Rick Santorum -- As President - He Would Touch Off The Downfall Of America
77
The beautiful, majestic eagle called the United States of America has been seriously injured and if its wounds are not treated properly, it will start having violent seizures and convulsions and go on to take its last breath.
A lot of melodrama there but I feel compelled to make it perfectly clear that America is in trouble, more than ever before.
Now the nation’s being in very deep trouble is nothing new; things have been that way ever since the middle 1960’s. However, the so-called Occupy Movement that began in November, 2011, prompted me to realize that the country is even more troubled than I previously thought.
Yes, things are really bad; as bad as I have ever seen them, and I have been living on this planet for nearly seven decades.
In fact, things have gotten so bad that a very large number of Americans are as mad as hell and are out in the streets protesting -- even though there is not anything to be angry over and to protest against.
And the primary reason why they are very upset with the way things are going, and are revolting, is they are constantly being told that they are supposed to be upset and that they are supposed to be out there disturbing the peace.
Due to the fact that such entities as the Democrat Party, the leftist-dominated major media and socialistic activists have spent more than 40 years espousing that America is an unfair and unjust place that is bursting at the seams with inequalities, millions (especially many of the young) have been psychologically conditioned to believe that it is time for “The People” to carry out a Bolshevik-style revolution.
Furthermore, even though there is not really anything to be divided over, the nation is nearly as divided today as it was during the years leading up to the Civil War. And the main reason why that is the case is, for more than 40 years, such factions as the Democrat Party, the leftist-dominated major media and socialistic activists have been instigating wars between whites and blacks, females and males, heterosexuals and homosexuals, “pro-choicers” and “pro-lifers,” illegal immigrants and natural-born U.S. citizens, and the rich, the middle-class and the poor.
What I am leading up to is when Occupy Wall Street (OWS) had been underway for about three or four weeks and had begun to spread to other regions of the country, it occurred to me that there is absolutely no justification for OWS or the Occupy Movement. It came to mind that this is the first time in U.S. history that there has been a massive nationwide movement that is not rooted in a situation that consists of life and death.
In other words, the vast Occupy Movement was not motivated by such things as millions of Americans being denied their rights under the U.S. Constitution while many others were getting “strung up” by lynch mobs -- or thousands-upon-thousands of young men getting killed and maimed in an undeclared war -- or deep differences in opinion concerning whether it is acceptable or unacceptable for women to end the lives of their unborn children.
For example, although I, personally, have always been vehemently opposed to the Martin Luther King, Jr.-led Civil Rights Movement, that protest was quite justifiable. It largely stemmed from the fact that in many parts of the country, blacks were subjected to unchecked discrimination, segregation and other forms of racism, as well as various kinds of cruel and inhumane treatment by white bigots.
Then there were the huge protests against the Vietnam War, and those public demonstrations were completely justifiable, too. After all, very large numbers of young American military personnel and millions of innocent Vietnamese civilians were being killed and seriously injured in a conflict that appeared to be unnecessary and/or to have no objectives.
Following that, there was the nationwide protests for and against what came to be known as women’s reproduction rights, and those protests were as justifiable as the two others I have mentioned. That internal conflict essentially stemmed from opposing views concerning the “right way” to ensure the well-being of human lives or more specifically, the lives of women and children.
On the other hand, however, the Occupy Movement is primarily being motivated by such relatively trivial matters as beliefs that the rich and big corporations are not being “taxed enough” -- government and the private sector are taking insufficient measures to “create jobs” -- Wall Street executives are being paid too much money -- not enough cash is being laid out to finance students’ college educations -- and the poor are not being handed enough welfare payments, food stamps and subsidized housing.
And that clearly demonstrates that a whole bunch of people have been so brainwashed by socialistic leftists to believe that that the world owes them a living that they will not be satisfied until all of the nation’s wealth has been “redistributed” -- everyone is handed a well-paying job and/or a real-good income for doing nothing -- and the rich and big businesses are taxed all the way from here to the moon.
That is currently the mindset of a great many Americans and it is not going to go away anytime soon. They are fully entrenched in their beliefs and would rather fight than switch. If any force comes along that tells them that they are not going to get what they want, they will blow this country up. The U.S. will erupt into the worst internal conflict since the Civil War.
Causing the situation to be even more intense, a very large number of individuals firmly believe that they have the right to do such things as abort their unborn children anytime they so please -- to marry members of the same sex as theirs -- and to permanently reside in the country “without papers.”
And if any measures are taken to deny those “rights,” there will be riots in the streets and nearly the entire country will brought to a standstill.
Yes, the beautiful, majestic eagle called the United States of America has been seriously injured and that is the reason why a President Rick Santorum would touch off the downfall of this great nation.
