--RPC,                  Houston,  Texas

--RPC, Houston, TX

--RPC, Houston, TX

I wrote an article in February 2008 titled "The Only Republican Who Can Beat Hillary". That Republican was Duncan Hunter. Though the Democrat nominee turned out to be Barack, the points of that article would also have applied to him, and I still stand by my arguments. Hunter WOULD have beaten Barack not because of the issues of character, ideological purity, or the elusively vague trait of "electability", but because of the overlooked yet much more powerful factor that I call REGIONALITY. What was needed in that election was a candidate for the November face-off who could use REGIONALITY to turn a BLUE STATE into a RED STATE. Hunter could (and, I believe would) have turned BLUE California into RED California because he was FROM California. Regionalism causes the voters of a state to, 90% of the time, vote for one of their own for President. Thus, Nixon carried California in 1960, 1968, and 1972. Ronald Reagan carried California in 1980 and 1984. Imagine that -- liberal California went for Republicans five times. Hmmm -- do ya think that could be because Nixon and Reagan were FROM California?

Today, the same mistake is being repeated as Conservatives argue over which of the seven Republican contenders has the best character or has the best ideological purity or has "electibility". If we finally choose Newt Gingrich, we will repeat the "Old White-Haired Dude" joke from 2008. If we choose Mitt Romney, we will repeat the "Ineligibility" attacks from leftists when they realize that Mitt's father was born in Mexico and, thus, Mitt cannot meet the "natural born" requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of The Constitution. It is as if John McCain has been split into two men and his themes are dejavu all over again. We can avoid all this if we analyze each candidate's chances based on the more important factor of REGIONALITY. When we do this, we can quickly see that only TWO have any chance of turning a BLUE State into a RED one. Those two are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. And of these two, Rick has the greater chance of taking his home State of Pennsylvania than does Mitt of Massachusetts. Let's look at each candidate against the set of five scenarios that were shown in a report by Ed Henry on Special Report With Brett Baier on Tuesday December 13th (watch the 2-1/2 minute video at Foxnews.com). These are scenarios one of which the Dems would need to secure in order for Barack to reach the needed 270 electoral votes for victory.

The scenarios start with the assumption that the 19 States won by John Kerry in 2004 will go to Barack in 2012 giving him 246 electoral votes. These are WA, OR, CA, HI, MN, WI, MI, IL, PA, NY, NJ, MD, DE, and all six New England States. The Repub at that point would have 292 votes. Scenario #1 -- "The Western Path" would require Barack to also take CO, NM, NV, and IA giving him 272 votes. Scenario #2 -- The Florida Path" would require him to add only Florida giving him 275 votes. Scenario #3 -- The Southern Path" would require the addition only of NC, and VA giving him 274 votes. Scenario #4 -- "The Midwest Path" would require the addition only of IA and OH giving him 270 votes. And, Scenario #5 -- "The Expansion Path" would require the addition only of AZ giving him 272 votes. These would ALL be RED states turned to BLUE. From studying the closeness of each of these scenarios, anyone can see that what we really need is to turn a LARGE BLUE STATE into a RED one.

Jon Huntsman cannot turn a BLUE to RED because his State of Utah is already RED. Michele Bachmann would not turn her BLUE State of Minnesotta RED because 1) it is too solidly liberal having the distinction of being the only State that never went for Reagan and produced Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, 2) she is a Rep from one very small district and not a governor or Senator, 3) she is a woman in a time of war (with Islam and the Left), and 4) she is very short. Ron Paul would not turn a BLUE to a RED because he is from TX which is already RED. Rick Perry would not turn a BLUE to a RED also because he is from TX which is already RED. Newt Gingrich would not turn a BLUE State to a Red one because he is from GA which is already RED. We are thus left with Romney and Santorum by the process of elimination. Both are from BLUE States. All of this analysis is, of course, based on isolating the factor of REGIONALISM and any of the candidates could possibly turn some BLUE State(s) to RED for other reasons, but I think the chances of that are so slim and the race will be so close that we MUST emphasize that a LARGE State must be turned in order to maximize the spread of votes and "not take any chances".

If Romney turns Massachusetts RED, he will pick up only 12 votes. That may not be enough if Barack wins some RED State large enough to offset those. But Pennsylvania has 21 electoral votes. And, according to Ed Henry's report, that State is teetering on the fence between RED and BLUE. I believe that Rick Santorum will tip it into the RED and, thus, prevent Barack from ANY CHANCE OF WINNING by any of these five Scenarios. Do the math. And let's win next year's election based on MATH not EMOTION and infighting!

-- Ray Curtis, Houston, TX December 16, 2011

--RPC, Houston, TX

And, in honor of the Iranian's (and, thus, of the Muslim Brotherhood's) victory over us in aquiring our STEALTH TECHNOLOGY from our downed (or LANDED?) drone, here are some books about more weapons that should soon "mysteriously" fall into their hands. And, of course, anything that the Iranians get, the Chinese will get too. Sinister people in our country WANT these to have them. We may not be able to stop them, but God has prepared a nice VERY WARM lake for them to swim in.

