Let’s do some what-ifs this week.
What if the Arizona Cardinals had a defense when they needed it?
They’d be Super Bowl Champions of the world. What if...
Here’s one; What if Sarah Palin decides to throw her hat into the presidential ring for 2012?
Things may be so bad by then, no one with a lick of sense would have the job.
That would rule her out, as the barracuda has plenty of smarts and the back-bone to go with it, but she’s not stupid.
That’s why the media, Hollyweird, the Democrats, and certain elements of the Republican Party are so fearful of her.
Speaking of elections…well, I WAS thinking along those lines.
What if seven states decided not to participate in the 2008 Presidential Election?
Let’s say California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts all withdrew their votes.
What would the outcome have been?
Here’s the scoop.
The Obama won the 2008 election by nine million votes (9,000,000).
The seven states mentioned above would have swung the popular vote totals in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket. Seven states!
A number of other combinations would have done likewise.
But those combinations would all have involved Northern States, accepting California, which is in the Fruit and Nut category of states.
By the way, California supplied one-third of The Obama’s nine million vote margin.
In other words, Fruits and Nuts supplied 1/3 of the required popular vote margin for a numerical victory.
Fruits and Nuts…
What if our demographics had remained the same as in, say, 1974?
Well, the category of "White" voter in 1974 registered nine of every ten (90%) votes cast. What about 2008?
The "White" vote had shrunk to only three of every four (75%).
That is a huge demographic shift for any place on earth.
Who might have effected this change and was it deliberate?
Who do you think…and I think you already know the answer.
It is interesting to note how the very-churched "Black" voter in Texas went for The Obama by a 98 to 2 margin.
Ninety-eight out of every black voters in Texas put the "X" on the Democratic candidate.
The very-Catholic hispanic voter in Texas voted Democratic 63 out of every 100 votes. Does anyone besides me think those numbers strange?
Very-churched and very-Catholic would normally denote peoples who based their voting patterns on Biblical concepts. Is that sound reasoning or not?
But in the case of black and hispanic voters in Texas…and across America, those people have cast their vote for the political party and political personage more diametrically opposed to those (Biblical) principals than any of the other political parties or personages currently represented.
It’s in black and white print found in party platforms, though partially hidden behind obscured wording, such as "Pro Life," "Gun Control," and a myriad of other obscured definitions of party or candidate stances.
What if the American voter suddenly wakes up and takes a Pro Active part in political affairs?
Well, if you think Sarah "Baracuda" Palin raises the hackles on the media, Hollyweird, the Democrats, and certain elements of the Republican Party, an awakened and energized American electorate would send them into a tailspin not to be pulled out of in time.
That would be a good thing, if you prefer understatement.
What if, in the event all of the above fails, the positive changes, that is, what if we just start out by expelling the seven states mentioned above; put them in a category in close conjunction with, say, France or Vermont?
Of course we’d have to continue sending them all kinds of aid, but why not?
We currently do that for a lot of countries who hate our guts and vote opposite to what regular, traditional, conservative, or Christian Americans do.
What if, May God bless.