Romney/Obama: Narcissists Who Position Themselves to Be Worshipped

"Tell me what a human believes about God, and I can tell what decisions he/she will make on pretty much any subject.  Tell me the track record of the decisions a human makes on pretty much any subject, and I can tell you what he/she REALLY believes about God."  (Jay O'Toole)

If the Big Money Plowboys have their way, a Fall, 2012 Presidential Election between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama will insure that conservative voters in The States have their sixth in a row Ho-Hum Nothing Race between two acceptable puppets of their choosing.

I would have to vote for Romney, since he is the only one of the two that was actually born in the United States of America, and as such is qualified to be President.  However, that is where the benefits would end for me.

Choosing between Romney and Obama is philosophically the equivalent of choosing a dubiously-healthy fast-food supper at McDonald's or Burger King.

1988:  George H. W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis...Wow!  Yeah, Team!  Whatever!  "Flip-Flop" Republican vs. New England "Flaming Liberal" Democrat.  Both of these guys claimed to be Christians.  Fat lot of good that did our nation!  (Hey, you guys, had a twelve-year President in FDR.  We needed to demand equal-time with President Ronald Reagan.)  

1992:  George H. W. Bush vs. Bill Clinton/Ross Perot...Time to set-up a shouting good time at the church over this one!  (If you believe THAT, then I have some land in south Florida that I would love to sell to you.)  "Flip-Flop, Almost-Conservative Republican vs. Strong Party-time, Pro-abortion, Pro-homosexual Southern Baptist Christian and his Loud-Mouthed, Big-eared Fire Hydrant from Texas.  Bill Clinton won the Presidency by dividing and conquering the conservative vote.  Bill Clinton was the first President, maybe ever, but at least in a long time, to win the Presidency, without at least 50% of the popular vote.  Nobody had 50% popular vote that year.  Thank you very little, Ross Perot!  

1996:  Bill Clinton/Ross Perot vs. Robert Dole...Somebody, please give me an extra cup of coffee.  "Same song, second verse, could be better, but it turned-out to be worse."  Everybody is allegedly-Christian again.  Big Whoop!  Again, "the hands destroy what the mouth professes."  (Jay O'Toole)  Bill Clinton won the Presidency by dividing and conquering the conservative vote.  Clinton was the first President, maybe ever, but at least in a long time, to win the Presidency for a second time, without at least 50% of the popular vote.  Nobody had 50% popular vote that year.  Thank you very little, Ross Perot!  

2000:  Al Gore vs. George W. Bush...This race gave us a bit of excitement, after all the votes were cast.  Why?  The Ehnt refused to go quietly back to the forest to leave the good people of America alone.  It took us the better part of a month to declare George W. Bush to be President.  He was the most conservative President, since President Reagan.  

2004:  George W. Bush vs. John Kerry...conservative Republican vs. a kind-of-liberal Democrat.  Both claim to be Christians.  Mr. Bush does seem to be backing-up that claim with action.  Good for him.

2008:  Barak Obama vs. John McCain/Sarah Palin...LIBERAL, PRO-ABORTION, PRO-HOMOSEXUAL, ANTI-COLONIALIST, "DARK-HORSE" DEMOCRAT vs. Liberal Republican President/Hyper-Conservative Vice-President.  All of us mystified conservative Republican voters in 2008 felt, like we had one hand in a bucket of scalding hot water, and the other hand in a bucket of dry ice.  As we all know, scientifically-speaking, that combination does not achieve parity.  

The communists stated that they had a goal of controlling both political parties in the United States as demonstrated in the Congressional Record of 1963.  They have been master tacticians, since the only real snafu to that plan has been Ronald Wilson Reagan.  

They are like farmers digging irrigation ditches.  Dig the ditches in the direction of the fields that you want to be watered, then turn on the water.  The sheer force of the water will insure success with very little attrition, flowing over the banks.  

Back on the sixth day of this new year Robert Robb, of USA Today News, posited some strikingly-insightful thoughts about conservatism in America, linking the ideas to William Buckley, one of the finest minds of the past century.  Consider these thoughts carefully in light of this writer's constant dancing on the subject of God and world-view, since they are both the same.

