The Nacilbupera Guzzle

Whoever examines with attention the history of the dearths and famines … will find, I believe, that a dearth never has arisen from any combination among the inland dealers in corn, nor from any other cause but a real scarcity, occasioned sometimes perhaps, and in some particular places, by the waste of war, but in by far the greatest number of cases by the fault of the seasons; and that a famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconveniences of a dearth. (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations IV.5.44)

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Gary Johnson for President Crowd Surfs

Word is starting to roll out about Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson's Salt Lake City Crowd Surfing Event yesterday.  What started out as a free, public, packed, standing-room-only, Townhall of 200 attendees ninety minutes and one innocent inquiry later may have witnessed the only known POTUS Candidate Crowd Surfing event EVER.

As Gary spoke for the first half hour, you could feel his enthusiasm for liberty and ending government largess in a plethora of areas: war, debt, drugs, marriage, and spying.  He comes across pragmatic in his approach dealing with liberty-oriented solutions and pround of his veto record as the former twice-elected Governor of New Mexico. 

He mentioned one bill he veteod was to force pet shop owners to exercise their pets.  While he personally favors pet exercise, he doesn't want to pay for the pet exercise police.  It is this passion--even insatiability--for reducing spending that caught my attention early on when Gary was in the GOP debates prior to his exit last December to run on the Libertarian Party ticket. 

The balance of the time was spent in answering questions from the public on topics A to Z with a line that never ended. (Excerpt video)

This is an exciting time for Gary as the two monopolistic parties have candidates very similar in ideology.  Whether Gary is the next president or not, with every percentage of vote Gary gains, he wins.  He commented that he was in this commitment through 2016 so while not a formal announcement, you can expect that Gary will not be absent four years from now.

Monday, October 1, 2012

SLC Townhall With Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson

Don't worry--you won't have to pay $1000 to meet with a candidate on the ballot for President.  In fact, it's free!  How fitting for a candidate who so unabashedly promotes freedom.

For those of you who don't know Gov. Gary Johnson (website) well, let's cover a bit of ground quickly.  Gov. Johnson is a former two-term Republican Governor in the blue state of New Mexico.  As Governor, Gary cut taxes & spending using both veto and line-item veto hundreds of times so the man not only has electability but chutzpah.  Indeed unlike Romney or Obama, he's promised to submit a balanced budget to Congress in his first year!  Awesomeness!!!

Gary's great on protecting our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties, ending the drug war, bringing home the troops from Afghanistan, and not instigating a war with Iran.

With Romney falling in the polls, those who seek to rid our country of the tyranny under Obama should take heed of this rare opportunity.  He's one of only four candidates nationwide that are on enough printed ballots to win the presidency (Green Papers--the four candidates are highlighted in yellow) and yes, he's on the ballot right here in Utah under the Libertarian Party ticket.

The Gary Johnson townhall tomorrow (Tuesday) night 7-9pm at Challenger School off 13th East in Salt Lake, just east of the Bees Stadium.  Facebook lists the public event under "Gov. Gary Johnson - Salt Lake City Townhall".

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

2012 Convention Exposes Corruption of GOP, Romney Campaign

Found in the backpages of the mainstream press, a profound act of blatant tyranny in our elections occurred yesterday at the Republican National Convention. My goal is to explain the event using a simple analogy the complex corruption miring the hands of both the GOP and the Romney campaign.

Imagine if you will for a moment a NCAA football team trying to qualify for a bowl game. Let's furthermore pretend that the rules say that in order to qualify to play in a bowl game, you must have at least 5 wins. Your team works extra hard against pundits who claimed your team was so bad you wouldn't even win 1 game. Some of the games played--most notably one game played in Maine, but others as well--you were clearly the winner but the NCAA told you you lost the game because they didn't like the outcome. The NCAA's decision so outraged the Governor of Maine, he actually boycotted the games despite personal invitation to attend.