--RPC, Houston, TX

--RPC, Houston, TX

--RPC, Houston, TX

And God Created Lenin -- Marxism vs. Religion in Russia 1917 - 1929
Paul Gabel, Prometheus Books, New York, 2005.

--RPC, Houston, TX

I finally got around to starting Jerome Corsi's book, Where's the Birth Certificate?, and was stunned to learn something on page 32. Corsi was in the midst of discussing other presidential contenders who had had questionable eligibility for that office under the "Natural-born Citizen" clause of Article 2, Section 1 of The Constitution. He discussed the Chester A. Arthur controversy and then listed four other men who had evoked the eligibilty question. The one that jumped out to me was -- George Romney. How many of us know that the former Governor of Michigan was born on July 8, 1907 -- IN MEXICO ? He was born in a small Mormon colony in the State of Chihuahua after the group fled persecution in the USA. His parents moved to southern California in 1912 because of the outbreak of revolution in Mexico in 1910. So, George came to America at age five. The question that immediately popped into my mind was, "as a Mexican citizen and new resident in the U.S., DID GEORGE ROMNEY EVER GO THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS TO BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN? If he never did, then his son Mitt, born in 1947 (in the USA) cannot run for President because BOTH of his parents must be U.S. citizens for that to be possible. I went to the Wikipedia article on "George Romney" to find out and found NO MENTION of his ever becoming a naturalized citizen! He ran for the Republican nomination for President in 1968, but that went to Richard Nixon. Romney died in 1995. I have no other books or articles on Governor Romney at this time and suggest that someone needs to do the necessary research on this issue. Records should exist with the INS if George Romney did go through the process. If he never did, then that means that the State of Michigan had a man as Governor who was not even a citizen of the USA! We may find ourselves in a repeat of the 2008 situation where BOTH candidates of the two major parties will be ineligible for the office they seek!

--RPC, Houston, TX

--RPC, Houston, TX

This is one of the two most important books in America right now (The other is Where's the Birth Certificate? by Dr. Jerome Corsi. But, that one is for next week). The basis of the book is that, our enemies control our energy spigot, and that, as such, they are able to finance terrorism against us while controlling our politicians with campaign cash and NGO "legitimacy" to maintain their grip. I like the way Bob opens chapter 5 - "In a number of card games such as bridge, . . . the hand is played with a special "trump" suit whose cards may overpower all others. It is a critical element of strategy of such games to see to it that the trump suit selected is the one in which your own team holds most of the cards. If you fail to do this, and instead allow your opponents to select their own long suit as the trump, you will end up playing the hand at a severe disadvantage. The same is true in the energy game. Right now oil is trump and . . . The United States is playing the game with a losing hand."

The key to getting the Saudi tentacles off of us is to change the energy trump. Our strong trump cards are coal, natural gas, and biomass. Alcohol can be made from each of these. Bob makes a VERY strong and VERY persuasive case that an alcohol economy is the real answer because not only can it fuel our entire auto fleet, but it can also lift third world countries out of poverty as they develope markets of biomass alcohol for themselves as well as for shipment to us. The Saudis will be fuming with anger as we reduce them to insignificance.

He discusses the miracle of Brazil's energy independence which can provide valuable lessons on how to kickstart a national vehicular fleet that is free of gasoline. And, after reading this, I strongly suspect the real reason that the Saudis (i.e. OPEC) lowered the oil price to $10/barrel in 1986. It was because they feared that the success of the Brazilian model might spread throughout the world. At that low price, Brazil's ethanol cars were uneconomical as gas was cheaper than their pure alcohol. People started dumping their "old" cars (if they could even sell) and started buying gas cars again. The Saudis must have been gloating over how "smart" they were. But, undaunted, the Brazilian government realized the problem and it's real solution: the original ethanol cars were just that - ethanol ONLY cars. The nation needed FLEX cars, those capable of using both alcohol and gas in a seamlessly interchangeable way. The technology existed as some flex cars were appearing in America by that time. The Brazilian government mandated that only FLEX vehicles could be sold in their country. The Saudis cried foul and realized that they must step up their control of our politicians and news media in order to keep a lid on the Brazilian success. They had lost control of one country; they weren't going to lose any others. They needed as many naive and weenie-woos American politicians as they could find to either keep in the dark or cower into silence.

The simple answer that Bob proposes is that our government MANDATE THAT ALL CARS SOLD IN THE U.S. BE FLEX VEHICLES. Then, a whole alcohol industry will spring up to support it and an effective cap of about $30/barrel will automattically be forced on oil by a truly free market. The "hydrogen economy" is a hoax, probably being backed right now by the Saudis to keep us diverted off of the real answer. Conservation also won't work. It is another joke, probably supported by the Saudis as well.

Getting ourselves free from Saudi tentacles is a national security issue. As such, a mandate for FLEX vehicles would be within the Constitutional powers of any President. May God have mercy on any politicians who are too blind, stupid, and ignorant to see all this!