"What Goes Around Comes Around," or "Elections Have Consequences" - take your pick

As the leftists try to discredit Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, that he is a Mormon bothers me as well. My reasons are different. To a take-no-prisoners libertarian (yours truly), Romney's subscription to the Mormon tenet of forgiveness might lead us further to the left than we find ourselves at the end of Obama's four years. What we have learned over the last three years is how quickly destructive government can be and we need a president to not slow the trend but reverse it, aggressively and without temerity. January 2013 must NOT be considered status quo. The leftists want folks, especially gays and women to believe that Romney will force women and gays to follow Mormon doctrine on birth control, homosexual sex and sex out of wedlock. In reality, any president has little effect on those issues because they truly are bedroom issues and we have rights of privacy in our houses that stop the most intrusive behavior. The whiners (like Sandra-I-want-government-to-pay-for-my-birth-control-Fluke) complain that government must pay for what goes on in the bedroom. These issues are less important than the economy, loss of personal freedom, gun control and even my choice of light bulbs which this hostile government can and has controlled.

The "forgiveness" component of Romney's religion will prevent him from being as confrontational as Obama has set the stage for his successor to be. Floating around TV for many years has been a Latter Day Saints commercial in which a bicyclist is passed by a Jeep that splashes mud all over him. I would single-finger salute anyone who did that to me but that aside, later, the bicyclist finds the Jeep disabled along the road and stops to help. As I passed the Jeep I would not have stopped to help the driver, believing more in "what goes around comes around" than in The Golden Rule. Romney will help the Jeep owner, i.e. "He is fundamentally a good person"; "what he did in four years may have hurt us be we must be sensitive to those with whom we disagree"; "we must not let Obama's failures stop us from treating the issues carefully and with respect to those who moved us to the left." "What he did was not right, but, heck he is a smart man and ran a good-intentioned administration; let's not undo EVERYTHING."

Here is the problem: The leftists vilify anyone who argues against their dogma so there is no civil debate and trying to establish civil debate wastes time and distracts from the seriousness of the problems . We have watched the Obamanazis force down an unaccepting public's throats, large doses of totalitarianism from health care to light bulbs to contrived energy shortages to union and black panther thuggery. The time to "make nice" is long past. We must reverse the Obama disaster assertively and aggressively with graciousness only as a subordinate effort. I repeat: we must NOT accept the Obama years as status quo! The next president must be very clear that Obama/Reid/Pelosi are despots of the most cruel order - mean-spirited people - and the reversal of at least the most damaging legislation over the last three years is paramount. While Obama & Co. spent the last three years blaming Bush (thankfully I think that no longer carries water) Romney will spend the next four praising Obama while hinting that he (Obama) may have just been a tetch miss-guided. But you can count on Mr. Romney prefacing and ending any discussion with a comment about what a fine man Obama was. He is not a fine man and such utterances are dangerously conciliatory because they make it more difficult to aggressively reverse his awful legacy.

Romney is the man who will put the frog in cold water and "allow" the water to heat to the point where the frog reacts - albeit too late. I compare Romney to George Bush, both very kind and civil gentlemen. The latter caved to the hostility of the leftists as I believe will Romney. What he will call "compromise" and "reaching out" I call "spineless." Obama put the frog in hot water; reaction has been strong, generally consistent (poll statistics), and somewhat contrary to the wishes of the moderate left but Romney will not reverse Obama's misdeeds. An administration that takes us down the eternally dreary, no-hope road of Marxism is evil; that Romney may take that path at a slower pace makes him no more attractive than Obama, and sadly, possibly more likely to hand us to Marxist incarceration than is His Highness - following my frog analogy. (By the way, Obama with his arrogant, self-righteous sense of governance has nevertheless been successful and more so than moderates, is more transparent). So far Romney has been careful to articulate....nearly nothing. Very literally with a gun to my head I would not vote for Obama and would vote for Romney only if he develops a spine between now and November. There is no room for patience or deliberation of the issues to any degree greater than Obama/Pelosi/Reid allowed. I will vote only for a candidate with a take-no-prisoners stance. "Forgiveness" and "compromise" have done nothing but lead us further to the left. This may be the last opportunity to reverse the damage and Romney does not appear to be the candidate to do that. I fear that after four Romney years the country will be left still more bewildered about which candidates have the fortitude and determination to reverse the march. At the end of the Romney (yes that is a prediction) four years the Obama Left either has lost most of the poison they foisted on the American people and the road to the right must be paved or all we will have gained is a four-year pause in the march to Marxism.

