Separation of Church and State Makes Santorum Vomit

Above is John Kennedy speaking about separation of church and state. Let us remember the context of the day. Fundamentalists were scurrying about telling voters that Kennedy would take orders from the Vatican and would impose Catholic doctrine through public policy. In this speech Kennedy was speaking to Southern Baptist leaders. But, this was before fundamentalists got a taste of political power and realized they might be able to oppress others in their name of their religion. And that was an entirely different matter.

But, when Kennedy spoke, the idea of separation of church and state was the consensus. There was no "Religious Right" intent on imposing theocratic laws. Santorum said: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." He said that this very idea would make most people "throw up."

Perhaps, it is time to remind fundamentalists that just because Santorum repeats their hateful slogans, that doesn't make him one of them. He is a Catholic and his doctrines are Catholic. He believes that Protestantism is a false church and that Baptists are heretics. Mr. Santorum's religious views are a radical Catholicism unlike that of most Catholics. Yes, a few fanatics (Jennifer Morse comes to mind) are as extreme as Santorum, but most Catholics don't want the law to reflect church doctrine.

Santorum has claimed that Satan has America in its grips—Satan! Pretty soon he'll be saying that libertarians are demon possessed and should be exorcised. He claims that mainline Protestantism isn't even part of "the world of Christianity as I see it." Some people thought that would alienate fundamentalists, but they hate mainline Protestantism as much as Santorum does. When Santorum rags on mainline Protestants and attacks gay people the fundamentalists think he sounds like them.

Simply put, fundamentalist Christians are not the brightest bulbs around. They are less educated and less informed than the general population. Many of them simply don't know that Santorum is a hated Roman Catholic. They pick up a bit of news here and there and hear him spewing his hateful messages and they shout, "Amen, brother." But, they don't really see him as a "brother" in Christ at all; at least they wouldn't if they knew he was Catholic. Then he would be part of the Great Whore of Babylon—the Vatican.

The media has made much of Romney being a member of the Mormon cult. His sect membership is unusual. After all, less than one in a hundred people attend a Mormon church. And, contrary to Mormon PR material, the sect is not growing but stagnant, even in spite of among Mormon woman. But Santorum's Catholicism is not unusual. About a quarter of all Americans have some affiliation with Catholicism. Of course, most Catholics have enough common sense that they don't take all Catholic doctrine seriously—Santorum is not one them.

So, while Romney's membership in the Mormon cult is widely touted to ignorant fundamentalists, Santorum's rabid Catholicism is more hidden. Romney's religion is in their face, Santorum's is not discussed. His views are talked about but not so much his Catholicism. This is allowing fundamentalists to compare a candidate that sounds as hateful as they do, to a candidate they know is "not a Christian." Truth be told, a huge percentage of fundamentalists would also say Santorum is no Christian, if they focused on his Catholicism.

The way the media has covered the religious debate in God's Own Party (GOP) plays to Santorum's advantage. Now, I don't think it much matters if the Republicans win or the Democrats win. They both are in a race to see which disgusts me most. But, I do know most media employees tend to be Democrats and would rather see Obama win than any Republican. Given that I don't believe the bulk of independent voters will support someone as noxious as Santorum, media coverage of the GOP is helping Obama.

Now, from an entirely practical viewpoint, I won't vote. My vote will make zero difference in outcome, but then neither will your own. The best outcome, as I see it, would be neither party having control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. Given that the Republicans are more likely to win control of the House, than the Senate, then Obama winning the White House would do the least harm to liberty and individual rights.

This wouldn't be because Obama much cares for either. But a Republican House is likely to stymie his efforts. So, I'd prefer to see the GOP win the House and Obama win the White House. In that case, a Santorum candidacy would be optimal. Republicans in the House turn into Big Government evangelists the moment a Republican is in the White House. As for the Senate, I'd like to see it as evenly divided as possible.

