Romney, Santorum and This Blog: Tomorrow's News Toda (Or Last Week)

Todays's headline from the mainstream media (as featured on the disgraceful AT&T/Yahoo "News":


"Romney pulls ahead of Santorum in Illinois"


What did this blog tell you after the POLLS (the GOD at which modern "journalists" worship every day, as they are almost universally anti-Chrisitian, escept for token efforts to gain Christian viwwers onf the unfair and unbalanced network--a network that cannot ever be called really Christian when its GOD is also POLLS, and when it derides "social conservatives" at every opportunity) were shown to be WROPNG in Mississippi and Alabama (wrong again)? Well, the "journalistic" whores and devil worshipers (figurative words, as you can only call it "wroshipping the devil" to worship polls) were immediately consulting their GOD: the POLLS in Illinois showing the race "close". This blog, meanwhile, correctly IGNORED the polls and told you this: Romney is the BIG favorite in Illiois, and was right after the Alabama and Mississippi primaries as much as he is today. Yep. It is, in fact, a LIE to say that Romney has "pulled ahead" in Illinois. No matter what the polls said, it was never close. Unless Romney was imploding, and/or Santroum figured out a way to actauly gain tractino in a ROMMNEY state like Illinois (as this blog correctly told you Santourm desperately needed to do bbut was unlikely to do). Romney was ALWAYS going to win Illinois. Citing th e"polls', rather than this obvious fact (after the mMississippi and Alabama primaries) just showed how INCOMPETENT (worshipping false idols) the modern "journalists" are. Of course, you mithg argue that they are not incompetent, but just DISHOENST (thinking yoiu WANT them to concentrate on this fase God of polls). I will not argue this point. I think they are BOTH dishoenst and iincompetent.


I also told you, after Mississippi and Alabama, that Santoru;m's problem remins DELEGTES. IF Santorum had managed to win both Michigan and Ohio (whre winning Michigan would surely hae given Santroum a victory in Ohio), it was pssible (although not certain) that Santorum could have delivered a KNOCK OUT blow to Romney. It is actually amazing how CLOSE Santroum came to doing that. As this blog has told you, however, it is now basically impossible for Santroum to win the nomination. It is mere ARITHMETIC, where Romney's money and "organization" (often just another word for money) guaranteethat Romney will continue to pile oup delegates. As I said, Santorum could not continue to "bleed" delegates, and yet it was inevitabgle that he would (as he has). That meant that Santurm HAD to start WINNING states like Illinois, even if he figured to lose them by 10 percentage points or more. How can Santorumm keep Rmney from gaining enough DELEGATES in states like New Yrok, California and New Jersey to become unstopppable, unless Santroum could suddently develop enormous traction in a state like Illinois?


Well, the impossible has not happened. This blog can now CALL it. Ype. This blog is CALLING the nomination for Mitt Romney--absent some "real" "scandal" (like thaqt of Herman Cain, although the quotes are meant to tell you that I don't regard that as either "rel" or a "scandal"). Santorum is not going to be able to fight the arithmetic. Puerto Rico showed that (of all places). Romney has a built in advantage for to many delegates.


What does tthis mean? Well, it mainly means that you can look to this blog for an OBJECTAIVAE view of this eleciton. You thought I would change my mind about Romney, even though I never changed it about McCain (except for a very short time after he named Sarah Palin, before I realized I would still have to vote for McCain). This blog will NOT support Mitt Romney for President, even against Presdient Obama, even though I could never support Obama. That makes this blog much MORE OBJECTIVE than AlL of the media (which has actually always been true), and more objective than almsot any other commentator out there.


As I have said, I understand my brothers, and many othgers, who do not believe that this country can stand another 4 years of Obama, even if it means supporting someone like Romney. In a way, I even agree, in the sense that I don't think this country can stand four more years of Obama. My problem is that I don't think this country can stand four years of Ropmney either, and I would prefer both that Congress have an incentive to FIGHT the President, and that "conservatives" not be BLAMED for what I think is going to happen.


"But, Skip, you leave us no hope. You are saying that we are now doomed, no matter what."


Not a very uplifting message, is it? No, I donn't think a politician can win with my kind of negative message, or that someone like Rush Limbaugh could stay popular with that kind of "doom and gloom" message. Taht is what I mean by 'objective". I call them the way I see them, without any attempt at sugar coating.


