Preface: If anybody finds this post via Adobe's MXNA feed and finds themselves offended, please direct your ire to Daniel Taborga (dtaborga@adobe.com), who assured me some time ago that he had corrected my RSS feed to one containing only relevantly categorized content. Thanks!

Last night was the completion of debate number six for the current host of Republican nominee contenders. These events are always preceded by myself with hope and anticipation of being able to single out one of them as my favorite. But last night's event proved only to reaffirm for me what the previous five did as well: There are no top contenders, only bottom ones.

Every single one of those individuals are hundreds of magnitudes brighter as potential presidents than the current leader of the free world. Due to that reason, it tends to cause me to be enamored by ALL of them. That being said, however, there are ones of them who I prefer less than the others, and here's the breakdown as to who and why.

My least two favorites, tied for bottom, are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Contrary to my assessment, these two are also touted in the news media and among many political analysts as being the TOP two contenders. The news media, and these analysts, have been immersed for so long in what has become a virtual cesspool of politics that their analytical skills are biased towards the status quo, and anything that falls outside of their perceived boundaries of "electable", "politically correct", and appealing to their definition of independents are simply not worthy of more than a passing commentary. I'm here to tell you, though, that those who are writing off the other contenders so quickly are nearly as blind as the liberal left, and did not properly lay to heart the true meaning of the midterms in November 2010. We The People are demanding true change. The absolute MOST we could hope for from Rick Perry or Mitt Romney is to return us to the state of affairs before Obama took office; this is grossly insufficient and will NOT satisfy the needs of liberty-loving Americans who hunger for a return to our Constitutional roots and a reboot of American politics.

As I mentioned in opening, the rest of the contenders would all invest themselves in bringing forth true and lasting changes that would cause our nation to thrive as it has not in a very long time. That said, my third least favorite candidate is Newt Gingrich. The man does have some artifacts of his political history that are admirable and would greatly benefit us all now if brought forth again; but no matter what he says or how he delivers it, Newt is a career politician who has been part of the atrophied, "good ol' boy" Republican establishment for a long, long time. Nobody can be immersed in what has passed for conservativism in this country for so long and not be ruined by it. For that reason, I do not trust the man nor believe in his integrity.

My fourth least favorite candidate is Rick Santorum. His strong and open support of remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan trouble me. Admittedly, I am biased on this subject due to the fact that I have a son in the Army and I hate the constant sense of worry for his safety, as I know so many other parents have to endure as well. I understand that there is a time for peace and a time for war, but the manner in which we have conducted our wars for the past decade have been akin to the manner in which this country has been governed: without clear leadership, without clear goals, and without clear plans to execute in order to achieve them. That, in my opinion, is not a cause worthy for anybody's son or daughter to sacrifice their lives. Santorum also danced around a question in last night's debate regarding compulsory unions and 'right to work' states, leading me to only be able to conclude that he would do nothing regarding that issue in the 28 states that currently support compulsory union membership as a condition of employment.

The remaining contenders I consider to all be top shelf. Michele Bachmann has been a tireless proponent of conservative values for a long time, as well as a tireless critic of Obama and his toxic ways. Her dedication, her perseverance, her morals, and her consistent stance on issues based on conservative values despite the rest of the herd all make her a strong potential leader in my mind.

Herman Cain is a man of integrity, experience, love of country, conservativism, and bless his heart, the man doesn't dance around questions or try to deliver pre-formed watered down, neutral answers like so many of the status quo politicians tend to do. He speaks his mind, and his sincerity and genuineness shine through in everything he says. His proposals for economic recovery are simple yet elegant, and have been given due diligence by experts in the field. He has something wonderful to offer this country and he knows it. I believe it too.

Ron Paul. A true Libertarian through and through who is as wise, intelligent, patriotic, experienced, and persevering as any of the original founding fathers, in my opinion. Having just celebrated his 76th birthday, Ron Paul has had a full lifetime to distill his experiences and knowledge and has come to the obvious and simple conclusion that the answer to all of America's woes and failings lie in her foundation: her Constitution. A return to the precepts and ideology that this nation's founders established for themselves and their posterity is the only thing that can return us to prosperity and greatness. My own beliefs in limited government and personal freedoms align well with Ron Paul's, and I would gladly call him President.