If I were a Republican seeking political power then I would not want Santorum even in the race. Every time he opens his mouth he alienates independent voters. But, I'm not a Republican. As far as I'm concerned the only decent Republican running was Gary Johnson and he dropped out to run as a Libertarian. If I were to force myself to vote I'd vote for Gary, if he were the LP candidate—maybe. I have little confidence that the LP will give Gary a decent running mate and are more likely to inflict a conservative like Wayne Root, or some ideologue with little understanding of reality. That the LP continues to allow open racists to hold positions in the party, men like David Macko, is just too much for me to stomach.

We need a party that represents the mushy-libertarian middle of American politics. But the Democrats are held hostage by greedy unions, the Republicans are held hostage by religious crazies, and the LP is held hostage by idiots.

Iowa and Ron Paul: How the Rockwell Strategy Harmed Ron Paul

Let’s look at Iowa and what it may mean. First, Santorum obviously pulled up at the last second. This is not particularly surprising. Santorum is one of the most fanatical of the Religious Right candidates. The rural counties in Iowa are filled with Religious Right types. Remember this is a process that put Pat Robertson into first place in the Republican caucus before and favored Mike Huckabee. So, religious kooks like Santorum do have an edge in Iowa.

The religious voters are a firm percentage of the vote. Romney had little chance with them as his Mormonism counts strongly against him. Next to gays, these people certainly hate Mormons. Ron Paul did his level best to secure their vote, but failed. He put a religious extremist in charge of his Iowa campaign, who actively courted the most extreme fundamentalists in the state, but it didn’t work. At the last minute, the Religious Right voters fled to Santorum, not to Ron Paul.

In spite of this, we should remember that the difference in votes between Santorum and Romney is insignificant. Both have 25% of the vote and with Romney winning by only 8 votes.

The other thing to remember is that these votes don’t mean a lot. There are almost 1200 precincts and each of them will elect delegates to go to the 99 local country conventions. At those conventions delegates will be elected to district conventions, which will then elect delegates to the state convention who elect the delegates to the national convention. At no stage are delegates required to vote for any particular candidate. They are free to vote for any candidate they want. Long-term. a lot can change before the state convention and delegates are free to vote for whomever they wish. Circumstance between now and then can easily sway delegates. This is why I argue the Iowa caucus doesn’t actually mean a whole lot. And Iowa has a poor record picking winners in the national election.

I will guess that a majority of the small number of delegates, 28, that Iowa sends to the Republican convention will support Romney.

From where Ron Paul gain his support? Voters did NOT support Ron Paul because of his paleolibertarian leanings. The views expressed in his newsletters were NOT the main reason people supported Paul. In addition Ron Paul’s attempts to appeal to religious conservatives failed.

The so-called paleolibertarian strategy, which was concocted by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, was an attempt to appeal to the ugliest aspects of the Right. It promoted a moralistic view, intolerance of gays, racism, conspiracy paranoia and religious-based politics. Rothbard and Rockwell were the main forces behind the ugly parts of Ron’s newsletters. And, I simply cannot accept, based on my knowledge of the newsletters, that Ron was unaware of it. In fact, some of those very elements made their way into later campaigns.

Rothbard and Rockwell hated what they called “modal libertarians,” those who promoted social tolerance, social freedom and didn’t like the bigotry they were spewing. Ron tried to appeal to social conservatives with his emphasis on abortion and his attempts to win over fundamentalist Christians.

So, how did this strategy work out in Iowa?

It didn’t. Ron’s support, according to entrance polls came from the voters LEAST likely to find the bigoted views of Rockwell and Rothbard appealing.

First, the most socially liberal age group in the Republican Party is those under the age of 29. Ron Paul won an overwhelming plurality of young voters. He had 48% support in that age group, more than double the closest rival. Santorum won the age groups of 30 to 64, those Republicans most likely to have come to the GOP during the take-over of the party by evangelicals. The oldest voters, those most likely to be old line Republicans, went for Romney. [Please note that entrance poll data is being updated constantly and that the percentages are changing. What is stated here may be slightly off when the final numbers are accumulated.]

