Dejavu 07

Why Romney Might Win the Presidential Election

Mitt Romney could barely win the General Election because of:


You wouldn't think so perhaps, because of the many factors seemingly opposed to that happening.

Obama is fresh, young, shrewd, energetic, an eloquent dynamic speaker, inspiring, advocate of peace and dialog instead of armed conflict, apparently adjustable to every economic echelon of citizen (except the very rich and those loyal to President Bush), and comes from a Democrat party whose forerunners created the beloved and now-almost-a-necessity Social Security System and Medicare (both of which are properly considered Universal Health Care for Senior Citizens).....out of Biblically-approved respect for the elderly (and Divinely-inspired insight about the immediately-satisfy-me-now charge-it-to-buy-it greed of common workers who are ignorant about investments, faithlessly do not trust them anyway, and are anti-prophetically not willing to set aside part of their paychecks for future retirement).

Do not most General-Election voters-to-be sort of like Obama, and are not "many [voters] on the broad and easy road to destruction" (as Christ stated)? That of course constitutes a: majority!

White-haired McCain, in contrast, is non-exciting, boring, militarily hard-headed, looks like a non-funny replication of Don Rickles, and has the appearance of a dogged (hang-in-there) has-been retread in defeated remembrance of pathetic losers like Bob Dole and even Jack Kemp.

But - again - a decisive factor about who gets elected President is: PREJUDICE!

And what is "prejudice?" Who is "prejudiced" against whom? How can one discern if a person's attitude and outlook is prejudice or instead righteousness?

Why were many Old-Testament jews prejudiced against their own Jewish prophets, and why have many jews been and continue to be prejudiced against the crucified Tribe-of-Judah-Jewish Jesus and the Benjaminite-Jew-and-yet-Christian Saint Paul, under a helpless Pontius Pilate under duress, which say-it-in-the-creeds-every-Sunday Pilate later got his fermenting revenge in 70 A.D. with the nazi-like Roman Army sacking and exterminating those jews and jews like them who conspired against and murdered the SuperJew Christ before the Roman Emporer established the international Holy Roman Empire as the Universal Christian State Religion? Those who enter the kingdom of God do it violently, as the Lord said, and they go in kicking and screaming all along the way.

It all significantly gives sense to the no-across-the-board-forgiveness-for-everyone prayer from Christ on His cross of "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Had He not prayed that, the Lightning-Strike Almighty might not have given the Roman centurion enough time to declare: "Truly this was The Son of God," nor given the Roman soldiers who ignorantly crucified Christ time to assemble into a viciously-retaliating armada of jew-eliminating conquerers in 70 A.D. and understandably punishing the antichrist jewish murderers inciting Pilate to do what he knew what was in no way just according to Roman law nor a Higher Law he was afraid to delve into, nor given those 5000 Jews caught up in the clamoring crowd misinformed and incited by talmudic jewish temple leaders time to eventually repent at the preaching of Saint Peter in the book of Acts.

Do moral-minority whites (i.e. Caucasians) have a righteous attitude toward bigoted immoral-majority blacks (i.e. Negroes), or are they instead "prejudiced" against them? More importantly, do immoral-majority blacks have a "righteous" attitude toward either moral-majority or moral-minority whites.....or instead have racist prejudice against them as has been and will be revealed in the race of the person they vote for?

Do always-have-been-allowed-to-vote women (who should never have been encouraged to vote and apply for and hold public office by the hopefully-soon-to-be-repealed 19th Amendment) have a prejudice for women candidates (and thus against men), and do moral-minority men have a righteous attitude against women attempting to equalize themselves and compete against men as arrogant and obtrusive, sexually-harassing, "I'm-just-as-good-as-you-are" government politicians and officials?

In what chauvenistically-programmed gender does the recorded voice on your voice-mail sound? Male or female? Within sexist instructional-CD software, in what gender is the teaching voice? We are not talking about the male narrator narrating monologues on the History Channel, those who usually dominate narration describing the action in football and golf games, nor those who quietly give us play-by-play description of Las-Vegas poker playoffs.

We are not only talking about the sounds of Marshall Dillon and Festus in Gunsmoke, the Cartrights in Bonanza, Rifleman McCain, The Lone Ranger and Tonto, the Cisco Kids, the Whirlybirds duo, Sky King, Bowery Boys, Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Captain Kangaroo with Mr Green Jeans, the first Star Trek series, Johnny Carson and Doc Severenson, Leno and his bandleading sidekick.

The list of males-only entertainers and shows is almost endless, and remarkably devoid of the needless but appreciated absence of irritating elements which would have been imposed by the harassive inclusion of weaker sex sharing or, worse yet, dominating the scenes. Years ago pleasant memories remain of a male Edward R Murrow and Frank Reynolds, even a male Walter Kronkite and male Dan Rather and male Peter Jennings exclusively giving it to us every evening with no sassy mopheaded female newscaster suddenly appearing and assaulting our TV-screen-affixed eyesight.

Thank God that with commercial-less selective-selection internet we can filter out such porn rather than seeing it and instead of suffering having it terroristically shoved into our faces.

