Mitt Romney’s decisive win in New Hampshire on Tuesday’s first 2012 primary is sending his opponents in a direction you would never expect to hear in these days of an anti-Occupy Wall Street and pro-Tea Party GOP collective. Romney’s opponents are attacking Romney…from the Left. That’s correct, opponent after opponent is now railing against Mitt Romney’s free market experience while at Bain Capital. The very party which touts the free market system is railing again Romney’s practices while at Bain.

Rick Perry called Romney a “vulture capitalist” in South Carolina. Also in the Palmetto State, Romney rivals Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry accused Romney of being greedy, unethical, and completely ignorant to the needs of the average working person when working at Bain.

Now let’s be fair here. If we’re going to tout anti-socialist talking points, and complain about the Occupy Wall Street redistribution of wealth ideology, then we can’t be the ones punishing success when we’re accusing Liberals of punishing success through higher tax rates. That would be hypocritical.

Could it be that the candidates are slowly conceding, and actually circling the wagons around Romney by trying to prepare him for the attacks from the Left? Maybe they’re trying to bring up the anti-corporatist attacks sooner and from their own party, rather than wait until the Left can do it during the general election. Maybe this way, it’ll (hopefully) all be “old news” when it comes time to face-off against President Obama. Or…maybe…they’re just desperate. This must be a last-ditch effort to curb the Romney tide before he all but wraps this thing up if he can take both South Carolina and Florida.

Judge Andrew Nepolitano hits the nail right on the head here. He deftly slides his way back from the recent blatant non-coverage of Ron Paul, back to each President’s reign all the way back to President Ronald Reagan. No talking points here for either the Democrats or the Republicans. On the contrary, Judge Nepolitano breaks down the similarities between each party and almost states (but leaves it up to the view to draw the conclusion and connect the final dots) that both major parties are the same, and the two-party system is broken when it comes down to what America stands for. Freedom.

This is one of the best, and most honest, break-downs of American politics from recent history. As we  see Ron Paul (and his Libertarian views) getting over 20% of the votes from both of the first two states to vote in the 2012 Presidential Election, we wonder when will people take Ron Paul (and 3rd Party ideas) seriously?

You know when? When they are forced to. When will they be forced to? When “We The People” start voting people in based on their records, their consistency, their character, and who would be the best for the job…and not which of the two major parties they belong to.

Thank you, Judge Nepolitano, for breaking down the truth in an unbiased way, which shows what’s going on in this country. Enjoy…and comment below what YOU think!

You will hear many a conservative warn about the evils of “big government” and tout the benefits of “states’ rights.” You’ll hear them talk about “this is the way the founding fathers wanted it!” This is right, but not in the way they’re telling you. Sure, “founding fathers” felt this way, but it wasn’t the United States’ founding fathers who believed in states’ rights…it was the Confederate States who believed, and fought for, states’ rights and against Washington making all the rules.

All 50 States willingly elect a person to be our country’s CEO, our Commander in Chief, and President of the United States. That person is the temporary (four or eight years) leader of the country. Likewise, all 50 States each send 2 people to the Senate to form half of the legislative branch. The other legislative branch is made up of 435 people sent to Washington from all over the country.

The representative form of government our founding fathers set up was one where the states send their representatives to Washington. There, they (ideally) represent the states and communities all around the country and collectively vote on legislation which governs the country.

If the Republicans really and truly want less government and more individual state control, then we would have to change the way our government works. We would have to strip down the 500-ish representatives we send to Washington or else we are willingly spending our tax money (and our children’s tax money) to pay about 500 people who hardly do anything. One could argue they’re already doing too much of nothing. For conservatives who rally against wasteful spending, the evils of big government, and the sanctity of The Constitution of the United States, I can’t imagine why the GOP would want to change the government the true and actual founding fathers created.

You’ll hear many conservatives point to what they say will be Thomas Jefferson’s words of “that government is best which governs least,” however, Jefferson never said that. John Louis O’Sullivan wrote “The best government is that which governs least” in 1837, and Henry David Thoreau quoted it. Ralph Waldo Emerson later on wrote an essay “The Less government we have, the better.” None of the men mentioned above are model Republicans by today’s description, nor are founding fathers of this country.

Most Republicans probably don’t even take their “States’ Rights” thinking seriously, because you would be hard pressed to find someone flying their state’s flag outside of their house (other than Texans, of course). You are going to see Old Glory, or the Confederate Flag.

So, the next time you hear a conservative talk about “states’ rights” and the founding fathers in the same sentence, ask them for evidence to prove that the founding fathers of the United States, who wrote the constitution, were in favor of states’ rights by a large margin, if at all. They won’t be able to prove it, or provide evidence, because none exists.