Breaking this down further you see that Paul got 50% of the votes of those 17-24 years of age, 45% of those 25 to 29 and 34% of those 30 to 39. In each age group this is a plurality. Young voters, who tend to be socially liberal, voted for Paul.

Paul also attracted non-typical Republicans. Of caucus virgins, voters who never attended a previous caucus, Paul won a plurality with 33%. Both Republicans and independent voters could attend the caucus. Republican voters overwhelmingly rejected Paul. Paul only received 14% of Republican votes, but he got 43% of the votes cast by independents. .

Republican voters went strongly for the candidates who were most consistently attempting to use religion as the foundation for law. I define those candidates as Santorum, Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann. Between them they received 59% of the Republican votes. The candidates who were perceived as the less religious candidates, in terms of imposing religious values through the law, received 41% of the Republican vote. The GOP is still controlled by the Religious Right.

Among independent voters at the caucus a very different story is told. The theocratic wing of the GOP only got 36% of the support. Candidates not perceived as theocrats—Paul, Romney, and Huntsman—received 64% of the votes.

Voters who self identified as “very conservative” rejected Paul; only 15% of them supported him, about the same percentage as went to Romney. The theocrats received 70% of the “very conservative” vote. For those who identified as “somewhat conservative” Paul’s support increased to 21%. The theocrats received 47% of this group. Voters who identified as moderates or liberals went to Paul. Forty percent of them supported Ron Paul and 35% went for Romney with 3% for Huntsman. Only 22% of these voters supported one of the theocratic candidates.

When it comes to the evangelical voters Ron Paul only received 18% of the vote. The plurality of the evangelicals went to Santorum. The theocratic wing won 66% of the evangelical vote. Romney, Paul and Huntsman received 33% of the evangelical vote. Among non-evangelicals Paul did better; support was 8 points higher. The non-evangelicals preferred Romney and Paul, giving them 64% of the votes.

Ron Paul also jumped into this campaign with a renewed opposition to abortion. He has been more strongly in favor of federal regulation of abortion than any time in his past. But he didn’t gain much because of it. Only 13% of Republicans said abortion was the most important issue. Of these voters, only 7% supported Ron Paul. His support came from people concerned about the budget deficit not abortion.

Look at each group where Paul did well and you see a consistent pattern. They were not the kind of bigoted voters that Lew Rockwell was trying to appeal to with this paleolibertarian strategy. Ron’s support came from voters who were most like the libertarians that Rockwell has consistently slandered.

The very kind of voters that Rockwell would dismiss as “hippies”—the young, independents, liberals and moderates—were the people who made up the majority of Ron Paul's supporters. The people that Rockwell tried to appeal to were far more likely to vote for Santorum.

The flaw in the paleolibertarian strategy was that the people they tried to win over like big government. They are not libertarians. The very kind of people that Rockwell and Rothbard attacked in those newsletters, and in other places, were the ones willing to vote for Ron Paul.

If Ron Paul had sounded more like Gary Johnson, I suggest he would have done better, perhaps enough to win. The publicity about his hateful newsletters lost him a lot of support. He was polling better a few days ago. By trying to appeal to the bigoted vote that Rockwell cherished, Ron Paul lost votes in Iowa.

What about the future for Paul? Can he leave behind the newsletter baggage. He can, but he won’t. To effectively leave behind the ugly images of racism and bigotry Paul would have to name the author of his newsletters. He has refused to do that. And he is not likely to throw Rockwell under the bus. Without doing that the newsletter will always be a ghost from his past that will haunt him.

Paul would also need to more consciously abandon paleo strategy that he has been following. He would need to reduced his anti-abortion rhetoric—which didn’t help him—and stop trying to appeal to the Religious nutters on the Right. They rejected him as well. He needs to ratchet up his appeal to young voters, independent voters and to moderates and liberals. In other words, he needs to the do the complete opposite of what Rockwell and Rothbard laid out in their grand paleolibertarian scheme. Paul can strengthen his position by cutting his ties to Rockwell, admitting he was behind the ugly newsletters, and consciously gooing after the voters who have proven most receptive to his message—and that isn't the Religious Right.

