can deal with any problem I might have directly.  Yes the neighbors might decide to do something crazy, but I can deal with it myself, or at least try to.  Under a totalitarian type society the government can do whatever it wants to me and I can’t do anything about it.  The worst case scenario of anarchy is still better than the worst case scenario of totalitarianism or authoritarianism.  I absolutely hate thought police, speech laws, and institutionalized theft.  I hate these things.  I would rather have my patch of land with a concrete wall that I’m responsible for defending myself than live in a Big Brother type society.

Nationalism:

Nationalism is the belief that different peoples have a right to self determinism, which means autonomy and self government.  Nationalism exists in opposition to Imperialism and multiculturalism.  Nationalism is natural, because people who are the same or at least similar have a natural tendency to group together.  Multiculturalism involves forcing disparate and sometimes antithetical cultures and peoples together under one roof.  Multiculturalism must be facilitated and maintained by government action, while Nationalism occurs naturally as like seeks out like.

I tend to support nationalism.  I support Israel because the Jewish people have a right to exist autonomously and govern themselves if they wish it, and especially if they wish to do so in their homeland.  I support Native American nationalism, because the different Native American people groups are have a right to control their own destiny and be governed by their own people if they wish.  I also support Kurdish nationalism, Tuareg separatism, and I especially support the right of my people to secede from the and form their own autonomous country if they wish.

How small of pieces should the US, or any country, break up into and when will it stop?  I don’t know how small of pieces it should break into, however small is necessary to make everyone satisfied, and it will stop when it needs to stop.  The oldest most traditional form of human organization among civilized man is the city state, and even today it is the people at the community level who best understand the needs and temperaments of their community.  I’m not saying that we should return to city states, but if some people want to do then I don’t really care to stop them. 

For the record, I am not a racial segregationist.  I do actually believe that people of different races can get along, if they have shared values, beliefs, priorities, and cultures which are either identical or closely similar.  Sometimes new cultures are created by merging two different people groups.  Sometimes it turns out well, and sometimes it doesn’t.  If there is going to be immigration then it needs to be regulated.  I don’t want people coming into my country who either do not share my values, or who see themselves as being in opposition to me.

To Sum it Up:

As I stated before, I am a loner type of guy, but in nature lone wolves tend to get killed.  That is why when I must interact with others I prefer to interact with individuals who are as likeminded with me as possible, or who at least share my respect for property rights.

I don’t like people taking my stuff.  I don’t like thieves, and I don’t like people who don’t respect property rights.

I hope that this makes my position nice and clear to everyone, so that everyone will know where I am coming from.

This is a message to both my fellow conservatives and the Republican party, which are not one in the same even though they should be.  We conservatives and the Republicans need to change the way that we think, not in terms of our values and beliefs, but the way that we approach politics and our strategy for winning an election.

My concern is that the Republican party will again try to become more liberal, as they did with Bush Jr. and McCain.  If the Republicans become more liberal they can forget about ever winning another election, because most of us will not come out to vote for them.  Whatever new voters they get will be offset by the majority of the traditional voting base no longer voting for them.  We will vote 3rd party, stay at home, or do a write in vote for Chuck Norris. 

The Republican party seems to be clinging to this idea that an election can be won on sound principles and logic alone.  I also used to think that when I was younger but that is simply not true.  Back in 10th grade I read the play “Julius Caesar” and we had a class discussion on the speeches of Brutus and Marc Anthony.  Brutus gave a well reasoned speech for his position based on facts and logic, which I thought was quite convincing at the time, while Marc Anthony gave a speech full of emotional appeals which made very little use of facts and logic.  Of course Marc Anthony won the debate, not really, but the people percieved him as winning because his use of emotional rhetoric connected with them on an emotional level.  At the time I thought that was stupid and I failed to understand how anyone could think that way, but that is in fact how at least half of humanity thinks.  People who do not understand the facts and logic behind the arguments, or the implications of the actions and policies will always sympathize with whichever character seems more dynamic.  Romney trounced Obama in the debates.  He did everything but bend him over his knee and spank him, yet he lost, why?  Because while the average Republican voter may be persuaded by a logical presentation of facts and policy, but the average voter is more interested in the personality and presentation of the character.