"Bill Buckley, the founder of modern American conservatism, came up with a useful distinction he first used to describe Richard Nixon, if memory serves. Nixon was conservative, but not 'a conservative.'

"By that, Buckley meant that conservatives were the political team that Nixon instinctively identified with, but that he lacked a philosophical commitment to conservatism as a guide to his actions.

"Buckley made the same distinction about the George Bushes...to explain where John McCain fit in the world of political ideology.

"It is not at all unusual for Republicans to nominate someone who is conservative but not a conservative. In fact, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are arguably the only true conservatives the Republicans have nominated in the post-World War II era.

"Romney clearly isn't 'a conservative.' Moreover, it's not clear that he's even 'conservative,' as Buckley defined it...

"The fairest guess is that Romney just doesn't care that much about social issues, such as abortion...

"Romney won't want trouble on issues he doesn't really care about. There's little danger he will flip back to the positions he advocated when running in Massachusetts.

"More revealing, and disturbing, was Romney's repudiation of Reagan when running for U.S. Senate in 1994. He defiantly proclaimed that 'I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush.' At that time, conservatives clearly weren't the political team with which Romney instinctively identified. In fact, he apparently found them repugnant.

"That was a long time ago. But there continue to be indications that conservatism is a political suit Romney is wearing to fit in.

"The fairest guess is that Romney doesn't instinctively identify with any political team. Instead, at root, he's a problem-solving technocrat. And a pretty good one at that."

Agreed!  What conservatives don't need is a leader who "sticks a moist finger into the wind" for the purpose of figuring-out how to lead.  "Fingers in the air" can just as easily become "fingers in the ears."

Improvement?  Maybe, but very little.  "Two steps forward, one step backward."

The communists do appear to be winning,...for now.  Maybe someone should tell them to beware the Vale of Meggido, and the regal Visage riding a White Horse.

He IS the Prince of Peace, but there will be very little peaceful about His demeanor, WHEN He calls, "Time!" on Mankind's self-sufficient charade.

_What is required for any thought, any concept, any idea, anything at all to be considered to be true?

“Some human must personally believe some informational stimulus/stimuli, gained through personal research or written documentation of the research of another human, that has been verified (or reliably-assumed to have been verified) as Fact to the originally-addressed human’s satisfaction as to the meeting of his/her personal standard of qualifications for ‘truth,’ for ‘research,’ for ‘verified,’ for ‘reliably,’ for ‘Fact,’ and in his/her personal Comfort Zone, regarding level of ‘satisfaction.’”

What is required for addressing all of these areas of needed verification, before anything may be considered to be True?

I would like to submit that trust in any “fact” is predicated upon one’s trust in the character of some human.

1. To trust oneself, oneself must be convinced that the Self that one is trusting has sufficient character for oneself to trust.
2. To trust another human being, the one exercising the trust must be convinced that the human, who is being trusted has sufficient character for the trusting human to trust.
3. To trust a group of other human beings, the one exercising the trust must be convinced that this group of human beings, who are being trusted have sufficient character, collectively, for the trusting human to trust.

To be very honest with you, no one has the ability to comprehend ultimate, lasting, eternal Absolute Truth, without outside assistance.    

Who has the ability to trust Someone, Who refuses to be seen by humans, who have not been pre-qualified, according to His Standard of acceptability?  Nobody.  "Aslan is not a tame lion, but he is good."  (C.S. Lewis)

On the other hand, the Truth about which I write is so simple that children "get it" instantly, since none but abused children have had cause to disqualify themselves from normal, natural, survival-level trust, through wanton, and blatant unbelief.  

 "1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

 "2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

 "3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 "4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."  (Matthew 18:1-4, KJV)

Jesus' Kingdom is The Upside-Down Kingdom in which the "toddlers" of earthly-designation in this Kingdom of the Shadowlands are the giants of faith in Christ's Kingdom.