Now, I really do like Rick Santorum and when it comes to his “social conservatism,” he and I are nearly twins. However, this is not the season for the U.S. to have a chief executive who is as conservative as he is. And so far as that goes, this is not the season for someone who is as conservative as he is to be the Republican candidate for president.
If he should win the Republican nomination, and because of the climate that exists in the country today, Barack Obama will win the 2012 presidential election, hands down.
That is true because Santorum -- who could be described as the poster boy for “far-right conservatism” -- would cause all of the brainwashed socialistic leftists to get so fired up they would show up at the polls in droves and vote early and often.
And if by some strange twist of fate there would be a President Santorum, that would cause the country to become even more divided than it already is and to end up collapsing. The “occupation forces” and all of their sympathizers and supporters would go wild and destroy life as we know it.
In order to keep the seriously injured eagle from having violent seizures and convulsions and going on to take its last breath, its wounds must be treated properly. And the proper treatment consists of the kind of leadership that a President Mitt Romney would provide.
Because Barack Obama and his left-wing cronies, along with all of his left-wing predecessors, have done such a thorough job of influencing millions of contemporary Americans to think like socialists and to have hardly any moral values, this is the time for the Republicans to field a “moderate” like Romney for president and for a “moderate Republican” to be in the White House.
To those of you who are opining that I am kowtowing to the left by writing an article such as this one, my reaction is get outta here with that kind of thinking.
Because I have led men in combat and been a “captain of industry,” I possess a whole lot of knowledge about what it takes to win battles and to unify people who are deeply opposed to each other. Additionally, I have learned that in order for an army to win a war, it must be highly skilled at making strategic retreats when such action is required.
I KNOW that an army that remains steadfast gets destroyed.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (6)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (12)
CommentsLoading...
Hey feenix,
If not Santorum, who? As you know I will vote for pretty much anyone as long as its not Obummer. I'm not too sure about Romney or Gingrich. Although, they're about the best we can come up with. Bachman? That girl don't look right, but talks a good game. Perry, Cain? No. I just don't see them as viable candidates. We need someone who won't be cowed or bribed, someone who will restore this country to its former glory. Someone HONEST.
Hello Feenix -- I both agree and disagree with your stand on this matter. America is definitely at a crossroads and can definitely tip in either direction -- to the benefit or death of the Eagle. We certainly agree on the OWS movement. Just a thought: Lots of Dems are as unhappy with Obama as Repubs -- what do you think the chances are of someone like Santorum or Paul attracting conservative voters from both parties and possibly having a chance in the 2012 elections? We're hearing a lot about the Republican vote being split and therefore Obama winning -- could that scenario take another turn? Enjoyed your HUB and the questions it posed! Best, Sis
Hello, lovemychris,
Well, you just gave me an education. I was completely unaware of those facts about Santorum.
Hey, geo,
Chances are, or even more than likely, I am completely wrong in my assessment of things.
However, in this hub, I stated my opinion and it just so happens that in my opinion, Romney is the best man for the job.
Hey, Angela,
First, I must say that I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance.
Second, you have given me a lot of food for thought.
It is very, very early in the game, so God only knows which way I will be tilting in the future.
Hi, Feenix,
You know what? I agree with most of what you said here. Surprised? Don't be.
You're looking at the upcoming election as a rational person who understands strategy. And you're absolutely right that someone who is a staunch, uncompromising, right-wing conservative will galvanize the political left to turn out in droves. The only GOP contenders who wouldn't be a polarizing force if nominated might be Ron Paul (who won't be nominated because he'd cut foreign aid to Israel along with Social Security, and cut Defense spending along with Medicare) or Mitt Romney (who I didn't think stood much of a chance to win the GOP nomination either, mainly because of Romneycare and being a Mormon) but look at him now.
Paul would pull support from Obama, but wouldn't get it from conservative ideologues, so a hypothetical Ron Paul candidacy could make the election go either way. He won't get the nod, though, for reasons mentioned above.
Romney's probably the best chance the GOP has in the 2012 election. A conservative ideologue like Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or (God forbid!) Bachmann will be a gift to Obama.
I take issue with certain of the other assertions you make on the side, namely that there's nothing at all wrong with the USA at the moment, and there's no reason for OWS to be upset at all. I disagree. Various of the largest banks in America perpetrated a long-running fraud on the people of America. They wrote loans that the bankers knew would likely not be repaid, took those risky loans, bundled them into securities, and sold them to unsuspecting investors (individuals, mutual funds, retirement funds, etc) without disclosing the level of risk involved. When the risky loans proved worthless, everyone who had invested in those securities lost their money. The ripple effect meant that pension funds were underfunded, so companies had to pay retirement benefits from their general coffers, which meant they were short of cash, which meant that they had to lay off many of their workers, which meant that those workers (who would have been a good risk before) now couldn't pay /their/ mortgages, which killed the value of securities made from relatively safe mortgages too, which meant that even more investors/pension funds/etc lost even more money. And of course, property values also plummeted, so even the folks who still had jobs were living in houses that were worth about half what they paid for them.