So what do you think of a present democrat party who appoints the weaker-sex inferior-gender Nanci authoritative and controlling Speaker of the (democrat-controlled) House - no less? Who allows and promotes the weaker-sex inferior-gender Hillary Clinton to acquire a delegate count virtually equal to the stronger-sex superior-gender Barak Obama?

Notice that - at the time of the writing of this webpage - McCain has given absolutely NO indication that he will appoint a woman Vice-Presidential running mate. 'WHY would he do THAT?' ALL the GOP candidates so far have been men. So which party (as a whole) is prejudiced - in stark contrast to which party is righteous?

WHAT does the HOLY BIBLE infer about a woman being in charge of and in authority over men? In case you are legalistically hung up over-concentrating upon, misinterpreting, and misapplying the disgraceful and embarrassing Deborah-as-Commanding-Conqueror Old-Testament story and the "there is no distinction between male and female" blurb of Saint Paul in the New Testament, it would seriously behoove you to thoroughly and open-mindedly study and meditate upon such other Scripture passages as Leviticus 27:1-7, Ecclesiastes 7:27-28, Isaiah 3:12, Nahum 3:13, I Corinthians 11:1-16, 14:33-38, I Timothy 2:12-14, and I Peter 3:7!

Remember, there are demonic catholic devils, deceivers, false prophets and false prophetesses, who are CINOs (catholic in name only) in contrast to Catholics who are CCs (genuine and authentic Catholic Christians) who take God's Word and will seriously as stated. The divisively froward would like to re-write the Bible at Satan's dictation with: "In the beginning was The Interpretation, and The Interpretation was with God, and The Interpretation was God" - but the actual and true Bible-Text wording remains exactly as it has always been from inception in accord with the Word-of-The-Lord-Abides-Forever inerrant Kittel-edited ben-Asher Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the inerrant Scrivener-Trinitarian (not the Westcott/Hort, UBS, nor Nestle) Greek Text of the New Testament!

It gets more telling.

Guess who GOP hierarchy and their voters are giving a second-place free ride to for the purpose of not losing religious-right evangelical activists and voters? Tenacious-but-responsive-bulldog Huckabee is no avid and bonafide fundamentalist, but he was and yet is an ordained pro-life (significantly: anti-abortion) Baptist minister. Prejudice against cultic suppositions and presumptions of some mormons by a lamentable number of denominationally-close-minded religious hypocrites was clearly greater than their prejudice against so-called "liberal," cultic heresies of an ambitious Nixon-lookalike who relegated Christ's command to eye-pluck as merely "allegorical/symbolic/figurative/metaphorical" [whatever], and pooh-poohed the idea of a woman in particular being submissive to a man in particular.

It intrigues me that the sometimes-slight-and-not-overwhelming-number majority of minority of all voters who voted Republican (in comparison to the TV-network-news-tally-publicized majority of all voters who voted Democrat) in already-past-and-gone 2008 caucuses, chose the dull compromise figure McCain as their political pet, instead of other anti-abortion Republican candidates (such as Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Thompson, and forget controversial Giuliani) who also seem to be mere moralists. Why they did not instead cast their votes for the more charismatic, handsome, and oratorically-talented Romney is beyond me. I guess Romney needs more consensus and less criticism to feel comfortable.

Indeed, both Romney and Huckabee have made it clear that their godly stance on social issues goes beyond simple humanistic concoction and mimic, in that they both have either referred to Jesus Christ or verses of His HOLY BIBLE in press statements and interviews.....thus indicating public capacity and now-on-record intention to counter the massive might of a million fanatically-aberrant muslims, an antisemitically-threatening Aminijihad of Iran, and their bellered-out blasphemous petitionings to an imaginary and substitutionary pseudo-deity "allah" plus apocryphal satanic-verses Qu'ran dogma relating to it and not "Him" - but without either Romney or Huckabee proselitilizing accomodating American voters into a mandatory militarily-and-economics-established-and-required certain-selected-denominational-liturgy State religion in America or Iraq (congruent with the intents and semantics of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) but thankfully with their legitimate and legal non-prohibited expression of the name of Christ Jesus and reference to His New-Testament Word applicable to all humans in all places throughout all times.

Obama selecting a black VP running mate would seem to many to smack of relinquishing to racist pressure from the frightening forces of black power reminiscent of the pseudo-spiritual legacy of the plagiaristically-misnamed Marty L. King of race-riot-burning-and-looting times past against which the only-certain-selected-Scripture-verses-appropriating white-supremicist Ku Klux Klan tried to inhibit to prevent black traffic disruptors - belligerantly marching in the sweet name of Christian "liberty, equality, and peace" - from destabilizing the entire nation.

Hillary would clearly not be able to cut it by herself as a stand-alone candidate without the sense and stability of a male VP running mate, so anti-international-terrorism McCain is not able to cut it by himself as a stand-alone domestic-issues candidate without the experience and openly-declared Christian utterances of a gubernatorial running mate (such as Governor Romney). [As I remember, were not Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush also governors]?

It is a matter of public voting record as senators that both Obama and Clinton are on the wrong side of the abortion issue.....Scripturally speaking.

So, concerning them (but regarding the GOP), who is prejudiced in contrast to who is righteous?