A Presidential Election Post-Mortem Analysis

"These are the times that try men's souls," so wrote the great man from whom I borrowed my nom de plume, Thomas Paine, in his entreaty The American Crisis.  It would seem that we have nearly come full circle once again into trying times that threaten our very liberties.  Instead of King George III though, this time it is in the guise of a  majority of the American  people themselves that are bound and determined to destroy what is left of our nation in hopes of obtaining more of the tax payer's lucre for themselves.

Everybody and their mangy cur dogs have put in their two cents as to why Obama won re-election and why the Republicans faired so poorly.  I decided to wait a week or so before doing my post-mortem on the election debacle so that I could be more objective in my analysis and not let my fear, frustration, and deep concern overly color what would likely have been a much more emotional response from me otherwise had I done so on the day right afterwards.  

That said, I have read what many of the pundits, bloggers, and political insiders have had to say regarding the reasons for the Democrats’ success.  Typically there is indeed some truth in what each one had to offer as for the reasons, and yet nobody quite captured the real bottom line answer; at least not to my mind. 

Was Romney the strongest conservative candidate?  No way!  Did Republicans reach out to Hispanics as well as they could have?  Not even.  Did Hurricane Sandy help Obama by giving him a chance to “look presidential” and thus save the day and cause the despicable Chris Matthews to give thanks for the storm accordingly?  Undoubtedly so.  Did many hard core conservatives and fundamentalist Christians stay home on election day.  For certain many did.  Were Libertarians and disaffected conservatives upset with the “moderation” of our presidential candidate and not vote for Romney accordingly.  Yes, and I know too many friends and acquaintances that fall into this category.  Did Obama and his surrogates lie and demagogue unabashedly regarding Romney and his policies and past.  You betcha, and some of the more candid Democrats even admitted this.  Did the sycophantic statist media all but ignore the highly troubling issues such as the death of four Americans in Libya that Obama could have prevented and the entire Fast and Furious program?  Disgustingly, yes they did.  Did Romney lay out a specific plan that was attacked by the left, while Obama’s platform was more vague and offered just more of the same?  Of course.  Did voter fraud on behalf of the left help Obama.  Almost certainly so; particularly in areas around Philadelphia where in 59 different districts not a single solitary vote went to Romney.  (A nearly 20,000 to 0 edge for Obama was the result there.)

All of the above did indeed play roles in the results of the final tally, but no one issue in and of itself captured the real reason why Obama and the Democrats soundly defeated Romney and the conservatives on November 6th.  I would submit it is something greater and more insidious because the root is now so entrenched in the American electorate.  The real reason that Obama won is because people today are ignorant.  I don’t use that term as a pejorative but rather as a definitive term that describes the root problem.  Most Americans today are not familiar with our history as a nation.  They are unfamiliar with our Constitution and the necessity of the rule of law in abiding by its dictates and defending those rights for us laid out within.  Most Americans are unfamiliar with basic economics.  They are too caught up in their day to day lives to let their own common sense prevail and tell them what they should already know.  Basically it all boils down to the inarguable fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Somebody has to pay for that.  The bottom line is that with a majority of Americans’ overwhelming ignorance comes their desire to get something for nothing.

Romney was scourged during the campaign for decrying the fact that 47% of Americans are dependent upon government and net benefactors of the tax payers accordingly.  The media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) used that comment to mercilessly attack Romney as cruel and uncaring.  Now granted, there are significant portions of that 47% that are retirees living on Social Security, military retirees living on their government pensions, and those small few that are genuinely unable to work that are dependent upon our tax payer funded safety net.  Many of the others though are capable people that are simply wanting to take all that they can get from Uncle Sam.  They want something for nothing… and their chicks for free, I suspect.

John Kennedy famously asked during his inaugural address in 1961, “My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”   Nearly 52 years later, a majority of Americans and seemingly all Democrats are asking what the country can do for them, and to hell with what a person can do for the country or their fellow Americans.  The mindset has totally changed.  Government, instead of providing only necessary functions as specifically outlined in the Constitution, is now looked to for support and the solving of nearly any problem one encounters daily.  No longer is there a sense of personal responsibility and rugged individualism.  Instead there is a desire to grow an already overbearing nanny state so that one’s needs and desires can be taken care of by the “greedy and evil rich” in this country.