And all this notwithstanding, by some miracle grace of God your team wins SIX games! It serves as an amazing victory for the team and reason for celebration. Yet just in the act of winning the last win at the completion of the season, the NCAA votes to up the ante to EIGHT games in order to qualify. Thus has been the treatment yesterday at the convention with those within the GOP who support nominating at the convention someone other than Mitt Romney. Here is evidence of the 225 votes cast at the RNC yesterday for someone other than Romney: video tally count

The problem facing the GOP is not only is this corrupt, but illegal. While the GOP is a private organization, it received $18 Million in taxpayer funds for the purpose of holding a fair convention. Changing the rules at the final moment from 5 states to 8 states is antithetical to the democratic process and should disqualify the GOP from being considered a venue promoting fair, democratic process. Just as the birth certificate issue clouded the validity of Obama's election in the minds of many, the abrupt rule change now clouds the Romney victory. That is, how can Romney legitimately now claim to be the GOP nominee when the rules were changed at the last minute to disallow the nomination of another candidate at convention?  Would we allow a last minute change in the voting process?  What if we changed election rules at the last minute in 2000 and tell Bush that we were no longer counting electoral college but popular vote?  The nation would be in outrage.

 In an article of interest, US News quoted one of the Maine delegates as saying:
"We would have probably stood in line and voted for Romney in November, but not if he's going to do this for us," he says. "Not if he's going to disenfranchise the voters of the state of Maine. If you're going to do that, I will not stand with this party. This is ridiculous. These people were elected by the state and they're not allowed to be on the floor."
This video highlights the contention, including the shouts to seat the Maine delegation.  Does the Romney campaign and Mitt Romney himself really believe that using the tyranny of the majority to squelch dissent and disenfranchisement is the means to victory?  Can there be freedom or Constitutional government when the rights of the minority are disrupted?

Romney has been negligent in standing for freedom. Most likely through his heavy-handed campaign, he has been complicit in the disenfranchisement of the non-Romney delegates, although when questioned by Fox News' Ben Swann, he claimed ignorance. Ignorance-at-best is hardly a trait we can afford from a country quagmired in debt and a far cry from the leadership Romney professes.

Both the RNC and candidate Romney have lost the moral highground. There can be no long-term victory for them when this happens. Indeed it reminisces of the salt works scene from the movie Ghandi. The beating of those in favor of someone besides Romney has gone on and on. The bodies of the wounded have been carried off and whatever moral ascendancy the GOP held was lost today.  The tyranny at the GOP convention yesterday will be remembered always.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

The Urgency to Rethink North Korea

As Mikhail Gorbachev took control of the Soviet Union and proceeded to make somewhat friendlier overtures to the US in the 1980's, I was skeptical of a wolf in sheep's clothing; indeed too skeptical. After all, the US government had spread fear of nuclear annihilation throughout our Republic during the cold war.

Yet in this history lesson we see that it is easy to prejudge an individual based on their associations. Even Gorbachev's ghastly appearance with that blood-red scar on his head made him appear to be Jack the Ripper incarnate at the time.

Here we have now in North Korea a new leader, Kim Jong-un, allegedly the world's youngest head of state with his age estimated in his late twenties. He has a pretty new bride from his wedding last month and seems to bring freshness to his country.

America in contrast, is stuck in a quagmire. In 1950, President Truman started our first major unconstitutional war by declaring "police actions" in the Korean peninsula without Congressional declaration of war. In the 62 years, we have maintained a perpetual presence in Korea including participation in the DMZ. Who can fathom the billions of dollars of our current debt that arise from this action? It is past time for the Korean peninsula to be occupied by Koreans, not by Americans.

Let's announce the beginning of a new slate, and a withdrawal of US occupational forces from Korea. Let's get some friendly trade and exchange going between us and the North Koreans. They are not an evil people, but a repressed one. And who knows? Perhaps Kim Jong-un isn't the evil leader as the American media projects of North Korean tyrants. Just perchance Kim Jung-un when not breathing down the barrel of the world's mightiest military--cornered and threatened by our own unconstitutional policies and warmongering--might not that dissimilar to Gorbachev. It's entirely plausible. This seems to be a once-in-a-lifetime chance to promote liberty and truth among a noble people. I call upon President Obama to personally meet with Kim Jong-un and let's see if we can't get things a bit back to normalized with this impoverished nation of North Korea. Think of the potential: if Obama plays his cards right, this could be a feather in his cap like the Soviet Union was to Reagan. And goodness knows after all the warmongering Obama has done if he doesn't need such a "feather".