******************

Indians Recognize No Limits, Even Those by Contract

David Patchek of Wayland Township in Michigan won a victory for majority/white Americans today, June 18, 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court (Sotomayor dissenting of course) said he can proceed with a lawsuit to have removed a casino placed on "tribal lands" of disputed authenticity. The issue, simply is that a tribe placed a casino on lands NOT recognized as tribal when the treaties were negotiated and signed. Casinos under state contract can be placed on non-tribal land only under specific exceptions. None was granted to the tribe that built this casino. That the state of Michigan allowed this is not unusual, the current Ambassador to China and former VERY racist governor of Washington, Gary Locke, allowed the same practice when he was "governor" of Washington. Locke allowed one tribe to build on land in a commercial area because the only tribal land was not "suitable" or sufficiently near a commercial area to "assure" success. Locke's racism, by the way, was his frequent proclamation, "I am the first Chinese American to..."


The Blacks and Indians of America are indelibly of the entitlement mentality. I worked for the state of Washington for most of my career and whenever the Indians declared "we are a sovereign nation" a long string of sympathetic governors gave them whatever they wanted. Not that the governors were intimidated; they found comfort hiding behind the unquestioned Indian proclamations. The Federal law that allows for states to contract for Indian casinos does not require states to do so and because the relationship is indeed contractual, the state can include any reasonable clause the state wishes. The Indians do not have to accept the clause and either a satisfactory compromise is achieved or the Indians do not get the casino. A clear example is employment law. On tribal land the Indians are not subject to Federal or state employment law. In other words they can discriminate at will. Can the state make it a condition of contract that the Indians will comply with larger society employment law? Of course, but they don't because, again the Indians shriek "we are a sovereign nation" and then get whatever they want. Another example in Washington was the passage of an idiot law outlawing smoking in (among other places) dining establishments. The law did not apply to tribal land but that same policy could be a requirement of contract. No dice; Christine Gregoire, one of many in the long line of Indian sympathizers, and governor, asked nicely if the Indians might comply. Boy was she careful to not offend the Indians. They did not comply of course and the matter was shoved under the rug. To the credit of the Indians, many tribes did establish smoking and non-smoking areas but they were not required to do so and in the non-Indian sector that non-physical separation does not comply with the law.

Return to Mr. Patchek, who is a hero because he will, if he has not already, come to enjoy words like "racist," "Aryan," you know, the vilification the leftists heap upon those who do not agree with them. The Indians reap the benefits white society has created for them. I have yet to hear an Indian deny medical care because of "Sovereign Nation." Nor have the tribes declined food stamps, education dollars or welfare checks which we do not owe a "sovereign nation." In the Western part of the country the Indians object to river dams (significant generators of electricity) because they injure the precious "tribal fishing grounds" but no Indians to my knowledge have said "we are willing to have electricity to our reservation shut off." Mr. Patchek does not own these issues but he is insisting that the tribes have to play by the rules and government of sympathetic whites has to as well. Will his lawsuit win? I am not sufficiently familiar with enabling statute and precedent but my guess is it will unless there is an avenue for the current governor (who is NOT a leftist) to grant an exception after the fact. Even if that occurs, congratulations to Mr. Patchek for having the courage to remind the Indians and their sympathizers that they too must play by the rules and shrieking "sovereign nation" creates no exemption from the law.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&