What do I mean by "doom"? Ah, that is the unanswered question. I don't think our country can survive in its present form, with current leadership And I believe that any ChANGE in "leadershp" will notw surely be TOO LITTLE and TOO LATE. Does this mean we will all die, or that the country will be "destroyed"? Of course not. But it does mean that we MAY descend to the level of Greece, in our own way. Or we may be forced to do a Ron Paul (not to mention ME) dismantling of the Federal Government, where the "safety net" realy will collapse. In other words, it may mean a period like the Great Depression, without the RESOURCES to even do what FDR did (which made him a hero to people like my 89 year old mother). It may, indeed, be the beginning of the end for this country, or we MAY be able to rise again (as we did after the Great Depression, helped by World War II), In aqll events, the PAIN is going to be devastating.


Now are you not glad you right through the tyupos to read this blog? Where else can you read mateerial that makes you feel this good? Oh, I could always be "srng", but I don't think I can be that far wrong. We MAY "Hang on" without the DRAMATIC decline I think will happen, but we will be in a state of almost permanent economic stagnation/decline (as Japan has been). It may even go another directin, and we may get a demagogue like lHitler (or like I think Obama is capable of being, if he were smarter and jsut a little more truly eloquent).


Wy not vote for Obama, then? Well, I was willing to voate for Hillary Clinton, in 2008. But there are lengths to which I just can't stand to go. That includes voting for either Romney or Obama. Further, there are SOME advantaqges to Romney as President. I don't think he is capable of reversing the continuing decline of this country. However, I don't think he will be AS BAD as Obama on pretty important things like appointment of Supreme Curt and Federeral judges. Romney will be a better MANAGER (which is a double-edged sword, as it may take even longer to take the actiosn we truly need to take as we continue "politics as usual"). Romney will stop apologizing for the United States of America. I could go on as to samll things, but it just will not be good enoguh (in my view). Romney is, at core, an economic fascist/Big Government guy like the GOP estalbishment of which he is a part. The emphasis may change slightly. The symbols and rhetoric may change slightly. The Justice Department may not sue states to force an agenda on them (as Arizona). In the end, it jsut will not bbe enough.


P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I have "faith" in onlly one thing: FREE WILL. Tis is not becuase I "believe" that "free will" necessarily has to exist. It is becuause that no other assumption matters. f lyou or I do not have "free will", then you or I cannot be "responsbile" for either our actions or opinions: including our opinion on the question of 'fee will" itself. This is my way of 'explaining" why this blog may continue to weigh in on individual policy matters, even though I believe we are pretty much "doomed" (in one way or antoher). I sistill believe abortion is the equivlaent of infanticide, and owrth opposing. In other words, you have to ASSUME that SOMEHITHIOGN matters, or you really might as well give up and die. . Thus, I do think that it matters HOW we deal with our problems, and HOW SOON we start the process of coming out of the darknerss. After all, there were ponts of light even in the "long night" that followed the fall of the Romna Empire (it being basically a thousand years before the Renaissance). You can only do what you can. I will tlry to avoid being quite this pessimistic in future articles, but I thought you should be told at least once my overall view of where we are, as a country,m right now. No, this is not exaclty a new view for me--athough my view of how SOON the collpase will come is now mor dire than it has ever previously been. After Barry Goldwater, and before Ronald REagan, I believed that we were pretty much in decline and headed for an ultimate betrayal of the great country that the Founders had originally envisioned. Ronald Reagan reversed my view, for a time, and his legacy was even continued in the Newt Gingrich years (after the betrayls of George H. W. Bush and some further betrayals, even in the Gingrich years). As this blog has told you, Ronald Reagan iniatiated the best 20 years any political entity has ever experienced on this Earhth, even as Reagan was unable to REVERSE the slide toward "central planning", Big Government/economic fascism. IF I could see another Roanld Reagan, I would not be so pessimistic. now. I see no such person out there. Remember, I supported Ronald Reagan as early as 1968 (when he entered late as an oppponent of Richard Nixon). I see no such person on the horizon now. That means that it is only a "Carter-stylke" COLLAPSE that is gong to--perhaps--produce another Ronald Reagan (if such a person even exists out there). .The problem is that we are MUCH more fragile than we were under Carter, leading to my present pessimism.