And then what did the government do? Instead of punishing the people who caused this chaos with their fraudulent dealings, the government bails them out in the name of maintaining stability. Not a bad goal, but the execution was ham-handed; gov't didn't put any conditions on the bailout.
So what did the bailed-out banks do? Did they use the infusion of cash as a cushion and renegotiate the mortgages of folks who were suddenly underwater? Nope. They paid each other big bonuses and foreclosed on everyone they could (even some folks whose mortgages they didn't actually own!). They committed securities fraud on a scale never before seen, and they get rewarded for it, while the regular guy who borrowed responsibly and did everything right gets, at best, bilked out of $60-100K.
Why are people upset in America? Not because bankers make too much money, but because a wunch of bankers basically caused a large chunk of the people's wealth to disappear, and got rewarded for it (with money the people are going to pay in taxes). Not because some people are getting rich, but because many of them are getting rich by committing fraud. Not because wealthy people aren't being taxed "enough" (whatever that means) but because the wealthiest people are being taxed at a lower effective tax rate than the working middle class (who have smaller incomes). Not because people are losing their homes, but because people are losing their homes to fraudsters, swindlers, criminals: criminals more insidious than a straight-up mugger. Not because some people have enough money to influence elections, but because the wealthy are allowed to use their wealth to influence elections on the pretext that money is the same as speech (which basically means that anyone with more money than you has more right to govern than you do).
And finally, this is not "the first time in U.S. history that there has been a massive nationwide movement that is not rooted in a situation that consists of life and death."
Once upon a time, there were some folks in this country who were upset about what amounted to a tiny tax imposed on them. They were so angry about it that they took up arms and rebelled against the lawful authority of the British crown. They weren't upset about some people being enslaved, nor about the rightness or wrongness of a foreign war, nor about any life-or-death issue. They were upset about being taxed. Upset not about life-and-death, but about money.
Just saying.
Hey, Jeff,
Wow, what a terrific comment. Thank you very much for gracing this page with it. And you really did educate me about a few things.
So far as the "life and death" thing being the basis for protests, I should have wrote that has largely been the case since the 1950's. I just might do a little editing, in order to make things more clear.
Also, perhaps one of these days I will let you know what my view is concerning the reasons why there was a Revolutionary War.
And so far as thousands of people hitting the bricks because of all of the facts that you mentioned, I believe that was an exercise in futility. Robber barons are as American as apple pie and Chevrolets. Thus, it is up to the people to take their own initiatives to defend themselves from the "wrong-doings" of the big banks, etc.
feenix, all of the Republican candidates have had their day, except Huntsman. Santorum got a thumbs up in the "Caucasian straw poll." (In 2000, there were 61,853 black Americans, 8,989 American Indians, and 82,473 Hispanics and Latinos living in Iowa.
In 2000, among Iowans of European descent, there were 1,046,153 Germans (35.7% of the state total); 395,905 Irish (13.5%); and 277,487 English (9.5%). The foreign-born population numbered 91,085 (3.1%), more than double the total of 43,316 in 1990. Primary countries of origin included Germany, Mexico, Laos, Canada, Korea, and Vietnam.)
Same for NH (White). I don't think it gets real until Florida.
Dr. Michael Savage commented last night that where is it carved in stone that a group of farmers in Iowa get to decide who is the Republican candidate?
Hey, vrajavala,
Thank you very much for the all the useful information. I was not familiar with the demographics of Iowa.
And I fully agree with you. It will not get real until the Florida primary.
I'm listening to Jeff Kuhner (taking over for Mike Savage) He says Santorum says that Iowa is only good for getting a Repub a job on Fox (like Mike Huckabee)
Hey, V,
That's very interesting and amusing.
Murdoch supports Santorum...he'll be on Fox in no time.
lovemychris,
Now that I think about it, Santorum does look like he was punched out by the Foxmen cookie cutter.
Does anyone watch cable tv anymore?
I think I checked Drudge about 11PM. And then this AM.
The first commentor was right: Santorum' s a doofus.
And a lot of baggage like Ear
Marks. Supporting Arlen Specter. Just a few Negative ads will blow him off the map.
Lived in a very expensive mansion in Va on taxpayer's dime.