This means that for this problem to be fixed, Americans must learn exactly what it means to be an American once again.  The progressive and often incompetent teachers unions have done us no favors in this regard.  History and civics have been replaced with revisionist and politically correct diatribes of our past.  The importance of voting for candidates that respect and will defend our constitution is an amusing and archaic notion, if it is even considered at all.  And this has metastasized into the problem it has because parents typically are aloof or disconnected from their kids and the quality of the education they are receiving.  They are unaware or don’t care enough over the last two generations that we are raising a country of whining and ignorant people that want to be taken care of rather than being strong and self-sufficient.

The culture as promulgated by many of our movies and music also reflects this ignorance and further entrenches us into this selfish “gimmee mine” nation that we have become.  Unfortunately it has now manifested itself by how a majority of us vote.

I have seen many of the left cheer and jeer that “their side” won the election and that we conservatives should just buck up and deal with it.  To many of them, it was a triumph of party politics.  To me, and I dare say to many conservatives, it was not a loss for the often incompetent or corrupt Republicans but rather a loss of American ideals.  We cannot afford to continue on with the spending that Obama and the progressives of both parties have saddled us with over the last decade in particular.  We cannot and should not be funding more entitlements simply to further entrench Americans in their dependency upon government.  It is not mere political hyperbole when I say that I fear for the end of America in Obama’s next term.  Our spending is unsustainable.  We are foolish if we think we can continue unabated.  There will be consequences to printing or digitizing our currency by the Federal Reserve.  There will be consequences for the usurpation of our God-given rights as codified in our Constitution. 

Many Americans are very afraid what the next few years hold in store for us.  It is not a matter of if we can wait until 2016 to try again with a better conservative candidate for president.  The fear is that there won’t be a recognizable America left by 2016.  I noticed yesterday that petitions for secession from the union have been started in 31 states thus far.  This fear is real and almost palpable.  America has never been so dangerously divided amongst its people.  The only solution is to clearly articulate our philosophies as grounded in our history and constitution, and to do it continuously until it seeps into the very fabric of the American culture.  We must do so NOW in our classrooms, from our pulpits, and throughout our culture so that we can change this seemingly inexorable tide of selfishness and desired dependence that we have fomented within our population.  If we fail to do so starting right now, it won’t be the feckless Republican party that will perish.  It will be far more destructive to humanity and freedom than that.  It will be the end of the United States of America. 

A Reason-based Appeal to Sincere Catholic Voters

With the presidential election just next week, it has become readily apparent to me that many good and faithful Catholics these days can feel torn between adhering to their faith and a sense of loyalty to the Democratic Party.  Indeed Catholicism and the Democrat Party have had very strong ties that have gone back for many generations in this nation.  That said, today’s Democratic Party has shifted its platform to the point where, in my humble opinion, a faithful Catholic would be hard pressed to vote for most Democratic candidates today.  With that assertion, let’s take an honest look and assess where the Democrat Party stands now in relation to Christ’s Church. 

First, our last two popes and the bishops have taught that there are certain non-negotiable issues for faithful Catholics which trump and over-ride any and all other considerations when voting.  Those non-negotiable issues as stated by the Church are:

Abortion:  It is intrinsically evil and must never be promoted or condoned.

Embryonic stem cell research:  It is intrinsically evil and must never be promoted or condoned.

Euthanasia:  It is intrinsically evil and must never be promoted or condoned.

The traditional understanding of marriage:  It is the union of one man and one woman and must always be upheld.

Education: The right of parents to educate their children must always be upheld.

Any and all other issues, even of a social justice nature are trumped by the preceding five non-negotiable measures.  That includes issues such as immigration, environmental issues, affordable housing, and health care.  Those are considered as policy issues and as such are considered matters of prudential judgment in which faithful Catholics are free to disagree.  However, faithful Catholics are not able to disagree on the five non-negotiable issues.