Another factor that Republicans are not taking seriously is race.  This is a problem shared by conservatives in general.  Liberals are always calling us racist, and most of us have no idea why.  Most of us are not racist, or even race conscious, however, race is one of the greatest weapons our opponents are using against us, and on multiple fronts.  If the US were all white or even 95% white we would have trounced Obama.  59% of white people voted for Romney.  America was founded and built from the ground up by white Christian conservative people.  We made this country good, which is why other people want to come here and get a piece of the prosperity.  I am not trying to disparage anyone else here, I’m just stating facts, if anyone gets offended then so be it.  We have lost control of the country, which means that it will be taken in a different direction for now, a direction other than that which made it great.  Look at the results, the majority of blacks and Mexicans voted for Obummer, but what I find most disturbing is how the Asian community voted.  Asians are supposed to be smart, so why did 73% of them turn out for Obama? 

When it comes to different immigrant groups living in the US they cannot be expected to have the same level of awareness and appreciation for the philosophical basis upon which this country was founded, just like I do not understand or care about the basis upon which Mexico was founded.  They cannot be faulted for that.  All they know is that there is prosperity in the US and they want a piece.  Some people come here to work for it and others come here to get it for free by taking advantage of our social programs.  When they come here they get indoctrinated by the Democrats, who sell them this idea that it is us (traditional white Americans) against them (whatever non-white immigrant group).  The Democrats weave their support base by forming a coalition against traditional Americans and traditional American values.  That is why they get the votes of both Muslims, homosexuals, and Mexicans.  Homosexuals in Muslim countries do not fare so well, and the Muslims do not share the Democrat’s support for abortion or homosexuality.  BUT, they vote together because they both stand in opposition to the traditional American values and way of life, and the Democrats present themselves as the opposition party.  Mexicans also do not tend to support abortion, homosexuality, or an invasive big brother type government getting up their colons and beneath their skin, but again, the white traditional American is presented as a bad guy who needs to be opposed, so the Democrats are able to form a coalition and the Mexicans get on board with them. 

When it comes to Asians and Indians, they of all people should be more conservative than anyone else.  They come here and they work harder AND smarter than anyone else, and they receive no tangible benifits from Democrat social or economic policy.  They don’t get benifits from affirmative action, they typically don’t get on welfare, and they typically earn more money which means they get soaked with a higher portion of taxes.  So why would they vote for the Democrats?  It’s because of how the Democrats play up race.  If they do not see their interests as being bound up with ours, and they are made to see us as boogiemen, then of course they are going to vote against us. 

When it comes to black Americans, they have been living here just as long as white people have.  Most of them vote Democrat without thinking.  Their support for the Democrats spiked with Obama because they perceived, incorrectly, that he was one of them.  There is no amount of facts, logic, or good policy that can overcome that sort of thinking.

Republicans also need to realize that they are not just running against their opponent in the Democrat party, but against the entire media and entertainment industry as well.  Look at all the support and positive coverage Obama got from the media.  Look at all the negative coverage Romney got.  Look at all the wackjob actors and pop-culture musicians that came out for Obama.  Look at the talk show hosts.  Joss Weadon even came out for Obama, does anyone think Joss Weadon was paid or blackmailed?  I hope not. 

For a long time I have been saying that Obama is a hollow empty man.  I once said that he’s not even a real man, and I stand by that.  Obama was clearly groomed for his position, and he has been trumped up as this great thing, not because of what he has done, but because of what he represents.  He is an icon for liberalism, an avatar of their ideology.  He is the first presidential candidate to ever have his own icon and his own theme song.  He is the first politician in American history, where they have taken worship songs from church and put Obama’s name in them in place of God and Jesus.  He is the embodiment of the entertainment industry, of socialism, of internationalism, of multiculturalism, and he has this dynamic personality which the person of average intellect finds more relatable than a Mr. Data type presentation of the facts.  How many times in STTNG do people tell Data to shut it when he recites the facts?  He took liberalism and made it “cool,” which means that more people got interested in liberalism than there were before.

Listen, I’m not saying that we need to change our values or give up on facts or logic, but we do need to change our strategy.  We need to get our own icon who embodies traditional American values, and who is relatable on a personal level.  I would like a Captain America type character, but we need to also take the liberals greatest weapon, which is race, away from them.  Even though it goes against our nature as conservatives to campaign based on race and emotions, we are just going to have to bight the bullet and do it if we ever want to have our country back.  We need an icon who not only embodies our values but also smashes the negative stereotypes against us which the Democrats have worked so long and hard to construct.