Of infinite more value than a feather in the cap of our own authoritarian President are the lives and souls of the North Koreans who deserve our friendship and brotherhood. Why not try a George Washington be-friends-to-all-nation approach? Who knows, and what have we to lose? We'll save a ton of dough which we desperately need anyways. Time is precious here; the freshness of new leadership quickly fades under the incessant threat we pose as the mighty American Empire.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Chaffetz' Proposed Changes to Former Presidential Benefits

Currently, our former Presidents are entitled to a pension of $199,700 plus an office, staff, and other perks established by the Former Presidents Act of1958.

At the root of the problem is the spending, as always.  In an article by Jonathan Karl this week,  the perks per president are now, at least in the two most recently retired presidents, above the $1M annually.  Politico chimed in with a chart showing the net worth of the ex-Presidents while both mentioned Clinton's and Bush's income in the $10M+ range.  It seems clear that our ex-Presidents do not need the people's money for their retirement, something I think George Washington and many others after would have countered.

History of the Presidential Pension

The idea of a presidential pension was floated in Congress after ex-President Truman "rejected several business proposals" offered him and seemed unable to maintain his lifestyle.  Thus in passing the 1958 act it was argued that “to maintain the dignity of that great office” Congress needed to use the people's money to prevent the ex-president from “in business or [an] occupation which would demean the office he has held or capitalize upon it in any way deemed improper.” (Congressional Research Service, 2008)

These arguments in favor of a presidential pension fall flat.  It seems to evoke two classes of labor: "dignified" and "demeaning."  I would really like for someone to put forth what constitutes "demeaning" labor for an ex-president who by law has no rights beyond what any citizen of the US possesses.  We fought a revolution against the aristocracy and kings and the entire concept of a presidential pension establishes a "King Noah" (Book of Mormon) dependent on the labors of others for his or her sustenance.  The 1958 act ought to be repealed.

Chaffetz proposed reform

Instead of repealing the measure outright, Chaffetz seeks to "modernize" the act with his Feb 2012 introduction of HR4093.  The bill gives the pension a $300 annual boost to $200K even and puts reasonable limits on these office expenses, capping them at $200K subject to income. (Jason Chaffetz Press Release).  These are quite reasonable accommodations and while again I think further progress is needed in eliminating the pension and allowance altogether, I have revealed my position by calling this "progress."  Indeed Rep. Chaffetz says this would save $3M annually.

 Where I really start to get a bit frustrated is that HR4093 quintuples the ex-presidential spouse survivor pension from $20K to $100K.  There has been no demonstrated need for this nor is there any foreseeable need.  We elect a president who is smart enough to lead a nation but can't prepare for their spouse's needs when they die?  Does the spouse of a deceased ex-president really need or deserve $100K of the people's money forced from the people under the threat of imprisonment?

In all, HR4093 as it currently stands is a disappointment from what it could be with some minor adjustments.  At least its six pages it is in keeping with the spirit of keeping bills short and readable.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Book Review: Love Times Three

Recently, I had an opportunity to hear Joe Darger and his three wives speak about their plural marriage.  I was impressed and moved by the goodness I felt by the faith, love, and family devotion evident by their remarks.

As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon), our church has taught us for the last century or so that the polygamy we formerly embraced has now been forbidden; indeed it is now considered adultery by the church and the church intolerates membership of one who practices polygamy.*  When polygamy was renounced, a small percentage of Mormon leaders (apostles, et al) and believers who clung to the teachings of plural marriage--some still found in cannonized LDS scripture not to mention the Old Testament--broke off from the church.  In modern day through the media I was aware of Warren Jeffs, and his group the Fundamental Mormons or FLDS.  I suppose my critical feelings towards the compulsory marriages of Mr. Jeffs were applied to all polygamist groups, not realizing the distinctions among polygamist groups which turns out to be significant.

Although there do exist differences of doctrine between the Independent Fundamentalist groups of Mormons and the mainstream Mormons which is the church of Mitt Romney, myself, and the vast majority who call themselves Mormons, I found surprisingly these Independent Fundamentalists have a doctrine nearly identical to that of Mormons with the exception of polygamy (which may be better termed polygyny as only men have multiple wives, not the other way around).

The book the Dargers wrote Love Time Three takes the reader through the minds and major life events of each of the spouses.  They practice polygamy of their own free choice not because Joe has this huge libido but rather because they feel it necessary to do so to honor God and their religion.  They understand the difficulties of jealousy that arise and their struggles to work through the issues that come up with boundaries and raising a couple dozen children.  It is clear they are practicing the "Principle" (meaning plural marriage) out of goodness and love each other and have much love to give to their children.  They are a successful modern family by any measurement.