Hey, V,
Thank you very much for the information. Once again, you have informed me of facts that I was unaware of, with the exception of the earmarks thing.
Also, all of the Iowa "caucusians" who voted for Santorum voted with their hearts and not with their minds.
feenix,
You make some very good points here. Very well written as usual and I voted you up of course.
I don't like Romney that much, but I think you might be right - he may be the best one to beat Obummer. And what we need right now is someone to BEAT him.
Also, let's not forget the Senate. There are seats up for grabs in the Senate.
Best case scenario is to get Obummer out of office. Second best case is if the Repubs controlled both houses, we could perhaps stop him from doing further damage, and perhaps defund most if not all of his mistakes (obamacare et al).
Just my thoughts.
Bobbi
Hey, moonstruck,
Thank you for your very thoughtful comment.
And you are certainly right concerning the importance of the GOP gaining a majority in the Senate. If Obama is reelected, among other things, a Republican majority in that body would be in the position to vote down a dumb selection that he would make for a Supreme Court Justice.
feenix,
Wisdom is something that seems to be a lost commodity these days. You sir, have demonstrated exactly what Wisdom means by sharing with others your ability to apply your perceptions, judgements and actions in a hub, that is "balls on" accurate.
As much as I would LOVE to have a true, blue conservative, in the likes of Reagan....I now agree with your analogy. That to win a war, you have to fight one battle at a time.... and even though Santorum may be as close to having a true conservative in this race....Romney may be the one we need to win this first battle.
We have got to find some common ground, and quickly. If this nation becomes any further divided, it will take a war to bring it back together.
I fully believe that Romney can be that man to beat Obama, and take the necessary "baby steps" we must take, to start healing this land.
I really think this hub needs to be published in Letters to the Editor in papers all across this nation.
This hub is up, awesome, interesting, AND very USEFUL.
Chris
Hey, CM,
Thank you very much for your encouraging comment.
And receiving a comment like the one you sent me, and from a man who is as wise as you are, is truly an honor.
Also, as you have probably noticed, my current "niche" is delivering the message, Romney for President.
Well, my plan is to package all of the hubs and send them to the head of Romney's campaign. I'm trying to land a job. ;-)
It would be a great move on their part......
I will keep this in my prayers.
Sorry, guys, I would cast my vote for Rick Santorum. Why settle for an Obama lite, which is what Romney is. Romney faces major head winds in the upcoming contests in the south. You ought to stick with the genuine article, Santorum is the true conservative in the race.
Thanks for letting me plug, Feenix
Santorum for President in 2012!
Hey, CM,
I really do appreciate your keeping me in your prayers. You are definitely a good friend.
Hey, Cred,
Now, I really do know that I am making the right move by backing Mitt Romney. Because you say it should be Santorum, I am remaining right where I am.
And you are quite right about one thing, my good friend; Romney is going to encounter some major head winds in the South. But that's the way it is. The world is the world and nothing can change that.
Very interesting and informative, but I disagree. If there is a right way to lead and a wrong way to lead, then why would we ever select the wrong way to lead? We just spun our wheels with 20 years of Mitt Romney before Obama. How is more of the same going to fix anything. We can not continue to allow the Republican party to slide left. Instead we need to focus on sliding the democrat party right. Why can a leftist like Obama become president, but a conservative can not?
Did you think that it was time for Reagan in 1980? We seem to be reliving that time period.
Hello, michiganman,
First, I am very pleased to have made your aquaintance. Second, thank you very much for your very thoughtful comment.
Actually, back in 1980, I worked on the Reagan campaign (and I worked on his 1984 campaign, too). I bring that up to say the following: 1980 was 1980 and today is today. In other words, the U.S. was a completely different place from the place it is today.
As an example, presently, there is no 1970's-style "silent majority" like there was back in 1980. There are not millions-upon-millions of conservatives out there who are flying under the radar.
The truth is, and quite unfortunately, a major segment of U.S. society has moved far to the left since 1980. As a matter of fact, if the climate of America in 1980 had been the same as it is today, Ronald Reagan would not have been elected.
Similar to what I pointed out in my hub, there comes a time when an army has to adjust its tactics and strategies to the lay of the land. And the lay of the land today largely consists of a nation that is far more left than right.
Even most of the oldest conservatives have become quasi-socialists, because they do not want anybody "fooling around with" their Social Security checks and Medicare coverage.
Thus, this is not the time for all-out conservatives to try to shove through their ways of thinking and operating. For the time being, they must give up some ground to the left, because if they do not, they will be destroyed and go on to become extinct.
The way I see it, conservatives in this country cannot allow the same thing to happen to them that has happened to socio-economic-political conservatives in western Europe.
