Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, January 26, 2012

On-Line Onanism, and the Gingrinch who stole the primaries

Onanism has been used as a euphemism for masturbation, although my very limited understanding of the Bible is that Onan was being advised to engage in coitus interruptus, rather than masturbation, as is often believed. The alliteration felt clever, even if not quite accurate, at labeling this post as a bit of mental masturbation (like the staff meetings we used to have at the VA). The end result of either is likely to be infertile, and I am afraid my feeble attempts at encouraging the few who read me to actually move toward liberty are likely to be less than fertile as well. Some are already there, and the rest will likely never see the reason for it.

It is discouraging - not conducive to bringing about feelings of courage - to think that the Republican Party will not put forth a candidate good enough to beat the campaign of lying propaganda, the voter fraud and electoral college manipulation I expect from the Obama regime. Feeling discouraged is not the same as cowardice, and does not equate to hopelessness or unwillingness to try, but it does reflect my difficulty in feeling hopeful.

Some of our most brilliant pundits, such as Thomas Sowell, have spoken of the need for a candidate with fire, with a willingness to go beyond the mamby-pamby polite disagreement with the current administration as evidenced by such as Romney and Santorum. They speak of the fact that, while Gingrinch (forgive my Dr. Seuss allusion) is certainly one of the last choices a true conservative would make for President, he still comes in line before the two limp men he is running against.

For those of you who have just sat up in your chairs or recliners, shouting "Ron Paul is the only one worth voting for," know that I agree with you. Even though I strongly believe Paul to be an anti-Semite who would sacrifice Israel to the "Palestinians" in order to keep the peace, and keep America isolationist, I would vote for him - if he were electable, which he is not. As in 2008, he will continue to be marginalized, dismissed not just by the media, but by the Republican Party itself, which refused to count the votes for him in the primaries of the last Presidential election, and will certainly do the same this time.

Even if we were able to conduct a strong write-in campaign - which I suggested to Paul's own campaign staff last time (although they never responded to my suggestion), I feel certain the Republican Party would see that those votes were buried. So, unless a miracle candidate appears with the appeal to us true conservatives of Sarah Palin, who definitely "will not run, and if elected will not serve", we are stuck with death by wimp candidates or the acceptance of a candidate distasteful to us, but who possesses fire-in-the-belly, as does Gingrinch, who after all is indeed an experience politician, a man who pulled off quite a coup during the Clinton administration, even if he did fail to follow through on his promises, as all politicians do. Check out Goldberg's article at

A good friend of mine, whose opinion I greatly respect, recently said he didn't think he could "hold his nose" and vote for Gingrinch. He agrees with a long-held belief of mine that voting for the lesser of two evils still gets you nothing but evil. That is one reason why I did not vote for a Presidential candidate in 2008. McCain is as arrogant as Obama, is as much an elitist as Obama, and I remain convinced he conceded the election to Obama even before any votes were cast. I truly believe he is perfectly happy to have Obama as President, and that his agenda does not differ from BO's in any significant manner.

This is one time in my life, however, that I feel there is enough difference in the level, the degree of evil, that we will experience if Obama is elected. Four more years awarded to a creature as arrogant, as obsessed with islam, as desirous of seeing America become a socialist country where Sharia is more acceptable than Constitutional law, will be the death of this grand experiment called America.

It will certainly be bad enough if BO is successful in stealing the election through voter fraud or other manipulations of the system. It will be bad enough if he simply does as Ahmadinejad did in Iran, and declares himself the winner. However, if he is able to actually get a majority of the vote fair and square (unlikely as it would be given the voter fraud we know will occur, but still possible, nonetheless) he will consider it a mandate to take complete control of our country, to become the total tyrant that he has shown himself capable of being.