There are a couple of other contenders as well. Gary Johnson, ex governor of New Mexico, and John Huntsman, former governor of Utah and ambassador to China. John Huntsman is very well spoken, very elgant and articulate, and as the man says and cannot be denied, has a proven track record in his state of Utah for reforms and changes that have benefited that state greatly. He would make a great president, and He'll have my vote if nominated. Gary Johnson isn't as personable as Gary Johnson, but he is without a doubt a man who WILL do what he says. His integrity and sincerity are unshakable, and his dedication to a return to constitutionality and conservative values is undeniable based on his political history as New Mexico's governor.

2012 is going to be THE most exciting election in modern history, with the final contenders being extreme polar opposites of one another and this nation having to decide, as a whole, which fork in this road we are going to take. I of course believe with all my heart that we will return to the document that made us who we are today and that, beginning in 2013, we will find ourselves joyfully on the road to economic, moral, and patriotic recovery. I imagine the day after the election there will be a lot of liberals lamenting the loss of their opportunity to "progress" us all onto a European fast track. But to all of those individuals I say now, don't worry, don't fret; you too will benefit from the freedoms, the prosperity, and the motivation to be self-reliant. That spirit and prevailing mindset is what brought us all to this fork in the road in the first place, and it will ensure our survival as the greatest nation on earth far into the future as well.

Preface: If anybody finds this post via Adobe's MXNA feed and finds themselves offended, please direct your ire to Daniel Taborga (dtaborga@adobe.com), who assured me some time ago that he had corrected my RSS feed to one containing only relevantly categorized content. Thanks!

The premise is all wrong. The idea upon which Obama's "job creation ideas" is based is erroneous. Setting aside the fact that this man wouldn't even have BOTHERED attempting to address this issue if it weren't for the fact that he was politically castrated in November of 2010 and this subject (and many others) was forced upon him, his "nanny state" approach to addressing national challenges is wrong.

Not everyone believes as I, though. I recently watched news coverage of a town hall meeting between a representative and his constituents where I saw and heard people in the audience screaming out "where are the jobs!?!?". It saddened me to see that there are people...lots of people...who would even think to ask that question of our government, on the same token reaffirming to themselves and those who hear them that they believe it is the government's DUTY to provide jobs for people. Fact of the matter is, it is not and never has been the government's duty to create and/or provide jobs. The correct question for them to have shouted out would have been along the lines of "when will the government get out of the way of free enterprise!?!?". Government itself is not good at very many things, nor was it ever intended to be; history has borne this out. A whole slough of jokes and stereotypes exist centered around government, government jobs, and government workers for good reason. When applied beyond its constitutional boundaries, government tends to be bloated, inefficient, wasteful, poor at self-monitoring, and over-compensating. These things promote apathy and corruption among its labyrinthal hierarchy of agencies and departments, the results of which all roll downhill and onto the plates of We the People. It was never designed to be Big Brother, and when it attempts to behave as such fails miserably and heavily burdens the dynamics of our Republic. So for Barack Hussein Obama to approach the currently dismal jobs situation in this nation with the idea that more government is the answer to our prayers is simply the absolute opposite to what the true solution is. I don't question his motives (though I do believe the conservative House majority and his upcoming ousting ARE two of his primary motivating factors), but I do condemn his tried-and-failed philosophies and the fact that despite the clear evidence of their failure, the man continues to mindlessly cling to them. My hope, as it always is before the man speaks, is that he will show a true heart to want to help and not simply use his audience as an opportunity to posture, lecture, cast blame, and ask us all to buy in to his idea of yet BIGGER government. Historically, though, he has utilized his speeches to do the latter and in so doing has conditioned the majority of us to subconsciously (and consciously) prejudge him. I fall into this category, and harbor zero hope that tonight's speech will be anything more than a mosaic of recycled presidential rhetoric.

Mr. President, if all you offer tonight as a solution is more of what has proven to be a detriment and hindrance to true prosperity in this nation, then please save your breath for your 2012 concession speech. We spoke loudly in town hall meetings before you rammed Obamacare down our throats, we spoke even MORE loudly in November 2010 when we flattened your political tires and disabled you from causing further harm to our nation, and still you would not listen. As the very existence of the loud, violent, hateful rhetoric from the minority left so clearly prognosticates, we will most assuredly dethrone you in the presidential election of 2012 and end one of the most dismal, leaderless presidencies this country has ever known in our lifetime. Your opportunity to listen has long since passed and you are doing nothing more at this point than biding your time and reinjecting wasted cash into the various ad agencies and marketing firms as you futilely flounder about on your campaign tours doing the only thing you know how to do: talk. You, sir, are politically doomed, and you have knowingly and consistently brought it all upon yourself.

Let's watch some football!!!