"Romney plan hits hardest those making less than $40,000, and primarily those households with children, as he would undo President Obama’s expansion of the child tax credit.
And Romney’s proposal only gets more lucrative for those at the very top of the income scale, giving those in the richest 0.1 percent an annual tax cut of nearly half a million dollars. In 2015 alone, the plan would add $600 billion to the deficit."
Dick Cheney: "Reagan showed us deficits don't matter"
We don't need to go any more Right ever again. It has broken us as a country. Enough. How much d money do you people need?
Feenix! You don't trust me?
Hey, Cred,
Let's just say I wouldn't allow you to fill out my absentee ballot for me if I were in the hospital and too ill to fill it out myself. ;-)
Hey, lovemychris,
Personally, I want a president who can effectively deal with the likes of Iran, North Korea and anti-American terrorist factions. I am not looking for a "Savior of the Middle-Class and Poor."
This has most assuredly given me food for thought from an angle I had not considered. That being said, while I see the validity of your argument, I have one major concern. I have to seriously wonder, and I can't yet decide myself, if what you say is true about the Occu-toddler types rising up in revolt if a true conservative is elected, what's to stop them from doing the same no matter who is elected when they feel they want more handouts? I'm not trying to be contentious here. I really think it's a question that must be examined.
I agree that too many have a learned helplessness; the world owes me a living mentality. It's shameful and scary. At the same time their willingness to go to increasingly violent lengths to get it is further cause for alarm. At what point do we say enough is enough and draw a line?
Thanks for giving the old noodle something to chew on here. God bless you. Your work is always a pleasure to read.
Hey, Vix,
Thank you for your terrific comment. I really did like reading it.
And so far as the "occupation forces," yes, they are going to continue to act up, no matter what. Their activities are one of those "who let the dogs out, whoop?" situations.
So, we had better tighten our seat belts, because it's going to be a rough ride.
How can any candidate touch off a downfall of America.
That floor has been reached and there is no solution because the system is broken.
It has been broken for many decades.
So it doesn't matter who wins in the 2012 election, just like it didn't matter who won the election in 2008.
The proof of my opinion is that the neither party predicted or anticipated the economic collapse in 2008, and neither party has fixed it after the election in 2008.
The control of Congress and the Presidency by either party or combination of parties has resulted in where the country is today. So why would you believe that 2012 would change the country for the better.
my opinion....
Oh yea! That one is a for sure. It will be a bumpy ride. I know this will sound lame, but I feel sorry for them in a way. They are their own worst enemy. Some of what they say has merit. The system is corrupt. But their idea of tearing it down is just childish, cut your nose off to spite your face mentality. They are lost and they are part of "us", of America. What have we let ourselves become?
On a positive note, I have to think some of them must be waking up. How long can one live that way and not start to smell reality? I hope that is the case anyway.
Thanks again for the read. It really is a valid point. While it still irks me to cave in to them, you are right. We have to come together, all of us, if we are to have a fighting chance.
Hello, ib radmaster,
Two things that really turn me off are the following: (1) commenters who come at me with "attitude." (2) Commenters who come off like they know it all.
Hi, Vix,
You wrote, "On a positive note, I have to think some of them must be waking up. How long can one live that way and not start to smell reality?"
All I know is every time I go around the "occupiers" here in NYC where I live, I smell a whole lot of reality. Many of those people have been "living off the land" for such a long time, they have gotten pretty ripe.
Also, you are quite right; this is a time when some giant steps must be taken to bring Americans together.
Hi feenix,
You began your fear-mongering hub like every other misguided conservative I have known with "run for cover, America is facing catastrophic annihilation." In another breath, you assured us that there is nothing to worry about. Now listen to yourself. "Yes, things are really bad; as bad as I have ever seen them, and I have been living on this planet for nearly seven decades.
In fact, things have gotten so bad that a very large number of Americans are as mad as hell and are out in the streets protesting -- even though there is not anything to be angry over and to protest against."
It's sickening that it is all about power and money with the conservative, and you people can say anything, I mean anything; even when what you say is capable of casting doubt about your mental stability. That's my worry for America that we have powerful individuals who are driven purely by power, while what we need are men and women of great ideas, driven by the patriotic zeal to see this country return to its preeminence. What is wrong with America is the squeeze on the middle class, in the face of stupendous wealth of the 1%, which conservatives like you want to sustain. I am not bothered by whomever the Republican Party pits against President Obama, for it makes no difference. With the conservatives,its same failed old trickle down policy; nothing new, and Americans have moved on.
Hey, onuigbos,
I am very glad to hear from you, my good friend.
