SANTORUM CALLS IT QUITS FOR 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Today Rick Santorum has "suspended" his candidicy.  For legal reasons he can't say he's just ending it, even though that is the case when they use this termanology.  Clearly he's not going to even risk a loss in Pennsylvania.  This is his assasment of his own pull in that state, where despite all his perported Christian faith, when push comes to shove he proved "risk averse", as they all are, and couldn't stand trying to be able to explain away a defeat in his home State, where he lost badly in his own reelection campaign for Senate in 2006.  So it's bye bye Ricky.  Can Newt be far behind.  Now they say that Newt Gingrich's campaign is "bankrupt" even though Newt himself has a fantastic ammount of money.  He could spend his own money if he really had faith in his candidicy he he believed in himself, which again, when push comes to shove, these people never live up their lofty words.  So now Mitt Romney remains the only viable Republican Candidate so now it's reduced to a two man race.  We'll do more in a minute.

It would seem that George Zimmerman fears that he will be arrested in charged.  So he had started his own Defense Fund website to raise money for his defense.  But he apparently has refused his own attorney's phone calls to him.  If Randy Rhodes is right Sean Hannity refused to entangle himself in the case when requested to do so by Zimmerman's father.  How odd it is that the first thing you think of when establishing your innocence is not consulting the law, but instead going to the Media.  Sounds a little Sarah Palinish to me.  But the attorneys are loathe to even want to put Zimmerman's friends on the stand because they could be disbarred themselves if it's known they put known purgerers on the stand.  Why Hannity would testify in this case I don't know.  But as we know from recent history, even lying in a sworn deposition is purgery and a felony and you could go to jail.  Neither Mark Levin nor Hannity wants to risk that.  Clearly if they continued with their web of lies about Zimmerman's cuts and broken nose and brain damage and all the rest of it with the blood and all- - if won't fly and the Law won't take kindly when such a blatent fabrication is exposed.  But again I believe that Zimmerman falsely believes he will be tried and possibly convicted.  Even someone with as little legal expertise as yuk - huk - - Bill Handel or Randy Rhodes or for that matter myself- - could handle the defense in this case.  All they would have to do is to wave that Johnny Cochrin finger at the cops and say "where is your investigation?  Where is the evidence?  The cops would smirk and say "We have none".  Because they never gathered it.  Usually the law expects SOME sort of tangable evidence- - even in a case like this where it's obvious to anybody with a three digit IQ that Zimmerman did it and he is guilty of cold blooded first degree pre-meditated murder.  As prosecutor I believe I'd have no trouble proving all of these things to a jury is the standard is "clear and convincing evidence" that a normal person would believe.  Unfortunately this standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a little harder.  Personally I don't think there is any ROOM for "reasonable doubt" myself- - even devoid of physical evidence.  Like I say cases have been won in Court without it.  A conviction under such circumstances would by no means be unprecedented.  I fear that soon we will hear another sad day in which "justice was not served" when it's announced by the Prosecution that Zimmerman is cleared of all charges, and he never for a moment either had to see the inside of a jail cell nor surrender his right to own and carry a gun.

Of course if you want "The Facts" in cases- - - sometimes fair minded people have to admit there ARE no facts.  Like if you are looking for the "historic" Apostle Paul, any profile would begin with the words, "There is no historical evidence of such a man ever having existed.  All we know about St. Paul comes from the Bible.  If you look for the histories of various Greek cities such as Corinth or Ephisus, you will sine none of the supposed "historic Christian church" that so shaped its history.  Even if you were a Jew and looked for the history of "Yeshua" you would read about a man with five desciples who was a sorcerer, who was a Nazarate- - and these people hung out in Mt Carmel - which as I say was an ancient center of Baal worship, not that that necessarily means anything.  You would go on to read that he was sentensed to be stoned by a Jewish tribunal and was "given forty days to bring forth any witnesses to speak up in his defense" and none showed, and he was stoned.  That's the story.  Of course Rush Limbaugh will say there ARE "Facts" as far as his Case against the President is concerned. Here are some of the Facts Rush Limbaugh has shared with us.  President Obama had killed hundreds of thousands of jobs that have vanish.  The number of actual employed has shrunk badly.  This is the only President to manipulate the unemployment figure into going down, all while losing net jobs.  More people are unemployed now 88 Million according to Rush - - I kid you not, than currently populate Germany.  He says "just let that sink in for a moment".   They all speak of gross accounting error in figuring the cost of Obama Care.  They say he "double counts" the savings.  They also say that the balance is only established because "right now we are being taxes for services that haven't gone into effect yet" and so the Revenue is "front weighted" and hence the figures are skewed.  We hear that doctors hate it, and will in fact "not participate in the program" since it will bankrupt them, so under Obama there will thus be fewer doctors.  We also hear an insidious schem where people are fined only a small fee in the first few years of Obama care.  This is a deliberate ploy to GET the people to bankrupt insurance companies and drive them out of business.  Later on the fees will be hiked Beyond the insurance costs- - and so at that time people will rejoin Obama Care only to find there is no one to insure them, and hence you will have the "planned Chaos" these people were hoping for all along so that "the people will demand something more drastic".  Rush also raises the question as to why so many I R S agents are newly hired for a Health Care plan.  It makes no sense.  But of course that's the point.  It isn't health care Obama is after but some sort of a Socialist government take-over.  This is the tea party play book.