Phoenix’s Bishop, Thomas Olmstead, clarified this dictate in a guide for Catholic voters called “Catholics in the Public Square”.  The good Bishop stated,

“On each of these [policy] issues, we should do our best to be informed and to support those proposed solutions that seem most likely to be effective. However, when it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter.”

Indeed, the right to life is the sine qua non of all other rights.  That is, without that right, there can be no others.

Pope John Paul II wrote:

 “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination.”  (Christifideles Laici, 38)

In his letter, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

In a 2006 speech to European politicians, Pope Benedict XVI said the following:

“As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:  Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;  Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

The protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.”

So it seems that the Catholic Church is pretty clear on what issues, and candidates that support those issues, for which faithful Catholics absolutely cannot cast their vote. 

So now let’s look at how those teachings coincide with the Democratic Party today.

The 2012 Democratic Platform as it pertains to abortion states the following:  (my words in white) 

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion [the word "rare" was removed by the Democrats in 2008], regardless of ability to pay [this means taxpayer-funded abortions]. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

When it comes to embryonic stem cell research the Democratic Party Platform of 2012 states:

[T]he President issued an executive order repealing the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research….

Where does the Democrat Party stand on euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide?  Well, the Democrats in the States of Washington and Oregon (which are both blue states) were the first to legalize physician-assisted suicide for their citizens. The drive for legalization in other states is also led by Democrats, including the current ballot initiative in Massachusetts (another deep blue state). A growing number of state Democratic platforms explicitly call for the legalization of physician assisted suicide.

Next, let’s look at the Democrat Party's take on marriage.  Again, the Democratic Party Platform of 2012 regarding marriage states the following (my words in white):

We support marriage equality [this is the euphemism for gay "marriage"] and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples….  We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act [the federal law that defines marriage as one man, one woman which President Obama, in violation of his oath of office, has dictated to his Justice Department to not enforce this duly passed law ] and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act [which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and give "federal benefits and protections" to same-sex "married" couples].

The support for gay "marriage" was added into the 2012 platform and was reportedly a "non-controversial" addition.  Already great harm has been done by Democrats in states where gay “marriage” laws have been passed.  Because of these laws, adoption and foster care programs that have placed thousands of children into homes for 100 years, in one case, were shut down.  No longer can Catholic adoption and foster care programs operate in Rockford, Illinois or Boston, Massachusetts or in Washington D.C. because of these laws.  Unfortunately myriads of children are the ones that are harmed by these laws accordingly.

Finally, let’s look at a parents right to educate their children as they deem best.  Democrats and the liberal teachers’ unions to which they are beholden go to great lengths to deny parents a real choice in their children’s education, not only opposing school vouchers for private schools, but also discouraging the growth of public charter schools, which often deviate from the leftist model. Laws that seek to limit or end the legal rights of homeschooling parents also come overwhelmingly from Democrats.

So after evaluating each issue, it seems pretty clear that on every non-negotiable point for Catholics, the Democrats take the wrong side.  When Obama first took office I never fathomed the threats to our religious freedoms that his often times unconstitutional governance would entail, particularly in the guise of his deplorable HHS mandate. I knew that in certain states, Democrat policies had tragically forced the closing of Catholic foster care and adoption agencies that had stood for generations, but I never expected a stroke of the pen to threaten the very existence of all Catholic charities, schools, hospitals, and businesses in the nation.  And that will indeed become a reality if Obama is re-elected and his Obamacare Act is fully implemented.

The normally milquetoast US bishops were so alarmed that every single one of them voiced a protest and later organized a nationwide Fortnight for Freedom, encouraging organized prayer, adoration, and fasting. Anti-HHS religious liberty rallies have been held in hundreds of cities across the land, attended by tens of thousands of concerned Catholics and other Christians. Even Pope Benedict himself publicly warned of the "grave threat" to religious freedom in America -- a threat which was not even on the radar screen until Obama, the head of the Democrats, came to power.

The trend in the Democratic Party holds not a shred of hope for its future, as it's trending all one way: Toward radical secularization, with a marginalization of and hostility toward Catholicism that is snowballing to the point where this election cycle showcased multiple Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate reassuring their Democratic base that if elected, they would force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions! And at the Democratic National Convention this year, Democrats removed the last remaining reference to God from their Platform. Only after the public got wind of the removal did they famously stage a bogus voice vote to reinstate it. For now.