As each theme is developed in the book, each spouse writes their own feelings on the event.  For example, when Joe had a healthy, established plural marriage with Vicki and Alina (who are cousins) he took on another marriage in the form of Val (Vicki's twin sister).  In the book you will get to read the perspective on the new marriage partner not only from Joe and Val but Vicki and Alina as well.  The patience and love in this marriage for one another is most admirable.

The purpose of the book is not only to promote understanding of what it is like to be a polygamist, but to rally support to decriminalize the act of plural marriage:  an act where there are no victims.  I have changed my views dramatically on this over the past few years.  I used to selfishly believe that because I personally viewed polygamy as adultery it should be banned.  Having understood Constitutional rights as I do now, I realize that not only is that view grossly incorrect, but that government has no constitutional right to prohibit contracts between consenting adults.  Government should not be issuing marriage licenses; this is the purview of the church or of the individuals themselves.  This means of course, same sex marriages too are allowed under the law and government should not interfere.  That is, government is not to prohibit the free exercise of religion as stated in the first amendment and government at ANY LEVEL telling you who you as an adult can and can't marry is just plain evil and a gross abuse of power.

A substory within the book shows sadly how government additionally abused their authority by coming in and investigating the Dargers when a baby girl died of an unknown birth defect.  I felt angry the state would--propelled by the family's polygamist choice--disrupt this beautiful family and the hard work in raising their children, and the unnecessary fear raised amid an innocent family practicing their religion, not to mention an utter waste of precious tax dollars. 

I highly recommend the book; I've even taken some notes on how to better interact with my own wife and improve my own marriage.  I never watched the HBO series "Big Love" but the book counters with a claim betimes of a more accurate depiction of fundamentalist Mormonism so it serves as an excellent starting place for understanding the motivation behind Mormon polygamy.  Love Times Three:  Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage, released last fall is an easy read, just under 300 pages, and available through the Darger's blog/website

* There is good historical reason for the intolerance.  Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act in 1862 which began a generation of legislation of unconstitutional federal persecution against the Church including imprisonment, removal of voter rights, withholding of statehood, and absconsion of property.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The NDAA: Whodunnit and What We Can Do

December is to politics as October is to stock market crashes.  It's a great time for Congress to pass the junk that nobody wants because we're all in the spirit of the winter season preparing for family events, winter vacations, and spiritual renewals.  Its the time of year that Congress sneaks in debt-ceiling raises and little things like Obamacare.

Last month, Congress passed a 565-page military spending bill, HR 1540 (full text) or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The most grievous portion of the bill is located in Title X, Subtitle D, Sections 1021-2, pages 265-7.  The bill, signed into law by President Obama allows permanent detention without trial of US Citizens by the military and is quite likely far worse on the violation of our rights and Constitution than even Obamacare.

The Senate held a couple of votes with final passage being 86-13 (roll call vote) with Utah's liberal Senator Hatch voting aye and conservative Senator Lee nay.  I must say that if anyone believes Senator Hatch has become more conservative over the past two years as he gears up for reelection, the severity of this Constitutional violation has to knock the wind out of any argument in that respect.

Utah's house vote was equally telling:  Bishop sided with Democrat Jim Matheson while Chaffetz voted against.  In all the House vote was much closer, 283-136 (roll call vote).  The NDAA is a clear violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments (and others) and MUST be repealed!

Video blogger ABillyRock puts the NDAA in perspective in promoting a Feb 3rd national event (Facebook) to bring attention to the repeal cause:

Also this week, Congressman Ron Paul introduced a 1-page bill, HR 3785 to repeal this most offensive section.  It should be on the forefront of anyone who defends the Constitution as well as a litmus test for choosing federal representatives in primary, general, and Presidential elections.  Here is the video from Rep. Paul who took the time out from campaigning in South Carolina to help preserve our liberties:

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Huntsman & Daughters Stage False Flag Attack

Our prior Governor Jon Huntsman betrayed Utah in the 2008 elections by insisting that he would serve his full term (nacilbupera, May 2009) but 4 months into his governorship announced he was ready to serve Obama as ambassador to China, only to in turn to dump Obama to make a run against him for President.  If Huntsman were a man of his word, he would still be serving as Governor of Utah right now, not ex-Governor.