The State of the Race for the Republicans

Here is my best guesses on the primary for God's Own Party (GOP).

Iowa is Ron Paul's best chance. It is the smallest primary which means one doesn't need wide support just fanatical support and the Paul supporters are fanatical, if they are anything. I think it will Romney or Paul but that Paul may see a last minute drop in support. While Iowa is first it is actually one of the less important races because of the small number of voters involved.

Remember that if Iowa was important then Huckabee should have been the GOP candidate in 2008, McCain, the ultimate winner, was tied in 3rd place with Fred Thompson behind Huckabee and Romney. In 1996 Dole was only slightly ahead of bigot Pat Buchanan, whose views most closely match Paul's views. Buchanan's vote then is similar to what Paul is polling now. In 1988 Iowa picked Dole, then Pat Robertson with the ultimate winner, George H.W. Bush coming in third. In 1980 they picked Bush over Reagan. Since 1980, the final winner had opposition in 5 of the elections, with no opposition in 3. Iowa Republicans only picked the ultimate nominee twice, picking a loser three times. I don't think Iowa means much in picking the winner, but it could bust a loser.

If Ron Paul and Romney take the first two places, with Gingrich in 3rd place, it can hurt him. I don't think it will help Paul much, but I think it can hurt Gingrich significantly.

New Hampshire is the first real primary, but also one of the smallest and thus one of the easies to campaign in. A lot of candidates put an emphasis hoping to start a stampede in their favor. New Hampshire picked McCain in 08. In 2004 Bush was really running uncontested. In 2000 NH picked McCain over Bush thus picking a loser. In 1996 they picked Pat Buchanan, whose campaign went nowhere. In 1992 Bush won over the very weak Buchanan. in 1988, Bush won over Dole. In 1984 Reagan was unopposed and Reagan won in 1980. In the significant contested races NH picked the final candidate twice. While more important than Iowa is still a relative unimportant race in my opinion. I think Romney will win New Hampshire.

South Carolina is the first of the bigger states with a primary. I think the race there will be between Gingrich and Romney. Both offend evangelicals because of their religion. Gingrich is part of the "anti-Christ" Catholic Church and Romney is part of the Mormon "cult." At this point Gingrich has to win. If he loses both Iowa and New Hampshire the perception will be that the parade is moving past him. That will reduce his vote in South Carolina. If Paul picks up in the polls because a perception that he is stronger than he is, he could take away enough points from Gingrich that Romney could come in first. By this time it will be apparent that Bachmann, Huntsman and Santorum are going nowhere. Their support will be dropping quickly. Ron Paul should in third place in South Carolina sending the message to Republicans that the choice is Romney or Gingrich.

Next up is Florida, where Gingrich has a lead at this time, Romney is in second and Ron Paul is a very distant third. With Paul's vote totals seeming to fall, in New Hampshire and South Carolina, he should see them falling even more in Florida. Gingrich is posed to win Florida which will give his campaign some life again. If Romney comes closer to Gingrich than currently expected the lose will not hurt him much. At this point I think the race will clearly be between Romney and Gingrich.

Next up the Nevada caucus. Another small state but one where Romney is leading with Gingrich not far behind. Paul is a distant third there. If he picks up it will probably be an Gingrich's expense. Both Gingrich and Paul attract the more rabid conservatives in the GOP. So Paul is more likely to hurt Gingrich than hurt Romney. A Romney win here is likely giving a slight boost to his campaign over Gingrich.

The Maine caucus is next. It is a small state, which often means Paul's fanatical followers have an edge. But the Maine caucus is not relevant. The attendees nominate delegates and those delegates only go to a convention in May where they will vote on a presidential candidate. Exactly who will get those votes is not clear until May so this will have little impact on how the race is perceived, helping to push one candidate or the other.

