November 6, 2012

There is one thing good about today. This is the last day we will see endless commercials of politicians bashing their opponents for everything under the sun, real or unreal.

Beyond this good news, today is the long awaited date in which we, as American citizens, find out if a majority of the country wants to put the final nail in the coffin of liberty, or if that majority wants to breathe freedom another day.

Voters from across the country will join what another 27 and a half million have already done with early voting. They will be deciding between surrundering to the United Nations by re-electing Barack Obama, or putting off that ineviable fate for a few more years.

On thing is for sure, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are globalists. This means both view the United States as merely a state within a one-world government, placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations. The difference between them is in the way each will accomplish this.

A re-elected Obama will have only four more years to "finish us off." This means, he will bring the United States farther down the economic slide so that we are no better, or no worse, than a third world country. Equality is the buzz word here. Redistribution of wealth means more than you and me having the federal governemnt peel off more of our hard-earned dollars to support those who are less fortunate. It means taking vast amounts to support those nations who are not as fortunate as us, until we are brought down to their level.

A newly elected Mitt Romney will not bring about a redistributionist policy. Rather, he will spend the next four or eight years paying off some of the debt we owe to other nations in order to make them more prosperous than we are now. Romney will do this through the United Nations, via the World Bank.

Either way, Obama or Romney will bring our subservience to other nations. It's just a matter of timing. Obama's will be immediately; Romney will let it fester.

It really boils down to how soon we are going to become part of that one-world government, so longed for by the Rockefellers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger and George Soros.

One friend of mine noted that if Romney wins, "we can go down with our heads held high. An Obama win will mean we go down with our heads bowed lower than his when greeting foreign potentates and kings."

From this writer's perspective, two things are going to happen regardless. One is that Romney will bring about more change than Obama in his first three years in office. Most of the changes will be better for the country economically.

The second thing is the fact that I will be on his case when he varies from the Constitution just as I have been with Obama. I just might not have as much to write about,...which could be good as it would give my mind, and pen, a little bit of rest.

On a different note, let me remind my readers that I am a card carrying member of the Constitution Party. I have been a member since 2004. I have voted for their candidates for President, first Michael Peroutka in 2004, then Pastor Chuck Baldwin in 2008. Today, I will cast my ballot for the man who heads our ticket, Virgil Goode.

I am also a realist, and know that neither Goode, nor any other third party candidate will win the election. My vote is simply a statement. It will only take away a singular vote from one of the two other mainline candidates.

Goode, along with Libertarian Gary Johnson and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party will take away votes mostly from Romney. However, Jill Stein from the Green Party, Stewart Anderson of the Socialist Party USA, Roseanne Barr (yes, the comedian) of the Peace and Freedom Party, Stephen Durham of the Freedom Socialist Party and Peta Lindsay of the Party for Socialism and Liberation will draw votes from Obama.

There are a host of other socialists and communists running within individual states and each will draw their votes from the President.

My vote, with its endorsement, merely says neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate offer a Constitutional vision for America. Neither are concerned about the original intent of that document. Neither are committed to the same principles of the founding fathers. Neither have earned, or deserve my vote.

If it came down to just the top two, I hope for a Romney win.

Obama is just all around bad for the economy, for the sovereignty of our nation, for the culture, and for the people. Obama plays (or should I say "bows") to the beat of a different drummer. He answers to powerful unions, bankers, world leaders and the Chicago machine. He is a commmunity organizer, which, translated into government-speak, means he organizes all the worlds big players together to sell the United States down the river.

Oh Romney will play to big business, Wall Street and the usual Republican backers with money. But his agenda will not involve the furtherance of cultural, moral and ethical decline. In fact, his administration may slow the decay down a bit so that morality can be taught and leaarned one more time in our nation and among our children.

I'll breathe a little easier with Mitt Romney. But with Barack Obama, I, like so many of my pastor friends will be starting to dig our caverns out and prepare to go underground so that the teaching of Judeo-Christian values can continue somewhere on this earth.  I envision a time when Christians will seemingly return to the days of the Roman Empire persecutions when believers looked for that ichthus (fish) sign on the side of cave entrances indicating where Christiains were meeting in secret.

Christianity, and, by extension in the mind of the cultural atheist, Mormanism, stands in the way of "progress." Remember that word - PROGRESS. It comes from the same word for "Progressive," which is Democrat-speak for DIGRESSIVE.

Today is a day of reckoning. As Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines "reckoning", it is time to settle accounts. The question is, whose account is to be settled? Freedom-loving, traditional values Americans, or Barack Obama?

It is that simple!

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.