I would like to see a guy like ET Williams, the Doctor of Common Sense (check him out on youtube).  He embodies all of the traditional American values which we hold dear and lives by them.  He has a dynamic personality, and he uses emotional rhetoric just as much as he uses facts and logic.  The fact that he is black will forcibly dispell the notion that we are against anyone who is not white.  He also has a poweful physique, which projects strength, power, and hard work.  He is 100% admirable on every level.  He is like a black Captain America.  I know that Republicans don’t like to think about these things but they must, it’s absolutely crucial.  We get our own icon, and that way we can also get fresh exposure for all of our policies.  Sometimes you have to lead the horse to water before he drinks, but after that he knows where the water is.  The Republican party must get past the emotional blockades before new people can be won over with facts and logic

Republicans, you can either take my advice or you can throw the next election as well.  How is it that you think so many people voted for Obama without knowing what he stands for?  Think about it for the sake of the country.  It’s up to you. 

Also, listen to Alfonzo Rachel, another good example of the sort of candidate we should field in the next election:

When Obama won the first time I felt like we had been invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy, which is fairly accurate, although the leftist 5th column had lot to do with bringing this ghastly ideology and this village idiot from Kenya here.  Communism and Islam are 100% un-American and completely antithetical to our values and way of life.

It is beyond all belief that the media is still trying to link the Benghazi attacks to the clips posted online from that home job movie “Innocense of Muslims.”  Obama knew full well that Benghazi was a 9/11 act of terrorism, and yet he blamed it on that movie for two weeks.  The media is still trying to blame it on that movie:

Deadly violence related to the film broke out on Sept. 11 and spread to many parts of the Middle East.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/man-behind-anti-muslim-film-gets-1-prison-085252060.html

Yes I know, any liberal reading this will say, “They never specifically mentioned Benghazi.”  Not specifically, but look at the wording carefully.  They said violence broke out on 9/11 related to the film “and spread to many parts of the Middle East.”  Where did the violence start on 9/11?  Benghazi.  There you go, they are still trying to blame it on the film to cover over Obama’s blistering incompetence.

I don’t know what I find more disturbing, the fact that Obama is using this man as a scapegoat, or the fact that he is also cracking down on this man to please our enemies the Muslims.  Make no mistake, the Muslims are our enemy, they are even the enemy of the self righteous multiculturalist white liberals.  I am appalled by the way this situation has been handled.

First of all, Obama blames Benghazi on the film, then when copycat protests and rioting spreads, he goes around the world and apologizes for the film to our enemies.  He then sends his goons to arrest this man in the night and carry him off to prison.  In the meantime the liberal media, which is Obama’s voluntary mouthpiece, releases this man’s name after word of the movie has spread throughout the Islamic world, KNOWING that the Muslims would be angry with him and knowing that he wanted to keep his identity a secret. 

Now they have gone a step further and released a court room drawing of this man in the same article where they mention his full name for the first time.  They know the Muslims want to kill this man and they work to make his identity known.  The article even mentions that a man in the Pakistani government has placed a $100,000 reward on this man for anyone who kills him. 

It’s absolutely deplorable that this would happen in the US, where we are supposed to have freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech does not mean that your freedom ends where someone else’s feelings begin.  Freedom of speech means that you can criticize whatever you want, regardless of whose feelings get hurt.  As far as I am concerned Nakoula Besseley Yousef should be given a medal of honor for criticizing that Satanaic false sham of a religion known as Islam.  That vile disgusting child molesting wife beating garbage heap of lies which has does nothing but spread oppression and suffering, and which has lowered the IQ of the Middle East and North Africa to about 85.  The movie was 100% accurate and true, even if it was poorly done.

It’s not Obama’s job to apologize to our enemies for anything.  It’s not his job to apologize to our enemies because we have freedom of speech in the US.  It’s not his job to arrest this man as either a scapegoat or to appease our enemies. 

I don’t believe the arguments that Nakoula was arrested for anything other than the movie.  Fraud this or fraud that.  Those things were done well before the movie.  Also, I don’t buy the argument that he was arrested because he used a computer.  Anyone who has seen any of that movie should be able to tell that there are no special affects, and anyways all he did was direct.  Such garbage, such lies.  The fact is Shariah has reached out and touched us. 