The Colorado Republican caucus is still relatively small. Gingrich is ahead at this time. But by February 7th, a lot of can happen. If Romney was doing better than originally anticipated he could move into a closer race. Ron Paul won't be significant here. I think the race is going to still be pretty close by this time. The race is going to be clearly a race between Romney and Gingrich. Ron Paul's followers will be screaming that the "Insiders," "Establishment," "Bankers" or whichever conspiracy theory they lean toward were responsible for Paul's clear demise in the election. Why? Because the Texas Messiah himself can do no wrong in their eyes.

Closer to February I will reconsider the race. At this point I would guess that Romney will be the ultimate candidate but there is too much that can happen before then.

Big Government Scares More Americans

Gallup just released a poll asking Americans who they fear most: big government, big business or big labor. Government terrifies more Americans than the other two combined, by a two-to-one margin.

Sorry, Occupy Wall Street but fear of big business has been declining, not increasing. Sorry, conservatives, its not the unions that scare people but government.

Now, I should note that the main threat that unions and big business pose to Americans is that they have access to big government. Each of the other two "threats" gain their powers primarily because of their access to political power. And big labor, these days, is heavily about government. The unions don't represent most workers anymore, except when it comes to government workers. Unions are now cartels for bureaucrats. The New York Times wrote: "For the first time in American history, a majority of union members are government workers rather than private-sector employees." In fact, there were 500,000 more unionized government employees that unionized private employees.

Considering that the unions used to represent the taxpaying workers of the country, it is interesting to see they now primarily represent the tax consuming bureaucrats of the country. Without big government union memberships would be half what they are. Today, union officials are heavily reliant on the people who want to tax working people even more to sustain the programs that most people don't want.

And this just isn't libertarians concerned about big government. More Democrats now say they fear big government than fear big business. Gallup says that the numbers of Democrats concerned about big government was high during the Bush years and dropped after Obama took office but has been increasing. In other words, Democrats who lost their fear of government after Bush was out of office, have regained that fear with Obama in power. After Obama took office only 32% of Democrats said they were more worried about big government. After three years of Obama that number has risen to 48%. This means that the numbers of Democrats concerned about overreaching government has increased by 50% while a Democrat has been in office. And it doesn't have far to go, just 8 points, until it reaches the levels of concern under George Bush.

Among key independent voters more of them are concerning about Obama's big government than were actually afraid of it under Bush. In 2006, 60% of independents said they worried about big government more. It declines slightly by 2009, to 59%, but has since risen to 64%

The reality is, that most Americans are not in tune with Obama's attempts to centralize power in Washington. Yet, he does well in head to head polls against Republican contenders. The reason for that is simple—people don't like the Republicans either.

The Republicans who have staked their future on moralistic platitudes, religion and gay hating (Bachmann, Santorum and Perry) are doing poorly in the polls. The candidates who are doing better have emphasized other issues, even if they share the small-minded prejudices that now run the Republican Party.

What neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats, get is that voters don't like either one of them. The landslide for Obama wasn't the public embracing his elitist views about centralized power, preferably in himself. It was a vote against two terms of Bush. And, when November comes around, and asshole Republicans are swept into office, it won't be voters suddenly embracing the Republican's theocratic tendencies. It will be disgust at the first term of Obama rule.

The number of voters who identify as Republican or Democrat are diminishing. More and more are saying they are independent. And this voting group shows mushy libertarian sentiments that neither party represents. The one candidate who comes closest to that sentiment is Gov. Gary Johnson, but the Republicans and the media have worked together to make sure Johnson is excluded from the debates. Even when he's qualified the rules were changed in order to disqualify him again. Big government Republicans (which is most of them in Washington), and big government Democrats (ditto) are allies not enemies and they will close ranks on the likes of Johnson precisely because his values do resonate with a large percentage of voters, especially the growing body of independents.

Obama still in trouble, but so is the country.

Once again, we are approaching a sad presidential election, plagued by pathetic choices, phony rhetoric, theocratic pandering and more sleaze than you can shake a stick at.