Catholics, as unpleasant as it may be, it's time to wake up to the reality of what has happened. A once-proud party in which faithful Catholics could feel comfortable is now positioning itself as an enemy of the Church. The Democratic Party of 2012 is nothing like the Democratic Party of our grandparents, which still had a solid moral grounding. Catholic Democrats today are being used for votes, and they are either unaware or unwilling to admit that the party they love no longer exists -- and is not coming back.

To all sincere and faithful Catholics who have not yet left the Democratic Party: Please consider that the Democratic Party has long ago left you.

Selecting Romney's Cabinet

While nothing is certain in this life except death and taxes, particularly under the governance of the Obama administration, I am feeling rather optimistic that Governor Romney will indeed be our next president.  With that in mind, the governor’s organization has reached out to me to help vet the very best candidates to fill his cabinet.  Okay -- not really -- but if Governor Romney were to ask me, the following would be my recommendations for good people to help restore Americans’ faith in our government so that it might be administered constitutionally for a pleasant change.  That said, here are your future cabinet secretaries under President Romney:

Department of State:  John Bolton

Bolton is an exceptionally smart man with clear insight into the workings of world affairs.  His stint as President Bush’s ambassador to the U.N. showed that he knows the impotence of this corrupt organization and what truly must be done to further America’s interests and keep the world safe for freedom’s sake.  Bolton would set a tough pro-America tone and reinvigorate what is a feckless and wimpy group at Foggy Bottom.

Department of the Treasury:  Ron Paul

While Paul is a nut job and sounds like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy, he is dead on accurate with his assessment of domestic policy, especially when it comes to the Federal Reserve.  Romney should appoint Dr. Paul and then give him carte blanche to clean house, starting with an exhaustive audit of the Federal Reserve.

Department of Defense:  David Petraeus

Move General Petraeus from his current position handling intelligence and instead have him mold and form the Defense Department for the future generation of wars that might be thrust upon America.  Petraeus is smart and knows how to win wars and what that entails strategically, tactically, and logistically.  Working with a new Joint Chiefs Staff, he could set policy that would help to secure America’s safety in the world.

Department of Justice:  Chris Christie

Christie’s tough no-nonsense approach to… well… everything, would restore integrity with him as our new Attorney General.  This is direly needed in light of the corrupt and incompetent job done by Eric Holder.  Christie would not play political favorites and thus turn what has become a politically motivated cabinet back into the top law enforcement agency in the country of which Americans can once again be proud. 

Department of the Interior:  James Inhofe

Inhofe would manage our natural resources responsibly without caving to the enviro-whackos on policy, particularly when it comes to the specious anthropogenic “global warming” nonsense.

Department of Agriculture:  Rick Perry

Perry has a long history involved with agriculture and would do a fine job overseeing this department.

Department of Commerce:  Steve Forbes

After the devastation wrought on our economy by Obama, Bush, Pelosi, Reid, the Democrats and Rino’s, we will need a brilliant businessman along with President Romney to help steer government away from hurting commerce and towards getting out of the way of our small businesses in order to get the economy moving again.  Forbes would do splendidly as commerce secretary accordingly.

Department of Labor:  Scott Walker

After Obama’s allowing of unions to set U.S. labor policy, Governor Walker would be a great pick in providing the appropriate balance between unions and businesses.  The fact that he has taken on public tax-payer unions and saved millions of dollars in Wisconsin accordingly would be a warning shot across the bow to other public unions that the tax payers will not be fleeced by them anymore.

Department of Health and Human Services:  Rand Paul

The younger Dr. Paul would be very good at trimming the fat in this department while ensuring that only vital functions were retained and funded, all without infringing on Americans’ liberties and Constitutional rights like the Obama administration has done.

Department of Housing and Urban Development:  None

This is a department whose tasks are better and more efficiently handled at the state level, if even necessary then for some smaller states.  Cutting this department is the first step to trimming federal government largess and returning to a constitutional governance accordingly.