All of us freedom loving Americans should make our own movies and videos against Islam.  I am going to burn a Koran and post it on my youtube page.  Let’s teach these Muslims a lesson, and send them a clear message that we are not indimidated, and that we will not accept Islam or Shariah.

Finally, if Obama loves Islam so bloody much that he’s willing to do their dirty work, he ought to practice what he preaches and put his wife in a Burka.  I guarantee that most of America will not mind if he does that.

Durka durka, muhamad jihad.

I want to get the word out to all of the liberals, those America hating internationalists.  If you think that this is over and we are just going to sit there and take it you are sadly mistaken.  I know you want us to just bend over and take it.  I know that you want us to just roll along with your agenda but that is not how it’s going to be.

1) We aren’t gay, so we don’t want to be take anything in the bum without a fight.  I know that many of you people are into that sort of thing, but we don’t roll that way.

2) After all the class warfare, four years of failure, and continual hatred and scorn we have received from your side you cannot seriously expect any of us to want to work with you on anything, unless it’s getting you a one way ticket to another country.  You can’t treat people with contempt, and work to undermine their values and way of life without them seeing you as anything other than an enemy in the end.

You liberals will have no peace, and you will have no unity.

Obama is either the greatest liar since the Devil himself or he is one of the greatest.  When he talks about being the advocate of the middle class he’s lying.  I would love to make it INTO the middle class, but this man is waging a war on upward social mobility.  Without a raise I can’t move into the middle class.  Without a better job I can’t move into the middle class.  With the costs of gas and food going up my standard of living can only go down.  Obama can take his false rhetoric and shove it.  We aren’t so bloody stupid as to actually believe that pile of horse-hockey.

Again Obama is trying to go on about how he is everyone’s president and that he actually gives a rats behind about what the other side thinks.  Such lies.  His first time through focused entirely on his own agenda, the second time through he will only step that up because he doesn’t have to worry about re-election. 

(source: http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-lease-renewed-despite-tough-economic-times-093111734–election.html)

Just shut up Obama, and do whatever it is you want to do, because that’s all you ever did in the first place.  Either way we are going to call you out.  I honestly would rathar have Rita Revolta or Thanos for president, because like Obama they are also alien monsters hellbent on destroying my way of life and personal freedom, but at least they don’t sugarcoat their intentions with bogus rhetoric and empty platitudes.  What a joke.

It’s insane how Bush gets blamed for Obama’s failure.  Bush wasn’t the president the last four years.  I’m starting think the average Obamanite has all the reasoning powers of Bizarro.  In what world is intense failure rewarded with a second chance?

Obama said he was going to fundamentally change America, why anyone would want that is beyond me, but he sure has done it.  We will never be able to change it back, even if we get Republicans back in charge in the next election (if there is one), but we won’t.  We are done for.  Our only hope is secession.

I find it very telling that the stock market plummeted immediately after the election.  Every business leader knows that Obama is bad for business, and he has certainly made no secret of his contempt for it.  Things will only plummet from here on out, and you cannot blame Bush because he is gone.  This is Obama.  To try to tie this crash in with anything other than Obama is completely asenine.  Of course it’s a reaction to his re-election, and after his new policies take effect it will only get worse.  This is what happens when communists are in charge of a country. 

(source: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/obama-wins-election-2012-means-investors-155657964.html)

Obama will systematically dismantle this country, which was his plan all along.  He will devalue the dollar, he will whore away our sovereignty to the UN, he will continue to weaken our military, and he will fill our country with immigrants who see themselves as our enemies.  End of story.

I want all my conservative freedom loving brothers and sisters to realize that our country has been stolen from us.  That is why we lost this election, and the last one, and why we will also lose the next national election.  We must secede from Washington.

At first I was too enraged to speak in my usual fashion, and was considering pulling out all the stops for this rant, and I do mean all, but the fact is I have an image to maintain.

It looks like Romney has won the popular vote, but Barack Osama has won the election, so while I cannot definitively say that we have become a minority in our own country, I can say beyond any shadow of a doubt that we have lost our country.  We have lost our country to seditious globalist/internationalist forces which are hell bent on making America weak and erasing us from existence.  Now that they have won, they will pull out all of the stops, and like the “Party” of George Orwell’s 1984 they will do whatever can to ensure their permanence.  It won’t be hard for them, because the Democrats already did a good deal of damage under Obama.