The most recent Gallup survey indicates that voters would flock to a Republican over Obama, this when no Republican is specifically mentioned. The most recent poll shows Obama has the support of 39% of the public, a generic Republican would win 47% and 15% aren't thrilled with that selection at all.

This blogger has long contended that the independent voters in America are mostly voting against whoever holds power at the time. And they swing the elections. As go the independents so goes the nation. Independents are the more libertarian voters in their outlooks. They are not going to get hardons because Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann smear and slander gay people—that fetish only appeals to the shrinking religious right. Nor do independents much care for Obamacare, the wars, spending deficits or taxes. The least libertarian voters tend to be Republicans and Democrats, both brainlessly wedded to their own narrow ideologies, incapable of thinking outside the box, and doing their best to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them.

So, while this poll gives the GOP some cause for hope, they should remember that generic Republicans are not offensive, but real Republicans are. Come on, think about it: someone like Santorum or Bachmann is almost entirely offensive. Palin would send half the voters in fits of hysterical laughter. The independents are not likely to go for a theocrat. Befuddled old conservatives are not really that hot, and Ron Paul really doesn't intend to run for president anyway—just fund raise so he has a hefty fund to "donate" to his own 501(c)3. Sadly Paul would actively be undercutting the libertarian Gary Johnson.

Johnson, in my opinion, is someone that independent voters could take a liking to, which means someone that will offend the god addicts in the GOP. Johnson is libertarian across the board. He's good on civil liberties, a major failing for Paul; he's good on economic issues, and he's anti-war. He is the candidate I always wished Ron Paul would be but wasn't. Better yet, you don't get any paranoid theorizing about international banking elites, the "Amero," "North American Union," the CFR, Bilderbergers, the kind of loony things that Paul has spouted for decades. But, between the Ron Paul "campaign" and the religious right, Governor Johnson will have a difficult time. If he gets through, you can bet I'd actually register and vote for him.

Obama, however, is in trouble. He ignored public opinion regarding his health-care meddling and support for his plan remains low. Most Americans still want his proposal repealed. But I suspect if they count on the Republicans to do it, they will be disappointed.

Obama begins reelection campaign.

After finishing the third term of George W. Bush, Obama is about to begin his campaign for a fourth.

As you might expect I am utterly and totally opposed to this malignant little man being reimposed on the American people. And I oppose him for exactly the same reasons that I thought Georgie Junior was such a disaster. The policy differences between Obama and Bush are insignificant and minor.

Bush gave us two undeclared wars. Obama denounced such moves without Congressional approval. But, in spite of saying he would end those wars he has not. Worse yet he decided to see Bush's two wars and raise him one war. He has now embroiled the US in three undeclared wars. They are Obama's wars now people. And where is the cowardly, sniveling left-wing "peace" movement? They are nowhere to be found. Why? Because it is one of their own men conducting the war.

It reminds me of the awful remark that Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, made when FDR put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps entirely based on their race. Baldwin, who normally would have screamed about such a move didn't act because Roosevelt was "one of us."

The deficits that Bush ran up continued under Obama and got much worse. The awful violations of human dignity imposed on the American people by Homeland Security and their paid gropers at the airports got much, much worse under Obama and the thuggish Janet Napolitano. Before they were rude, now they take your nude picture and fondle your genitals, all in the name of national security.

Bush gave us a vast expansion of national health care with his prescription plan and Obama took it much, much farther. You can be forced to buy health insurance and face punishments if you don't. And don't think the little man in the White House isn't going to push for less choice in medicine for you if he gets back in.

All of the significant policies that Bush promoted continue under Obama and have been escalated.

Here is the sad thing: just look at the low-lifes and theocratic scum that the Republicans are offering. You have the brainless Palin, the dangerous theocratic Huckabee, and the absolutely unprincipled Romney.