You wrote, "...what we need are men and women of great ideas, driven by the patriotic zeal to see this country return to its preeminence..."
Wow, my brother, that is one of the most accurate descriptions of ME I have ever seen.
Feenix,
I am not in any position to doubt your patriotism, for having read your writing for the extent I'm opportune to, your patriotic zeal for our country is beyond question. I just worry that some of us are just interested in grabbing power for the sake of it, without an iota of idea what to do with power.
Hey, onuigbos,
You wrote, "...some of us are just interested in grabbing power for the sake of it..."
That is what is called "an aspect of human nature" that has been around ever since the beginning of time and that will be around until the end of time.
Hey feenix.. you think like I do.. yes it makes me so sad.. Our beloved America is in so much trouble..thank you for writing like you do and keeping us informed.
I vote up of course
Debbie
Hi, Debbie,
Well, you know what they say about "great minds." ;-)
And thank you very much for thanking me and for the vote. And I am very glad to have you as a friend.
Feenix,
I agree its human process to want power, or cling unto power. But there has to be a motivation rather than just wanting power. What is happening is that white America is terrified they are gradually losing their majority status, and cannot do anything about it. But they believe they can do a lot with power to stem this tide of them supposedly sliding into minority oblivion. Ask Pat Buchanan.
onuigbos,
Now you have ventured into different waters.
What you wrote concerning the demographic changes that are taking place in the U.S., and the "power play" that is underway, is one of the primary reasons why I am always preaching that it is time for black people to initiate a bold new movement based entirely on unlimited black enterprise, capitalism and self-determination.
If blacks (all over the world) do not hurry up and get their act together, they are going to end up being extinct.
feenix,
I totally and entirely agree with you. My only worry is that we are yet to jell together. It takes a community to raise a child in an African culture. It's no so here. We are selfish and individualistic. If our sportsmen/women, and wealthy musicians can pool their resources together, a lot would be achieved in the black community. I agree we need a renewed community, one that will emphasize communal efforts in pushing black agenda.
Hey, onuigbos,
Amen to what you wrote, my brother.
If all of the rich black athletes and entertainers in this country got together and started "investing" in the lives of black youngsters, black poor adults and impoverished black communities, that, all by itself, would go a long way towards improving the quality of life for black people as a whole.
However, and similar to what you said, wealthy blacks tend to behave the same as a great many well-off whites -- they are quite selfish and only care about financing their own luxuries, such as huge homes, fancy cars and outrageous-and-expensive parties.
Warren Ballentine has been preaching this for years. He has asked his listeners to put their money in a small, black-owned bank: Mechanics and farmers Bank, and sells Truthfighter coffe, to fund businesses in the black community with the money.
50 Cent-Curtis Jackson has started the Street King movement. Buy headphones, and 350 meals are provided to hungry people in America. Buy an energy drink--a meal is provided in Africa.
He says he wants to make a new business model, like Tom's shoes, where it's a one-on-one deal. Sell one--Give one. He says 1% of the profits from wealth would solve the worlds problems. Funny how 1% is too much to ask from those Uber rich. And funny how they are 1% of the population. Sad and pathetic really.
feenix
A good author would comment on what I wrote and not on what they hate.
Is Hate your thing.
You are definitely off my list.
You have nothing to offer, you could be a politician.
-----
How can any candidate touch off a downfall of America.
That floor has been reached and there is no solution because the system is broken.
It has been broken for many decades.
So it doesn't matter who wins in the 2012 election, just like it didn't matter who won the election in 2008.
The proof of my opinion is that the neither party predicted or anticipated the economic collapse in 2008, and neither party has fixed it after the election in 2008.
The control of Congress and the Presidency by either party or combination of parties has resulted in where the country is today. So why would you believe that 2012 would change the country for the better.
my opinion....
Hello, lovemychris,
All I know is Americans of Asian descent are the smallest "minority" in the U.S., yet they have the highest rate of average income in the country.
And the primary reason why that is the case is for every dollar that an American of Asian descent spends, it goes through the hands of 12 other Americans of Asian descent before it leaves their "community."
On the other hand, however, nearly every dollar spent by Americans of African descent goes right out of their "community" into the hands of "non-blacks."
And that translates to, blacks hardly get any return for the money they contribute to the economy.
ib-rad, you wrote, "A good author would comment on what I wrote and not on what they hate."
First, I am not an "author." I am a hubber.
Second, I feel compelled to ask you a question which is the following:
Why in the hell can't you accept it when someone disagrees with the way you see things?
What it all comes down to is, you say, TOE-MAH-TOE, and I say, TA-MAY-TA, and that's that.
Feenix, I find it strange, and can hardly believe it, but I support Santorum. I really, really don't like social conservatism and know from personal experience that the conservative Right, for all their love of the Constitution, act like the document is reserved to protect their beliefs and their beliefs alone. Nevertheless, of all the potential nominees left in the GOP circuit I do feel Santorum is most in touch with the needs of the working class. I also feel he is the most prepared to deal firmly with Iran, Venezuela, China and N. Korea. Gingrich talks a good game but I suspect its all talk. And Romney, I fear, is too prepared to grease whatever wheels it takes to benefit himself. I agree with you in the prediction a President Santorum will bring division, but it would be a division sought after by the Left. I'd rather there be national division than utter destruction of the nation at the hands of those who want to see us all dead.
And again, I am shocked to hear myself say this. I wish there was a perfect candidate, but unfortunately neither you nor my husband are running, lol!
Gods bless :)
Hello, Beth,
You know, I totally agree with everything you wrote. In fact, if this were a perfect world, I would be all for Santorum, too.
However, because this is not perfect world, I know that, quite frequently, the "best man" for a political office is not the one who can win.
I mean, like, just look at what's happening to Santorum up in New Hampshire -- which is nowhere close to being the most "progressive" state in the union.
He's being shouted down all over the place by bands of malcontents and perverts.
As I have expressed before, it is my opinion that this is not the season for the GOP to field a "true conservative" as the candidate for president.
And the reason why that is the case is, presently, the entire country is more to the left than it is to the right.
Thus, in order for "us" to place a Republican in the White House -- and get Obama the hell outta there -- "we" are going to have to give up some ground to the left.
I'm not sure I totally agree with your analysis. For one thing I think his ideas about the manufacturing sector is an important one as I wrote about in one of my recent hubs on the subject. I simply feel that we've lost too much in this country in that area, and that a lot of the downfall, at least econmically, is directly related to it. Rick Santorum came from working class roots. I think that's important because he can see both sides of the coin when it comes to what businesses need to function profitably, and provide jobs, and better pay, and what the American people need to support their families, keep families together, and have better opportunities along those lines.
He's not my favorite by any means, but I don't agree that he would destroy this country through his policies.
Hello, Springboard,
With all due respect, your are overlooking something that is very significant.
The title of this hub is, A President Rick Santorum Would TOUCH OFF The Downfall Of America.
Now I did not that say that Santorum, himself, would CAUSE the downfall of America. I merely said that if he becomes the president, that situation -- and not him -- would TOUCH OFF the downfall of the country.
Additionally, I agree with everything you said about Santorum, but the big question is, can a "true conservative" like him win at this point in time?
I believe that the following must be taken into account:
Presently, there are not nearly as many "true conservatives" in this country as there were in 1980 and 1984, when the last "true conservative" president was elected and reelected which, of course, was Ronald Reagan.
In fact, a considerable number of the "true conservatives" who were around in 1980 and 1984 are dead and there have been relatively few replacements for those people.
Maybe I'm just missing how his policies would touch off the downfall of America. I don't see that at all. As for the interest in a true conervative? I think that's why the GOP has been so flip-floppy this time around on declaring a frontrunner consistently. Mitt's got quite a lot of conservative rhetoric (at least now), but he's stayed relatively in the same spot percentage wise while we've jumped around from Rick Perry to Newt, and now with Iowa almost giving it to Santorum and his significant rise in the polls—
It seems clear to me that we're searching for that true conservative. Again, Santorum is not my favorite, but I think what his plan for manufacturing could do for us as a country would be significant...
Though one side note, Santorum is not for a right to work state, so...on that one I'm not so sure. In my view the best examples in manufacturing over recent years have been those who operated in right to work states. So, if we're talking about strengthening unions I'm not for that at all. Even if you removed endless regulations, unions would in effect cause more with their layers of rules, and still cause a crippling affect to business.
Hello, Springboard,
You wrote, "...It seems clear to me that we're searching for that true conservative..."
Bingo, you stated the magic phrase and that phrase is, "WE'RE searching for that true conservative."
In other words, when you say "WE'RE," you talking about "we conservatives" -- and presently, "we conservatives" are a rapidly dwindling minority. The nation is moving farther to the left at nearly warp speed.
Thus, in my opinion, in order for a Republican to be elected president at this particular point in time, and in order to kick Obama out of the White House, the GOP must field a candidate who can win a sizable percentage of the so-called Independent vote -- and the truth is, Mitt Romney has a lot more appeal to the so-called Independents (most of whom are really Democrats looking for someplace to go) than the "socially conservative" Rick Santorum does.
Hi Feenix
A very informative and thought provoking hub. You summed it up beautifully.