Conversely, Earth's "mature intellects" of the alleged-Enlightenment are presently on the registry of Eternity's Asylum and "Old Folks' Home" that caters strictly to humans, who have willfully-afflicted themselves with eternal Alzheimer's Disease.  It's name is Hell.

Why do humans believe anything to be true?

1.  Humans tend to enjoy "eating-out" at some restaurant every week, (and many do so every day.)  How many humans visit the kitchen to verify the sanitary conditions in which the food is being prepared?

Apparently, we trust the cooks and the proprietors.  
Why?  
What verification do we have that such an activity is safe?

"The restaurant has an A+ rating," you say?  
Who gave the "A+ rating?"
What are the qualifications of the inspectors?
Why should I trust the inspectors any more than I trust the cooks?

2.  On average, humans tend to enjoy having friends at some point in life.  How do we know which humans are safe to befriend?  Have we every encountered the recently-coined term, the "frienemy," (aka "the person, who befriends you long enough to learn how to defeat you, and just where to place the knife in your back")?

3.  Most civilized societies on Earth have some venue for the election of national leaders, at least ostensibly-speaking.  How do we know which leaders are truthful in their presentation of policies, and personal-intent of benevolence, that could prove to be most beneficial to the individual voter?

Has the reader become as cynical as the writer on the last point?

What is the foundation of Truth?  Logically, the foundation of Truth is Trust, but Trust can only be securely invested in the Character of Someone, Who does not change.  (Deuteronomy 32:39-40; Malachi 3:6)

Why do I continue to quote The Bible, since "everybody knows that it's just the words of man?"  

Well, Dude, then it is because the last premise was a false statement.  
Everybody is NOT convinced that The Bible is merely "the words of man."

I AM SOMEBODY.  I am NOT so convinced.  

I am convinced that The Bible IS indeed the Very Word of The Only Possible God.

There is more actual documentation to verify the life, the words, and the Character of Jesus of Nazareth, the world's Only Possible Christ, than the writ that allegedly-proves that Julius Caesar lived.

Is there anyone alive today, who saw Julius Caesar walk this Earth?  Maybe Julius Caesar was just a mythological character that humans have some visceral need to believe that he lived, and victoriously ruled the Roman Empire.

Is there anyone alive today, who saw Charles Darwin walk this Earth?

You say that there is a great deal of documentation to verify Charles Darwin's existence, which was less than 150 years ago.  

O, so you are telling me that I have to believe the words of other human beings about the existence of some "pea-brained" human being, who believed that the whole human race EVOLVED from something that was smaller than the size of a pea?

I'm so sure,...NOT!  Thank you very LITTLE!  :}

You want me to believe that Charles Darwin actually existed, based on documentation that amounts to nothing more than the mere "words of man?"

Finally, it has come to my attention that some professor at Oxford University, calls himself Richard Dawkins.

1.  I have never seen Richard Dawkins in person.  
2.  I do not know anyone, who has ever met Richard Dawkins in person.
3.  There IS a great deal on the printed page, and on the internet that alleges the existence of Richard Dawkins.

I am sure that people, who believe in the existence of Richard Dawkins, take great comfort in all of the minutiae that allegedly-proves the existence of Richard Dawkins.

However, at the end of the day, it is all nothing more than the mere "words of man," until I choose to give into the overwhelming evidence, and I begin to believe those humanly-scribed words.

Evidence has no meaning to any human being, until a human being recognizes that "there is indeed a distinct view of the world, through which I am interpreting everything that I believe to be True about life," and that THAT view of the world describes the evidence in terms of "God-Created" or "Happenstance-Explosion" that apparently got us to where we are today.

Why?

I choose to believe the Character of God or I choose to believe the character of some human being, including myself.  (There are no other options, unless of course you understand Flipper, Lassie, or Gonzo.)

As long as we exist on this terrestrial Home, then for all practical purposes, it shall remain your word against my word.  These are the mere "words of man."

However, once we breathe our last, then Truth becomes the purview of our word against The Keeper of the other side of Death.

Who will care about Man's word then?