Now this mean-spirited deceiver has been found in conspiracy with his daughters to create a false flag attack in the form of a YouTube video which appears to be by a Ron Paul supporter (story at Huffington Post)

The video reaches into the Governor's personal life and is out-of-bounds; the Paul campaign promptly disavowed it.  The mass media story seems to end there as it being "some crazy Ron Paul supporter" going off the deep end.

But Youtube poster anonwoohoo did the homework (along with several others including Angel Clark and TokenLibertarianGirl) which has damning evidence that Gov Huntsman's daughters actually created and released the anti-Huntsman video as a false flag attack:

Huntsman has always been a bit of a embarrassment to the values of the Mormon community and the emergence of the Jon2012Girls with this false flag attack is stoking the flames.

To devote Mormons a previous video the Jon2012Girls put out is clearly at odds with the teachings of Mormon religion in aspects of the immodest dress (Mormon women are taught to cover their shoulders) and the music to which the Jon Girls sing their political message (Justin Timberlake's "Sexyback" which refrains: "I'm bringing sexy back / Them other motherf*ckers' don’t know how to act" is an inference by the Jon2012girls that all the other GOP candidates are "motherf*ckers")

As with the plethora of other GOP candidates, I have been appreciative of Huntsman's presence in the campaign; but at this point when he is covertly planning false flag attacks as demonstrated by the end portion of the anonwoohoo video, Huntsman needs to go away.


Updated:  FOUND!  Picture of a Iowa Huntsman supporter.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Iowa Caucus Takehome: Ron Paul Easily Defeats Obama

In studying the Iowa Caucus entrance polling, Ron Paul now has definitive proof of what he has been preaching all along as supported through numerous polls:  he is the candidate who could best defeat Obama.  In examining both the FoxNews and CNN entrance polling we find Dr. Paul doing well in areas where the GOP has struggled:  young voters, urban areas, among the poor, and among people who aren't influenced by ads.  (If Iowa had any measurable ethnicities we would find he does well among races, too!)

But most notably in the polling is the support among Independents for Rep. Paul:  An outstanding 43% of independent voters--more than double any other candidate--voted for the good Congressman!  One can only imagine what would happen in a general election when Dr. Paul wins the GOP nomination:  not only would Obama be defeated but with this kind of support from Independents, it would be no contest.  States typically off hands for any GOP candidate would come into play.  I'm talking big time like Ronald Reagan time here:  California, New York, Oregon, even Hawaii would have HUGE possibilities of turning Ron Paul Red. States Romney or Santorum can't even begin to waste a dime on.  Ron Paul WON the California GOP straw poll. Paulians are everywhere.  This isn't the Romney United States of New Hampshire and Utah.  Ron Paul has NATIONAL support; he's a people's candidate loved by those who are defending us in the military and sacrifice their lives over our insipid provocations, symptomatic of a domineering American Empire consumed by a Military Industrial Complex.

I don't know whether the Party will see this or not.  We don't study out issues but go with whatever our favorite FoxNews commentator is.  We don't read the Constitution we embrace; we don't think for ourselves. We pick one mass media and trust it like the Bible.  We're busy and don't have time to truly study out and do our own homework.  I know I've been there.  We are changing.  Slowly.  We're getting that just because Romney spends the most money doesn't mean he's the best or most electable candidate.

And what is the Party going to do with people like me who won't vote for Romney because we have watched him and know his business experience isn't running a business and creating jobs or producing cars like his father: it's mergers and acquisitions.  That's not the business skillset we need to run the country, we don't need to merge with Mexico or acquire Iraq!  Remember being a "businessman" is NOT by itself any better than any other profession.  Indeed, Romney can't even come up with a proposal to balance the budget his first year!  Sounds to me like he needs to go back to Harvard and learn some business budgeting!  And if Romney can't get our own party together, let alone appeal to independents, we're looking like another four years of Obama.  Is not then a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama?  Is that what we are trying to do as a Party to get Obama another 4 years by nominating Romney???  If indeed a vote for Romney helps Obama, then is it not only the right but the duty of every Republican to find someone else to whom to give their sacred vote and Romney's duty to bow out of the race and endorse someone who does have a plan to balance the budget their first year?