Iowa is now in the rear view and the exit for New Hampshire is coming up ahead. Before a week ago, it appeared Newt Gingrich would run away with a big win in the Iowa caucuses, and Mitt Romney was going to focus on “more winnable” states like New Hampshire (where he’s a lock), and Florida.

Then, something happened. The “Romney PAC attack ads” and the sharp decline of Newt. Ron Paul surged temporarily until his racist newsletters re-surfaced and he had to defense or good answer as to why these old newsletters printed and distributed which bore his name had that horrible content inside.

Who was left? Rick Santorum. Previously “Mr. 2%” but now the “Little Train Who Could.” Santorum made a cost-effective, grass roots, down home and valiant run at winning the Iowa caucuses. And he came within 8 single little votes of achieving the biggest upset in Iowa caucus history.

Does Iowa matter, though? You’ll hear those on the Left (and one of the GOP candidates) tout that Iowa “doesn’t pick Presidents.” Although, they did pick the last two, voting for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. What are facts anyway, other than “guidelines” for pundit talking points, though, right?

Iowa does matter…maybe. If Rick Santorum (who’s not on the ballots of all 50 states) can somehow syphon Rick Perrry and Michele Bachmann’s voters, raise the funds which would have otherwise gone to them, and become “The Anti-Romney,” then Iowa mattered a whole lot.

Santorum, with Perry out of the way, although that’s not going to happen, could have easily won South Carolina over Mitt Romney. With Newt Gingrich in full-on attack dog mode, the road is paved for “the Santorum Surge” to continue.

Some say that Santorum is too conservative to win a general election, which his very staunch anti-gay and even anti-contraceptive views, but George W. Bush wasn’t exactly a raging Liberal and he managed to be a two-term President. I would say don’t discount the far reach of Christian-minded voters, especially with someone like Santorum who is at the very least consistent and up-front with his beliefs and views.

Some also say that Santorum lacks the organizational capacity and funds to make a full and serious 50 State run, but the quicker Perry gets out of the way the quicker Santorum can grab the resources and support he needs.

Should Perry promptly leave the race, the GOP voters will be looking at Romney (a Mormon from the North and former governor of a very liberal state who has a record of changing his political views to fit the race he’s running) and Ron Paul (a Libertarian who’s foreign policy and social liberalism don’t sit well in the slightest with the Republican base), or Rick Santorum (a Catholic in a faithful and long-standing marriage who is a former Senator and holds deep and steadfast convictions and also knows a thing or two about foreign policy).

Don’t discount the Little Train That Could, because he could be chugging away right on up to that stage on the last day of the GOP Convention.

President Barack Obama has a good chance to be re-elected to the Presidency of the United States. However, he has about an equal chance to be thrown out. In tough economic times the blame always goes right to the top. When the economy was horrible in the late 70′s President Carter took the fall, and that continued under President Reagan in the early 80′s.

After the S&L crisis and dramatic tax cuts of the late 80′s, the bubble burst and left President H.W. Bush with no other option but to raise taxes…which ultimately made him out to be a “liar” and forced him out of office.

In recent Presidential election history, the only thing that’s caused a sitting elected President to be a one-termer has been a lackluster, sluggish, or down economy. No other economy besides the Great Depression has been this bad so expect President Obama to be very vulnerable in 2012.

President Barack Hussein Obama will lose the 2012 Presidential election because of the economy. There are many other reasons why he will lose, but the number one prime reason is because of the economy.

All the talk about Obama being a socialist, being Kenyan-born, etc. are all fodder for the crazies. All you have to do to beat Obama is look at his record and ask him to own up to the fact that he’s inhibited growth and caused the divided and broken political situation which exists in Washington, DC today.

President Barack Obama will win re-election to the Presidency of the United States of America, because there is no viable Republican candidate. If we go down the list, there isn’t one among them who can really and truly rally the 10-20% of independent voters out there. Let’s look…

Mitt Romney: Businessman and flip-flops more than John Kerry.

Rick Santorum: Is unrealistic and unfair when it comes to non-Christians.

Newt Gingrich: Too much baggage personally and politically.

Ron Paul: Wacky out-of-the-box ideas and racist newsletters which bore his name.

Michele Bachmann: Googling a list of things she’s said in the past would be enough to take her out of serious consideration by sane voters.

Rick Perry: Had a great shot…until he opened his mouth.

Jon Huntsman: Has the best middle-of-the-road shot, but his own party won’t even give him a chance.