As to the next item Rush discussed it's a bit strange.  We know that Ronald Reagan spoke out in favor of the principles of the "Buffet Law" where there is at least some minimum tax for billionaires.  Of course Ronald Reagan could never win a Republican Primary today.  But Rush says "They are NOT doing this to close the deficet as (he might as well have used my name here) Some People would have you believe.  Instead he doesn't even CARE about deficet reduction or even whether that EVER happens.  Because the Buffet tax will only raise a paultry 5.5 Billion which isn't decent pocket change in today's government economy.  But instead its this insidious principle of "Fairness" they are trying to cram down our throats.  Judy has often spoken out against the idea of "Fairness and equality for all" stuff as socialist propaganda and dangerous.  Some may wonder whether or not Christians have a unique moral high ground as people like Judy says they do.  (Just between you and me Judy would make a much more fornidable candidate, intellectually, than Sarah Palin, that's for sure)  Let's look as some "Christian values".  How many times will a tea bagger attack Iyan Rand - - an Atheist, as opposed to President Obama or Harry Reed, who are both devout Christians?  hummm?  Judy isn't bothered much by Ayan Rand and so often seems to be singing her song.  She these people aren't bothered by the idea that the Red Chinese are basically a totalitarian, repressive government that's anathema to american principles and rights.  Indeed - - working with them economically has been "No Problem" since the days of Herbert Walker Bush, and counting.  And if the government WERE to institute some sort of government sanctioned "Christian Church" it mightn't be recognizable to anything read about in the Bible.  Where are the "Christian values" when Michelle Bachman praises Quadafi as "one of our people" and a player on our side but says that dire things would and have happen upon his overthrow?  What about this whole Greece thing.  I always thought if the United States stood for anything it's against a democratic government being "taken over" by an outside power.  This is no longer the cases.  American principles of liberty and Justice now take a back seat to the eminent moral authority and imputed Purity of the big banks, who can do no wrong, in a tea bagger's mind.  Of course I got to thinking.  They may come back and hit me with "Just because it said it's hard for a rich person to get into heaven, Jesus never said it was EASY for a poor person to get to heaven.  Jesus said nobody was good enough to go to heaven". I've heard something like this said to me, but not in these exact words.  However let's look at what the Bible says.  It says "Blessed are the Poor - - for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven".  Or stated another way perhaps more explicitly "The Kingdom of Heaven BELONGS to Them!"  There is nothing at all about qualifying for the Poor to get in.  They are already Citizens of this "Kingdom", whatever you take it to mean.  So the tea party strikes out again.  They say "Our tax code doesn't matter because we know conservatives give more to charities than liberals so".  This has NOT been my experiance.  Sarah Palin would need her whole arm to make notes on were she to cite my numerous examples in my own life.  But just because ONE liberal gives less money than ONE conservative - - usually they will cite one of each - - as though it were the whole world - - - I think anyone whose read Dickens needs no further reminders of the respective generosity of the "liberals" and the moneyed conservatives.  You think?

Patriots like Rick Perry and George W Bush say that Jesus Christ is their "most admired individual" in their lives as a role model.  Yet now I have traced no less than five different Missaiah figures the Gospels are composits of.  They are John the Baptist, "That Egyptian", "Yeshua", "Judas of Galilee" and "Apolonius of Tyanus".  For instance they whole Galilee connection, even making Nazareth (a then non existant city) located on a cliff overlooking the lake, was from Luigi Cascioli's account tracing it down.  It's the Judas of Galilee connection.  We have the cricifiction and Betrayal- - from one figure - - the Prophecy of future events - - by another - - the miracle working and morals or a third - - the Galilee connection of a fourth - - and the whole ascent into Heaven ascending to God-hood of a fifth.  Luke makes reference to a school of this fifth messiah - - that Paul visited.  The only problem is that this figure did not live till fully fifty years after the events in Luke are said to take place.  If you've got Facts I'll listen to them.  But don't fight facts with myth.  The game will be forfeited by default if you do.

People talk about Atheists bring a lot of "emotional baggage" whenever they refer to Christianity.  Neil will go so far as to say if you believe in God there is something kind of "not right" with you, as though your mental reasoning were compromized due to some form of "psychological or emotional damage", which of course - - in his mind is something beyond the ability of Christianity to remedy.  But I think rather the shoe is on the other foot.  People think of Christianity and particular White Protestentism along with mom and apple pie as cherished American symbols, and as such no American could be elected President if he were a "professing Atheist".  You know  - one "out of the closet".  Perhaps Days of our Lives should spend less time on preaching of accepting the gay life style and more about the acceptance of Atheism.  Nobody wants to tackle that one.  In the first place they will always say that say "if you are an Atheist you are "cut loose from all moral bearings" which doesn't follow at all, of course logically.  But they can't talk about Atheist without mention their five favorite Atheists,  Atilla the Hun, Ghengis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Lenin.  These of course are but five people fished out of the whole spectrum of world history.  Were I to begin ratteling off names of Christians who were immoral and practiced evil, this blog posting would be made of nothing but that list.  Now they have even raised the charge that Magazines are at war with Churches "because they never say anything good about the Church", which is nonesense.  Perpetually all you hear when Christianity's moral shortcomings are brought up are excuse after excuse and rationalization after rationizalation, with a lot of verbal and mental gymnastics thrown in for good measure.  One of these days the population of the US is going to "get over it".  Clearly in any head to head debate, it's the Atheist time after time who comes through with the most mental clarity and focus.  Often Christians don't ask the right questions, or else they deliberately ask questions designed to lead outsiders into believing they and they alone have the Answers to them, but when push comes to shove in a private moment, they are compelled to admit that they don't.  I'm arguing not for a doctrine but an attitude of objectivity.  And I'm not going to put on the Thom Hartman caviat that "OK you can be an atheist but whatever you do, keep it quiet.  People get annoyed when they "feel that their faith is challenged".  Note I deliberately used the word "feel".  You know what they say.  Some things are in the eye of the beholder.  And if their faith IS in truth challenged, it's the encroaching presence of Reality that's doing it and not some sort of - - accademic bullying, or whatever they might call it.  Think about it.