As rotten as Gingrinch is, as poor a choice as he will always be, an America under his administration will be far safer than with a no-holds-barred Obama presidency. If I can be allowed a bit of exaggeration here, a bit of "over-the-top" hyperbole, I would rather experience a Gingrinch dictatorship than the socialist paradise envisioned by Obama, with him as our fearless leader. Although we would continue to suffer the further loss of our liberty under Gingrinch, it would not be the blood in the streets I expect if Obama is permitted another four years to destroy our economy, our identity, and our national security. The blood that will be lost if he stands idly by while Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel (yes, they might destroy Iran in retaliation, but that would not save the Israelis, a good people who would live in peace if they weren't surrounded by those who will be satisfied by nothing less than their total destruction).

I feel quite certain that the media does not attack Romney strongly because they want him to be the Republican candidate, that they realize he is so like Obama that many will simply vote for Obama the way they did when McCain was the other option. So, unless someone comes up with a better idea, or some saint throws his or her hat in the ring soon, I am suggesting Gingrinch is the only candidate who will take a hard enough stand to actually defeat Obama in the November elections. I wish that were not the case, but that is how I see it. Please, feel free to prove me wrong, but not with wishful thinking, such as Ron Paul making a third-party run.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

wanderlust and a wandering mind

My wife and I have been on the road for a while, so my frequent long pauses between posts have been exacerbated (no, that's not something you do by yourself in the privacy of your own home) by our travels. Our RV is currently sitting in Southern Utah, but we are in Oregon. My wife needed to get her yearly checkup from her OB/GYN doctor (obviously the OB part is non-essential at this late date), along with her yearly mammogram and her bone scan for osteopenia. Since her doctor is in Oregon, we drove on up there and have been spending some time visiting good friends while we are here.

There are a number of issues I have wanted to post on, even though I haven't really had that much free time between our visits and the actual driving for hours and/or days getting from place to place. One of these issues is the incredible behavior of our President.

I know I have posted about what I consider his many peccadilloes as well as the major errors and egregious violations of Constitutional law that he has been guilty of, especially lately. I feel the need, however, to list some of the most outrageous of these violations.

Recently, he has committed treason, which is defined as: the act of betraying one's country (yes, there are several other definitions, but this is the pertinent one). Why do I make such a bold and seemingly indefensible claim? Because Obama has decided it was appropriate and acceptable to share our secret missile technology and capabilities with the Russian government, which bears us no good will. (http://news.investors.com/Article/597158/201201091847/obama-gives-russia-missile-defense-secrets.htm)

He has also appointed several individuals to cabinet-level positions while Congress has been in session, without getting Senate approval for the appointments, in spite of this being blatantly unConstitutional behavior.

In addition, he has issued "signing statements" wherein he has admitted that HE will decide whether or not legislation written and passed by Congress is actually Constitutional or not, and that he will act based upon his own interpretation of said Constitutionality.

Obama has made it quite plain that he is willing to ignore the rule of law that the rest of us - well, with the exception of Congress and the unions and the Occupy cretins - are required to abide by. Ask yourself: is it true that politicians lie? Is it true that Presidents lie? Is it true that Obama has lied?

Now, do you know what the penalty is if a common citizen, such as you or I, should lie to a federal officer? Since it is a felony, it means you go to prison. Martha Stewart did not go to prison because of insider trading - which our Congressmen and Congresswomen do routinely, and have amassed great fortunes thereby. She was convicted of lying to Federal law enforcement during their investigation of her possible insider trading, and went to prison for lying, not trading.

Would someone like to hazard a guess as to why it should be permissible for federal officers (such as our Congress-persons and our President) to lie to us, but not for us to lie to them? Perhaps because it gives the Feds the power to control and punish us rubes, us simple, bitter clingers, when we stray from the path our politicians and bureaucrats would have us follow? Or is it also because our legislators and bureaucrats simply desire to be free of the constraints that we are expected to operate and live under, and write the laws to allow themselves that freedom?

Is this really the kind of government you want? Is this really freedom, the kind of liberty you would like to experience as a citizen of this once-great country? Is this the President you want come the general election in November? I sincerely hope not.