You can bet Ron Paul will run again but he isn't running for office, he's just fleecing the pockets of the true believers who make up the Rondroid legions. Apparently they were all so anxious to have "money bombs" for Paul that none of them had the brains to check the spending reports candidates file with the FEC. Had they done so they would see lots of spending to raise money, lots of traveling for Paul, but little being spent on things like actual campaign commercials. Money was flowing in but not being spent on a real campaign. Most the campaigning you saw was the unruly Rondroids, their signs, blimps and harassment of websites that challenged Ronnie. Under FEC regulations if Paul's campaign has money in the coffers when he retires, which will be after this term in office, or the next at the latest, all the extra funds can be donated to any non--profit organization including those that Ron has set up for himself. He won't be raising money for a presidential campaign at all.

There is just nothing out there. It is a wasteland. Not even the Libertarian Party can muster a decent candidate. Wayne Allyn Root is a two-bit fraud from Vegas with all the wit and charm of a pimp crossed with a used car salesman. And none of the challengers to Root are much better, at least none that have slithered out from underneath the rocks to date.

What we have is a really disgusting situation, far more disgusting than any time in recent decades. Before, the Republican Party at least didn't automatically make you want to grab for the vomit bag. Now they are catering to the dumbest, most ignorant, vile segment of the American public: Christian fundamentalists. These are the kind of people that bottom-feeding pond scum look down upon.

The Democrats are paid toadies for the unions, especially for the unions that represent government works such as the teacher's unions. The Democrats scream so much about greed regarding the Republicans because they are the organized party of greed, not the Republicans. God's Own Party, GOP, is the organized party of hate; that is different.

No, in truth the Democratic Party looks at elections as a means to rape the taxpayers to pay off the special interest groups that get them elected to office. The entire function of the Democratic Party today is to steal from taxpayers and redistribute the funds to their friends, not to the needy. The needy are merely the excuse the Democrats use to cover up their highway robbery and make it sound noble. The Republicans, on the other hand, think their job is to inflict pain and punishment on sinners in the name of Jesus. Fuck them both!

I remember a watching a radical Left group getting into an altercation with the police. The police were lined up on side, batons ready to bash heads. The screaming, dirty, radicals on the other side were spitting venom and itching for a fight. I watched for a second and yelled: "Hit them!" A woman standing next to me thought about it and asked, "Who do you want to get hit?" I told her: "Between them, I don't much care."

Both the Republicans and Democrats are so vile that I don't care which one gets bashed. Either way I know they will do a lot of damage to the rest of us in the process. Both parties are shrinking and are captured by small radical groups. The Democrats are under the thumbs of greedy unions and the hateful fundamentalists have the GOP by the balls. Fewer and fewer Americans support the two main parties and more and more independents dominate the polling places.

These independents are what I call mushy libertarians. They mostly want wars to end, aren't interested in using the state to enforce the Bible, don't care much for Obamacare, high taxes, or government control of markets. They tend to think that gay people should have most, if not all the rights, of everyone else. They aren't that keen to regulate abortion, impose censorship or see a massive expansion of the welfare state. They are not consistent libertarians but they aren't like the greedy bastards in the Democratic Party and they aren't similar to the hateful bigots that dominate the Republican Party.

And they still don't have a candidate they can support. These are the type of voters who might line up behind someone like Gary Johnson, who I think is a decent man. But the GOP won't nominate a decent man under any circumstances. Jesus wouldn't approve. And you can bet that Ron Paul will actively run in competition with Johnson, not because he wants to run for president, as Johnson clearly does, but because he wants to raise funds for future use. Ron Paul will stab Johnson in the back if that is what is necessary to raise lots of funds. Already I've seen Rondroids who are actually close to Ron spreading accusations against Johnson. Hysterically they are claiming that Johnson isn't as libertarian as Ron—quite the opposite is true. Johnson is a libertarian, while Paul is a paleoconservative. (By the way: Do you know the difference between a paleoconservative and a paleolibertarian? Good; neither do I.)

Me, I'm just sick of these sorts of choices. I'll sit out the election and just prepare as best as I can for the disasters that will be inflicted no matter which piece of shit wins office.