From a purely electability standpoint, Ron Paul is a GOP dream candidate and the only GOP candidate who could produce a landslide victory over Obama in 2012.


Update 1/7:  More interesting analysis

Update 1/9:  I'm telling you folks, if Republicans would just rally behind Ron Paul not only would we save the country, but Paul would be above 50% vs Obama and this election would be in the bag.  Take a look as Paul scores 47% Percent of all Independents  (CBS Poll) and yet thanks to the mass media is barely known and even less understood.  If Republicans want a winner in 2012, the only hope is Ron Paul.  Look, I understand some of you are going to have to hold your nose when you vote for Paul because you worry too much about the bomb in Iran, but read this: I love George Washington Except for his Foreign Policy by Michael Maharrey at the 10th Amendment Center and perhaps like myself and Michael you too will begin to see why Dr. Paul is much more right than wrong on foreign policy.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Why a Conservative Mormon Cannot Support Romney

With the Iowa caucus just hours away, I thought I would elaborate on some of my feelings as to why as a Conservative, Utah Mormon I reject Romney as a candidate for POTUS.

(1) Romney equals Bush.  During Bush's administration, Bush began some of our country's longest wars to deal with a situation in Afghanistan which should have only taken months.  Credit Bush for the so-called "Bush Doctrine" in which we are supposed to preemptively strike on any nation we consider a threat.  Bush imposed the unconstitutional federal mandate of No Child Left Behind, expanded Medicare through implementation of Part D, created a federal police force called the TSA, passed the Patriot Act in violation of our civil rights, and bailed out powerful wall street banks through TARP.  Bush was a disaster to Conservatism and the Constitution.  Looking back with the knowledge I have gained on political matters, I am ashamed I voted for the man.

Romney equals Bush as Romney has hired tons of old Bush staffers for his campaign.  I hear Romney bashing Obama, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul but he never seems to criticize Bush.  Perhaps he finds no fault with the Big-Government Bush agenda as his policies seem to mirror Bush's.  He's even got Bush Sr's endorsement.  Wow.  I am SO thrilled. (NOT!)

(2) Romney has endorsed both Orrin Hatch's current bid to extend his senatorial dynasty and ex-Sen Bob Bennett in his failed quest at a fourth term.  Here in Utah, it is clear Romney has courted the powerbroking establishment at the expense of Constitutional freedom.

(3) Romney appears comfortable at applying the Bush Doctrine in Iran.  It seems illogical in a financially broke, war-weary nation that one would want to do a preemptive strike against Iran under the justification of stopping them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  I grew up under the constant and real threat of thousands of warheads pointed at my nation and yet none of those in the original "evil empire" ever took preemptive strike. If we are so concerned about a nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable country, does this mean we also have to go to war against Pakistan and Syria?

These Muslim countries are fighting against us in large part because we are in the midst of a 21st Century "crusade" against their lands.  We occupy their countries and support dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak and in some cases like Iran overthrow democratically elected leaders to establish tyrants like the Shah.  If we would leave them alone to worship as they please, there would be much abatement to the hostility towards us.  Jews and Christians which have respected Muslim worship have lived at peace for centuries in both Shi'a and Sunni countries.

As a Mormon, we believe that we have the duty to spread the message of Jesus Christ to every nation and people of the world.  We know through experience that in wartime the spreading of the message is inhibited to the point of impracticality.  Why then does Romney insist on stirring up the Persians to wrath against us through the implied threat of preemptive strike?  Surely peace is the message of Mormonism and of the Book of Mormon from which the name derives.

I cannot support Romney in his foreign warmongering policies against the Persian people.

In all I view Romney as a Rattlesnake versus Obama as an Inland Taipan; although the Taipan is much more toxic, you want to avoid being bitten by either and both require serious treatment afterwards.  The want of Conservatism is for drastically smaller government, adherence to the Constitution, decreasing the laws of the land, relief from taxation, and paying down the debt.  I am fully aware and convinced that, like Bush, at the end of his term a Romney presidency will have more pages of law, more taxation, more war, and less adherence to the Constitution.  I cannot foresee any circumstance of me being able to vote in good conscience for Romney or Obama even when I am told by people who claim intellectual superiority that I must choose between these vipers.