As I said before, we have been targetted by dysgenics.  This is most likely the last time our people will ever win the popular vote.  The Democrats will flood this country with so much immigration that we will not be able to win the popular vote any more than Michelle Obama could win a beauty contest.  Let’s face it.  It’s over.  The only point on our even going to the polls in the next election will be to make a statement of principle, because there will be no chance of us winning.  I did not watch coverage of the whole process, but during the time I did watch I heard them say “changing demographics” twice.  That’s it.  That’s all it takes, and that is all they need.  We are done for.

Now we patriotic/true Americans have to watch as the internationalists tear down our country for another four years, and so on and so forth.  It’s disgusting, and it will be painful for us to watch.  Things will get worse, and the liberals will continue to blame us for the problems that their leaders have created.

I was hopeful that Romney would win, but I was afraid he would not, and as it turns out my fears were true.  I was hoping for a better economy, for cheaper gas, for cheaper food, for a lower cost of living, for that damn travesty known as Obamacare to go.  I was hoping that the business I was working for would expand so that I could eventually get a raise.  But no.  Now none of that will happen now.  There will be no raise, my cost of living will go up, and I will be lucky if my business survives.  I am probably never going to get INTO the middle class unless one of my gimmicks pays off.   And this man Obama has the gall to call himself the champion of the middle class? Lying bastard.  The quality of medical treatment will certainly go down, the maximum age at which you are eligible to recieve coverage will certainly go down, the sort of care we can receive will be decided by a handful of asshats in Washington.  We can expect to see an increased crackdown on alternative medical treatments.

Also, no one is going to stop the drones Obama is launching over our country.  There is only one hope for us…

Secession.  That’s right, it’s time to secede.  I don’t see why a bunch of manjinas up north should get to decide my fate.  I would rather be governed by my own people than these aliens.  Look at this map:

I don’t want my fate being decided by another people group which does not share my values or beliefs, and which is out to destroy my way of life.  In terms of both geographic area and population (popular vote), most of the country wanted Romney over Obummer, yet again we have Obummer. The only bright spot in this dark night of failure, defeat, and subjugation is that the three states which I have called home had the sense to vote against Obama (Missouri, Texas, and Georgia).

Forget about the elections, it’s time to fight the Democrats at the state level. The national election is going to be irrelevant from now on.  We will most likely never again win a national election because the Democrats will fill the country with people who see themselves as being in opposition to us.   At the state level we can vote for people who will stand up to Obama and all those other communist traitors, and yes, we have to be prepared to die for our freedom.

It’s time to cast off the yoke of Washington and become a free country. Let the liberals have their damn states up in the northeast and west coast. They can have as much sodomy, abortion, animal humping, and communism, spy drones, internet surveillance, and tracking microchips as they want. Then when they realize the nightmare they created and want out we will close the doors to them, just like we will close the doors to the Muslims and to immigration from Mexico.

Our only chance for freedom and self determination is secession.

Oh, one more thing.  It looks like the hurrican Sandy went exactly where it was supposed to go:

Today I went and voted, and surprise surprise, I had some trouble.  When I went in to vote they tried to tell me that I was registered for Columbus Georgia, even though I left there in 2007 and have voted in Fulton County since then.

Guys, today is our last chance to get rid of Obama.  We must get rid of this man.  If we don’t get rid of him then this might very well be the last meaningful election we have, if not the last election we have.  This man hates everything our country was founded on, and he hates our country.  He is out to destroy our way of life.  This man thinks he’s a world president, so much so that he even holds a UN office even though it’s 100% illegal for him to do so.  He is working to put drones over the whole country to spy on us and take down citizens wherever he wants.  He has already put through NDAA which shows what he thinks of the Constitution, and he has already tried to cut deals with the Russians.  If we don’t get rid of him then there is no hope for this country.  Get out there, and vote this commie internationalist out of office.

For a long time I have suspected that at least half the Obama supporters do not even know what Obama stands for, and among those that do there are a good deal of party loyalists who do not understand how the policies will affect the.  As I have said before, the Democrats want to fill the country with people who will believe them when they say a dog is a duck. 

If you are going to vote you should at least know what the candidates stand for, and how their policies will effect the country.  If not, then for the love of everything that is good don’t vote.

Just look: