Constitution Party: The Other Black Candidate?

Anybody remember a few weeks back, there was a Republican Presidential debate, and you saw your four regulars... there was Ron Paul, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and I'm not sure if Mitt Romney had dropped out or not. There was also some random guy up there on the platform... Alan Keyes. Where did he come from? What was he doing up there? Of course Alan Keyes is not new to politics and it wasn't really the same as having Bob the mailman up there, but it was really odd to see someone up there that nobody knew was even running for president.

Anyway, just a couple of days ago my husband told me that Alan Keyes had left the Republican party. That he was thinking of becoming the next Constitution Party candidate. Cool!

I've been a big fan of the Constitution Party for about 5 years now. I voted for their presidential candidate, Michael Peroutka, during the last election. I knew he had no chance... after all, I had never heard of the guy before. I didn't like either of the mainstream presidential candidates and really couldn't see much of a difference between them (and I still don't think that we would be any better or worse off if Kerry had been nominated), so despite people saying that I was helping one presidential candidate over another by voting 3rd party, I really wasn't, because it really didn't matter. Which can be hard for people to get.

This year, I don't know how I'm going to vote. Barak Obama is pretty scary with his whole black liberation theology ties... Christians and gun owners are bitter? He's pretty scary. Plus he thinks that if a baby survives an abortion it's okay to murder them anyway after they've been born. John McCain isn't great... he's pro-illegal immigration and admits that he doesn't have a firm grasp on the economy, but at least he doesn't think that infanticide is okay if the baby is an abortion survivor, and he doesn't think that a Jesus that loves all people, including white people, is a bad thing.

But if Alan Keyes joins the race as the Constitution Party candidate, that could switch things up a bit. He sounded pretty good in the one presidential debate that he went to. People who are familiar with politics have at least heard of him. He's conservative in a way that John McCain is not.

Either way, Keyes running under the Constitution Party ticket would bring recognition to the party in a way that it's never had before. They hold their national convention tomorrow, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Our National Debt

The other day, I started reading America The Broke. Even though it's four years old, it's just as relevant as ever... perhaps even more so. Me and my husband are seriously considering taking $1000 of our tax returns this year and investing in gold. It's not a new idea from this book... I asked my grandma earlier this year if she'd consider moving my inheritance from Microsoft to gold because I'm a little bit wary of what might happen to the stock market... but this book paints quite a scary picture. Especially chapter 3. If you can't afford to buy the book and your library doesn't have a copy, go down to Barnes and Noble and read just that. It's something that could happen.

I remember as a kid I didn't care very much for Ronald Reagan. I now know more about him and I respect him as a Christian, but he did a very bad thing with our national debt and deficit. Even as a kid I knew it. I was quite happy in the Clinton years when we started to have a surplus (don't get me wrong though, there were plenty of things he did wrong)... and I'm pretty nervous now as Homeland Security and the Iraq war continue to rack up the debt today.

I know more than I want to about being in debt. All we have right now is a car loan, mortgage, and a student loan... that and the medical bills from when my kids had to go to the ER last summer when we were waiting to get approved for health insurance, but there was a point in my life when I had more debt.

Back then, I was making a lot of money. The debt was manageable, but we were still trying to pay it down. We could have saved a lot more and spent a lot less, and sometimes I want to kick myself for not being more financially frugal back then. Because when I got out of the military and my husband became the breadwinner, we took a 66% pay cut. And the debt was swallowing us alive. I couldn't imagine if today we had credit card bills to pay right now, with no job and living off temporary assignments and unemployment (if it ever comes through).

After learning of Dave Ramsey, I grew to hate debt. I realized how much of our income every month was being wasted in interest. I imagined how much cash we could have freed up if only we didn't have a mountain of debt in front of us. We have since tried to keep an emergency fund... which is a good thing because almost every time we got one last year, dh would lose his job again.

This book talks a lot about our national debt. While it's not the same as personal debt, we still have to pay interest on it. A lot of interest. This book says that on average, every person in America pays $1000 a year to pay interest alone. I don't know about you, but I would rather have that money go towards something useful like roads, or even the schools... or you could always put that into the taxpayer's pockets.

The problem is, our country thinks that it can buy whatever it wants, pay for whatever it wants, and we'll be okay. It doesn't work that way. In my personal budget, I have to make choices as to whether I buy clothes, take the kids to Jamba Juice, or buy something else. I can't buy everything that I want. And neither can the government. Our politicians think that they can, but we pay for it... and will continue to pay for it until it gets fixed.

We want to pay for an expensive war, give senior citizens social security, give medical help in the forms of Medicare and Medicaid (which I currently receive), pay for the roads, pay for education, pay for welfare, prisons, farm subsidies, and on and on. Many of these are noble things. Who doesn't want to help the poor? Who doesn't want to help the elderly? But the problem is, we can't afford everything that we want to fund.

This book is a quick read and I'm just starting the last couple of chapters where it gives suggestions on what we can do to improve the situation, but right now, this book is scary. It's no wonder that foreigners are buying up our assets, when we have this massive debt. It's no wonder that so many other countries of the world hold us in contempt. We're like some lazy cousin who is mooching off everybody else, promising to pay them back later, while they are working hard and loaning money to us.

We used to be a nation that loaned to other nations. Even the Bible says that you should be one who lends to others, and not one who borrows. We used to be more self-reliant as a people. Now we're a people that builds houses on barrier islands known for hurricanes, and expect the government to bail us out when it gets destroyed. Now lenders get the government to bail them out, after they gave out bad loans that they probably shouldn't have been giving out in the first place.

Perhaps one day something will happen to make us a nation of people that rely on ourselves and try to foresee circumstances in which we might need to be prepared. Until then, wanna buy some gold? Just in case we end up with runaway inflation... you never know. Wouldn't be a bad idea to stock up that pantry with food, just in case the prices start skyrocketing as well.

Mitt Romney Drops Out?

This election is getting stranger and stranger... the headline on foxnews.com right now reads "Mitt Quits Race". Mitt Romney is dropping out of the presidential race, which is quite shocking to me. Although I do find the subtitle under it a little wrong... "Road Clear For McCain To Capture GOP Nod."

Perhaps not. With a 3-way race between McCain, Romney, and Huckabee (I know Ron Paul is in it but he's not in it to win it, he's probably just in to get his message out), I think that McCain probably would have been the clear winner. BUT... there's a lot of conservatives that don't see McCain as a conservative and wouldn't consider voting for him. I personally see little difference between him and Hilary Clinton.

A lot of people don't see Huckabee as a conservative either, and I suppose that he isn't in some areas. But there's no doubt that he's a social conservative.

Anyway, with the choice now between McCain and not-McCain, it will be interesting to see how things turn out. I happen to like Huckabee myself, so I'm rooting for the not-McCain. I don't think that in a two-way race, McCain is necessarily the victor. 60% of voters have been voting not-McCain already... they've just been split as to whether they liked Romney or Huckabee.

Should be interesting to see what goes on in the next primary.

Happy Super Tuesday?

Well, today is Super Tuesday, and the country is waiting for the results to come in. My state is voting, and although this is an open primary state, today is not a primary, it is a "Presidential Preference Election". Since I refuse to be identified as a Republican or a Democrat (I identify myself with the Constitution Party), I was not eligible to vote today. Which is a shame because I really like Huckabee, but I guess it wouldn't matter much since John McCain is going to win in Arizona anyway.

The media seems to think that John McCain and Hilary Clinton seem to have the lock on the nominations at this point. Oh boy. Could we have picked anybody worse? I suppose that Giuliani probably would have been worse, but not by much.

So I suppose that unless something miraculous happens tonight, we'll be stuck for another 4 years with the illegal immigration mess, because I don't think that either Clinton or McCain will do anything about it. Not sure what McCain's take on the issue is, but if Hilary wins we'll probably be stuck getting taxed through the nose to pay for crummy health care coverage.

I'm not sure how we got into this situation. Are these really the best two people that we have that were running for president? I suppose that the Democrats had some pretty slim pickings, but there were plenty of better candidates on the Republican side. Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and my favorite, Huckabee, were all far more conservative in many areas. I'm not really a true fan of any of those, but McCain? Blech. I know he comes from my state and all, but he might as well be a Democrat with all the bills he tries to pass.

Why is it that we're always stuck with two choices that are nearly identical? Last election we had Curious George running against John Kerry... I voted third party because out of the two of them, it didn't really matter to me who would win... both of them, in my opinion, would run the county equally poorly. I know so many people that were huge Bush backers several years ago that can't stand him now.

If these are the two candidates that we end up with, I just may end up voting Constitution party again. I know they won't win, but if the choice is between McCain and Clinton, does it really matter who wins? Not really. So I'll just vote for who I truly like, even if they don't have a chance. I heard rumors that one of the leaders from the Minutemen were running under the Constitution party. I can vote for them.

Another thing about voting third party... some people say that voting third party takes away votes from somebody who otherwise might win. When I voted Constitution party, people said I was taking votes away from Curious George. Really? You can't take away votes from someone that you'd never consider voting for in the first place. If I were given the opportunity to vote today, I would have voted for Huckabee. Does that mean that I took a vote away from Mitt Romney? No, because I wouldn't have voted for him.

I've heard several News commentary shows say that whoever the Republican candidate is, the Republicans will "rally around" him. Do you really think so? I guess my comment doesn't hold too much weight since I'm not a Republican, but I certainly wouldn't rally around John McCain. How about rallying around None Of The Above? It's too bad that the Unity08 movement ran out of money, perhaps they could have picked a decent candidate.

Maybe we'll see some surprises tonight. I hope so.

Pat Robertson Endorses Guiliani

I'm really underwhelmed by the first-tier candidates this election. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton? I'll be praying for enough money to move to Australia if that happens. Barak Obama? Does anybody know what he stands for except for dancing well? As for the Republicans, we have a pro-choice, adulterer divorcee and a Mormon. Not that Mormons aren't nice or anything, and I think that in general Mitt Romney could do a good job, but I'm afraid that a Mormon president would make it more disagreeable to say that Mormons and Christians are of different faiths. I really like governor Huckabee, and I'd vote for him if he actually gets the nomination. He seems to be gaining in the polls, so we'll see. But he still seems to be a dark horse. I like Duncan Hunter too, mainly because back when I was in the military and was having problems, he retrieved thousands of dollars for me that the Navy had wrongfully taken from me... sometimes it helps to write to your congressman, and it paid off big time that time.

I heard today that Pat Robertson is endorsing Rudy Guiliani. I don't think that Pat Robertson's endorsement carries the weight that it did oh... 20 years ago or so, but I still find it disturbing. I know that Guiliani did really well after 9/11, but to be perfectly honest, terrorism isn't my top concern. More people die from bathtub drownings than terrorism. He's got way too many marks against him in my book. If it was just the abortion issue, that would be one thing. If it was just the divorce issue, fine. We've already had more than one adulterer in the White House, so if it was just that... okay.

Dr. James Dobson said the other day that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for... evil. And if we're talking about human lives being saved here... a lot more people die from abortion every year than terrorism. It just doesn't impress me. Last election I voted 3rd party, and I don't regret it. If it comes down between Guiliani and Clinton, I'll vote 3rd party again.

While it seems like people know who is going to get the nomination, a lot of things could change in the next few months. Four years ago, Mr. Yippee Yee Haw Howard Dean was the front runner, but he kind of ruined his chances. So I suppose that there is still hope. But it is disappointing when a "Christian" leader endorses someone with so many strikes against him. I know that we have all fallen short of the glory of God, and we should forgive, but at the same time, the Bible also doesn't have a problem from disqualifying people from certain offices due to their past. Haven't we had enough presidents being voted into office with tarnished reputations already?

What Do Celebrities, Senators, and Suicide Have In Common?

About a week ago, it was all over the news that Senator Larry Craig was gay, and had plead guilty to indecent conduct in a gay sex sting. Although he has denied the allegation that he was gay, an Idaho newspaper reported that he was.

I don't wish to ponder on whether he is gay or not. The better question is, should the newspaper have reported that he was gay? Should newspapers out someone that does not want to be outed?

Is knowing that someone is gay or not important? If this person is a member of the clergy, I suppose that it would be. Some church denominations have had recent scandals along those lines. The Bible forbids homosexuality and calls it an abomination. If a member of the clergy engages in homosexual acts, then they probably should not be in a position of leadership in the church, as church leaders should be role models that laypeople can look up to.

You could argue the importance of a senator's sexual orientation both ways. Is a senator's sexual orientation important? On one hand, it might affect the way that a senator votes, which is important. If a senator's sexual orientation is going to cause him to vote in favor of gay marriage, that's important to know. In Senator Craig's case, he wasn't known for being pro-gay in his voting record. You can also argue that senators should be role models, in that case you may consider it important.

If it is not important as to whether a senator is gay or not, I don't believe that the newspapers should report it. In that case, it is just gossip. It doesn't matter whether it is true gossip or not... we are not to speak ill of other people for no reason.

Which leads me to celebrities. They are often known for their chaotic lives more than just about anybody else. Should newspapers out celebrities? It is important whether an actor is gay or not? Does it really make a difference? You could argue that celebrities are role models too, but if a celebrity does not publicly make his or her homosexuality public by acting discreetly, their sexual orientation would not be a factor in how people saw them. So in my opinion, if a celebrity is gay and is not open about it, the newspapers should leave them alone. It's just gossip.

Which leads me to my final point. People were shocked when Owen Wilson tried to commit suicide. Doesn't he have everything going for him? Then again, don't most celebrities have wealth, fame, and just about anything us normal people could dream of? If that's the case, why do so many of them get into drugs and alcohol? Why does Britney Spears shave her head in a moment of apparent lunacy?

Here's my theory: who are the most gossiped about people in the world? Celebrities, right? I can't think of anybody else who people gossip about more. You might say the royal house of Windsor, but they're celebrities too. If someone has millions of people gossiping about them, by definition you could say that they are celebrities, right?

The Bible tells us not to gossip. It doesn't matter whether the juicy tidbit is true or not, it is still gossip. Gossip is hurtful. People don't like to be gossiped about. You could say that being gossiped is part of the job of being a celebrity, and some stars act like some publicity is better than no publicity, but that doesn't make it right. Perhaps even to the most publicity-seeking celebrity there is, something on the inside feels hurt by what people are saying about them. Perhaps that's why celebrities tend to live such chaotic lives, and try to escape with drugs, alcohol, and occasionally, suicide.

I have to add, sometimes it is difficult not to gossip. It can happen without even thinking. And sometimes there's a fine line between gossip and trying to make a point or teach someone a life lesson. So I realize that it's something that I and many other people need to work on.

Sex Education for Kindergarteners?

The other day, Senator Barak Obama told a group of Planned Parenthood members that he supported sex education for Kindergarteners.

Now, I don't believe in lying to children. Before ds was born, I bought my daughter a Happy Family Midge doll (you know, the Barbie doll with the baby in the belly). She is not stupid, she saw my stomach get bigger. She went to all my ultrasounds. She got to use the little doppler machine to hear her brother's heartbeat.

Furthermore, I think that children should be taught that there are places that nobody should be touching them. My daughter knows that nobody should be touching her where a bathing suit covers. It's the responsible thing to do whenever you hear a news story about some pervert touching little girls in the aisles of Toys R Us, or dd is in the bathtub asking daddy to "tickle my butt"... the response to that one is "no honey, only you are allowed to touch yourself there".

But the problem with teaching all this stuff to Kindergarteners is what to teach them exactly. Parents are not going to agree on that. Some parents want correct terminology used. Some parents are going to want their child to be taught that sometimes two mommies love each other, or two daddies. Other parents will want their children to know that you are supposed to be married when you have a baby, and of course the single parents don't want their children being taught that.

So while there are things that Kindergarteners should be taught, the proper place for them to learn it is at home. I think the schools should just teach "good touch bad touch" and leave the rest alone. I knew a 4 year old who was touching the other 4 year olds in her class in inappropriate ways... they need to know that. The other stuff is just too controversial.