Department of Transportation:  Marion Blakey

Ms. Blakey as the CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association would be a dynamic and innovative leader for this department.  She would bring true usefulness to it and ensure tax payer dollars for transportation were used wisely accordingly.

Department of Energy:  None

Disband this department which was created during the Carter Administration to supposedly wean us off of foreign sources of oil and energy.  Obviously this is a goal at which it has failed horribly.  Return the nuclear regulatory functions to where they once were administered with the Navy, and return all other required functions to the states where necessary.

Department of Education:  None

Again, eliminate this department and return funding to the individual states where they can better and more efficiently administer to the educational needs of their students.

Department of Veterans Affairs:  Allen West

Colonel Allen West would do an exemplary job looking out for the needs of our veterans, just as he did when he was in the Army.  His integrity and devotion to his troops would be well utilized here in serving those that have sacrificed so much to protect America.

Department of Homeland Security:  Rudy Giuliani

Unlike the lip-service paid to security by Janet Napolitano, Mr. Giuliani understands the ramifications of it better than nearly anybody else in the country.  His management skills and no-nonsense demeanor would actually improve our national security without infringing on more of our constitutional rights.

 

Now I am sure that my recommendation of many of the good folks on this list will cause many of our liberal friends to blow an aneurysm.  That said, it is my opinion that these folks I have chosen are serious people whom are well qualified and would do admirable jobs in each of their positions instead of merely being assigned for political patronage or to make the cabinet appear to meet some politically correct standard.  I have no illusions that some of these people will ever be asked, or that they will necessarily accept the appointment if asked.  I certainly don’t expect  that some departments will be eliminated, although if Romney wins by as large of a margin as I suspect he might, there will be no better time to get rid of these unnecessary and extra-constitutional departments.  We shall see very soon what the future will hold.  In the meantime, I think I will forward my list to Governor Romney just in case he needs some better suggestions. 

The Impending Defeat of a Progressive President

The common wisdom among our partisan leftist friends, including the mainstream liberal media, is that the upcoming presidential election will be a close one.  But in the end, their champion Barrack Obama will indeed emerge triumphant and send that “selfish 1%’er” Mitt Romney running back to obscurity to lick his wounds.  I strongly suspect that this is more a matter of misplaced faith on their behalf than on common sense.  Ronald Reagan was 9 points behind Jimmy Carter in the month prior to that election, and as we all know, the Gipper won in a landslide.  I would submit to my leftist friends that they are about to experience a similar shellacking in 18 days. 

When it comes down to it, common sense dictates that America will not re-elect Obama to the presidency.  In 2008, Barrack Obama was a fairly unknown candidate who spoke eloquently about grandiose ideals such as generic hope and change.  In 2012, President Obama now is a known candidate with a dismal record on which he has to run.  The result of his record pretty much suggests that his re-election is indeed doomed.  President Obama has angered or disappointed far too many people and specific demographics thereof to get the kind of support or even voter turn-out for him that he received in his first election.  Let’s look at a few specifics as to why I think this portends the end of his administration accordingly.

First off, it is with a high degree of certainty that I think that those conservative folks who voted for John McCain in 2008 will not be voting for Barrack Obama in 2012.  Obama thus will pick up none of those votes accordingly.  That said, there are millions of independent people that did vote for Obama in 2008 when he was a well-spoken but virtually unknown quantity that are sorely disappointed in his performance who will not vote for him again in 2012.  The net result will be a loss for Obama.

President Obama carried a staggering percentage of the black vote in 2012, however, he has angered many church-going black people including prominent pastors due to his recent stance in support of gay marriage.  While Obama will still easily get a majority of the black vote again, he will not have anywhere near the percentage that he did in the first election.  Again, this is a net loss for Obama.

The Jewish vote in America has also historically been a strong support group for the Democratic candidate, and indeed Obama captured a majority of their votes in 2008.  That said, Obama’s policy of “placing daylight between America and Israel” has made Israel feel more vulnerable to ever rising anti-Jewish terrorist groups and states in the Middle East.  Obama’s suggestion that a return to the indefensible 1967 borders for Israel as a starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians drew the ire of Prime Minister Netanyahu and alienated many of the Jewish people.  Obama’s seeming indifference in actions, if not always in his rhetoric, towards preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a huge existential threat to Israel’s survival.  These factors have ensured that Obama will lose a significant percentage of the Jewish vote in America for this election.