"I have learned that in order for an army to win a war, it must be highly skilled at making strategic retreats when such action is required."
Voted up and away!
Have a good weekend.
Hello, Sue,
Thank very much for your generous and encouraging comment, my very good friend.
And I also thank you for the vote.
This may well be the very best Hub I have ever read. I am nearly speechless, hardly my normal condition.
I had to stand up and cheer when you said:
"a whole bunch of people have been so brainwashed by socialistic leftists to believe that that the world owes them a living that they will not be satisfied until all of the nation’s wealth has been “redistributed” -- everyone is handed a well-paying job and/or a real-good income for doing nothing"
And you showed what true wisdom is when you wrote:
"Barack Obama and his left-wing cronies, along with all of his left-wing predecessors, have done such a thorough job of influencing millions of contemporary Americans to think like socialists and to have hardly any moral values"
Amen!
Thank you.
Hello, James,
I must say that I have very high degrees of respect and admiration for you as both a writer and a person.
Therefore, I am truly honored by the generous and highly-complimentary comment that you left on this page.
Thank you very much, my good friend.
Nice Hub dude. Honestly, all the GOP candidates are bad. I mean, Ron Paul(who is loony and old)is still running. Newt Gingrich is slightly ahead. I seriously thought he was in prison up until 4 months ago. Obama may not be getting it done, but he hasn't made an ass out of himself like these guys have. Santorum is great if you are a bible thumpin' family man. Nothing wrong with that.
I wrote a Hub about the whole Google ranking thing with his name. It was meant to be informative, but of course a few people threw in stuff about "the left" and "conservatives" when those terms weren't mentioned in the Hub. THumbs up!!!
Hey, napetv,
Nice comment, dude ;-)
Also, I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance. I can see that you are a thinking person who has a whole lot of common sense which are a couple of attributes that are rapidly disappearing in this society.
I agree with you about the "injured America", but was disappointed with your view of occupy movements!
Hello, immigrantsstories,
First, I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance.
Second, I regret that I disappointed you with my view of the occupy movement.
I guess one of the primary reasons why I am so opposed to that movement is I am an old-school dude who likes to see things done in an orderly fashion.
I have reached the point in life where I always want to be surrounded by peace and calmness.
Great opinion piece. Couldn't agree with you more. Replacing on extremist with another makes no sense. Mitt is the man to heal this country.
Hello, Paige,
Thank you very much for your supportive comment. And, at least, there are two of us around here. ;-)
Feenix, the pundits are not dismissing the possibility of a Santorum candidacy. If you guys pick him you would need to pay a visit to the Sanitorium, the left would eat him alive!
Hey, Cred,
Quite frankly, I am not dismissing that possibility either. And one of the primary reasons why is, a whole lot of Evangelicals and so-called true conservatives should be locked in a "Sanitorium."
And your are right. If Santorum does go on to be the GOP nominee, the left will tear him a new one -- and I will not blame them, because he is a male who has no honor.
I guess i'm somewhat divided on this issue. On one hand it's understandable and even noble to want to be a peacemaker on the other hand (and I hope i'm wrong), maybe there's a showdown that's destined to happen so why not have it out and be done with it. Think about the slavery issue that divided the country between the revolution and the civil war. For years politicians tried desperately to make peace between the opposing sides but in the end it made it even worse.
Hey, wba,
I fully understand where you are coming from.
However, in my opinion, the civil war is already underway and has been going on for about four or five decades now. And it is a massive conflict between the right and the left.
So, at this point in the war, I believe that my side, the right, should do somewhat of a strategic retreat (by nominating Romney for the Republican candidate), in order to live to fight another day.
Finally, I must say that it is my strong opinion that if Santorum wins the nomination, the right will suffer a massive defeat that it may never recover from.
I thin k he should win and barrak obama to . I am so confused!!!!!!;):(
Apparently, you are very confused, Chris.
But thanks for visiting my page.
![Who Will You Vote For in the 2012 Election - Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Paul?- A Poll (12-26-11) - Ron Paul Won [73*]](http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5506219_50.jpg "Who Will You Vote For in the 2012 Election - Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Paul?- A Poll (12-26-11) - Ron Paul Won [73*]")
lovemychris Level 5 Commenter 4 months ago
No, he shouldn't be elected, cause he's a dufus!
“There are no Palestinians,” he told a questioner at a campaign event in Iowa. You can see the video here.
"All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land," the former Pennsylvania senator said.
"The West Bank is part of Israel," which won it as "part of an aggressive attack by Jordan and others" in 1967. Israel doesn't have to give it back any more than the United States has to give New Mexico and Texas to Mexico, which were gotten "through a war," he said.
But I see why neo-kooks like him.