The youth vote was wildly enthusiastic and turn out for Obama was huge from this constituency in 2008.  Now, four years later, 50% of college graduates are unable to find employment and enthusiasm for Obama based on his poor stewardship of the economy and job market for these young people will ensure that far fewer of them will turn out to vote, and of those that do vote, many of them will not pull the lever for Obama this time.

The Catholic vote was slightly in favor of Obama in 2008.  Now with Obama’s assault on Catholicism and Americans’ first amendment right to practice their religion via his Obamacare HHS mandate, there are millions of Catholics that will not vote for Obama this time around.   Another net loss for Obama.

Next, small business owners have seen a dramatic increase in their costs of doing business and are fearful of the impact that Obamacare will have on their bottom lines.  These and other negative factors that Obama has created in the economy through his policies have made it so that small businesses are unable to grow and hire more people, hence the horrible unemployment numbers still.  For that reason, most small business owners will not be voting for Obama on November 6^th either.

Then there is the veteran vote to consider.  While this group has historically been more reliably Republican in their voting tendencies, Obama has done nothing to endear those folks in the armed forces to himself.  Indeed, Obama has made it even more difficult for military members to vote absentee out of fear of this, accordingly.  You will see Romney get an even greater percentage of this group than McCain did in 2008.  Net gain goes to Romney.

Even among the bed-wetting on-fire progressives that voted for Obama in 2008 there is much anger and resentment towards him for not going even further in his attempts to usher in a worker’s paradise.  The enthusiasm gap and waning support from the most ideological of his base will suffer accordingly and result in less voter turn-out from this group too.  Another net loss for Obama.

Lastly, there is the blue collar working class folks who have seen true unemployment remain above 8% for nearly all of Obama’s tenure.  Gas prices, food prices, and even health care costs have dramatically skyrocketed directly due to Obama’s policies over the last four years.  People ultimately will always vote with their pocket books, and Obama has not done anything to alleviate the burden for America, and particularly for this constituency group.  This is a huge net loss for Obama.

The bottom line is that President Obama will lose, in some cases by huge margins, many votes from the preceding groups of American voters.  There is no single group where Obama stands to gain in voter support over the 2008 election.  With that said, common sense and simple arithmetic tells me that on Wednesday November 7^th, President-elect Romney will be celebrating, as will a strong majority of Americans.  May God bless America again accordingly!

Morning/Mourning in America

In 1984 Ronald Reagan ran for re-election against Jimmy Carter's Vice President, Walter Mondale.  President Reagan restored America's horrendous economy to great prosperity.  He improved our strength and standing in the world.  He made us all proud to be Americans once again.  Reagan won reelection in a landslide and took 49 of 50 states in doing so, losing only Mondale's home state of Minnesota.

Now, in 2012, we have seemingly returned to the Carter years in many of the worst aspects of it.  Our true unemployment figures have been in double digits for nearly all of President Obama's first term.  People are afraid.  Our businesses and economy are in shambles.  We face ever greater dangers in the world, and seemingly turn a blind eye to them.  We have become a divided people and many folks are no longer proud to be an American, with the possible exception of Michelle Obama who famously stated that "for the first time in her life", she was "proud to be an American".

Now, Mr. Romney is not Ronald Reagan, and he certainly is not the candidate that many conservatives had hoped would be the eventual Republican nominee for president.  That said, he is a good and decent man.  He is a man that will strengthen our country both economically and in its standing throughout the world. 

Once again, we have a pivotal choice.  We can elect a man that actually will follow the Constitution and has a real plan for restoring America, or we can continue on the path of certain bankruptcy... both morally and economically... by re-electing President Obama.  Come November 7th, will there once again be hope and morning in America?  Or will we end this great 236-year experiment in freedom and have mourning in America?  It is truly a sad statement that the question must even be asked this close to the election.  I fervently pray that America will wake up and that Obama and his hyper-progressivism will be thoroughly rejected this November, just like Mondale was back in November of 1984.