Fat Lester Formally Endorses Newt Gingrich

The campaign of former House Speaker and current GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich received a major boost today when internet / social media extraordinaire Fat Lester officially endorsed the former Congressman from Georgia.

Fat Lester, whose real name is Peter Egan, had not previously endorsed a candidate, citing favorable views of numerous candidates early on in the GOP nominating contest, along with the fact that he personally knows more than one of the candidates originally in the race as reasons for refraining from issuing an endorsement.

(Newt Gingrich consults with NOLA Tea Party leaders including Fat Lester)

However, when Herman Cain announced that he was suspending his campaign in light of a series of frivolous, racially-motivated attacks by several women on the left who were allegedly paid millions combined in exchange for levying the false and defamatory charges. Needless to say, these women were acting on behalf of the Obama Administration/Campaign (they're one-in-the-same), including at least one Obama Administration employee and the next-door neighbor of Obama's speech writer, it left Gingrich as the only candidate in the race with whom Lester has spoken with at length and in person regarding the challenges facing the country and the solutions required to get the nation back on the right track.

(GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich and Right-Wing Conspirator Fat Lester)

That said, personal affiliation with a candidate was not the sole criteria upon which Lester based the decision. Lester is also a strong supporter of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and identifies with Santorum's views on most issues, in particular the one nobody likes to talk about: the "A-word".

(Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich introduces himself to the VRWC)

This conflict made endorsing a candidate difficult even after Cain, whom Lester had helped raise funds via a Tea Party Rally with over two thousand attendees (back before he'd even announced he was running) at which Cain was the keynote speaker; announced that his campaign was effectively over and that he (Cain) would be endorsing Gingrich. However, after three states have held their nominating contests, with Santorum's victory in Iowa failing to translate into momentum going forward, Lester decided Gingrich is the candidate most likely to defeat Obama in a 1-on-1 match-up due to his unnaturally high IQ (he must have 50 IQ points over Obama and no less than 120 over former Speaker Nancy Pelosi) as well as his superior debate skills.

(Naturally, the media was not invited to the closed-door session)

While Fat Lester had speculated back in June that Gingrich may ultimately represent the Republican Party's best shot at victory in 2012, he had withheld making an endorsement so early on in the campaign for obvious reasons, some of which are stated above.

Lester is not going to merely informally endorse the former Speaker by issuing a public announcement on one of his blogs. Rather, he will be putting his money (something he has very little of) where his mouth is, and will be making a financial contribution to both Gingrich and Santorum's respective campaigns, with Gingrich receiving roughly twice the amount that will be given to Santorum. Should the latter win any more states or do anything else that results in his building of momentum with the majority of states yet to vote, he will likely receive additional funding from Lester proportionate to any progress he makes in terms of gaining ground on Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

(Newt Gingrich thanks Fat Lester for his advice and endorsement)

Fat Lester would like to encourage anyone and everyone reading this who cares about the general welfare of the United States of America to do likewise and make a donation to the Gingrich campaign using the link below. He would like for you to do this regardless of who you are, what your party affiliation is or which candidate you're supporting. Anyone can donate, regardless of one's income.

DONATE TO NEWT'S CAMPAIGN

America's Next President Poses with Fat Lester's Sister

If Fat Lester can come up with $100 spread out over a few months, so can you. It's time we take our country back, and we're going to need everyone to chip in whatever they can in order to save the nation.

The most important people were seated closest to the candidate

Another four years of Obama holding the office of the Presidency, and the United States will look more like Cuba than the prosperous one-time superpower where anyone who was willing to work hard could achieve success not attainable in most places throughout the world.

Fat Lester believes Newt Gingrich is the candidate with the best chance to take in 57+% of the vote required to win after the millions of fraudulent votes that will be cast by democrats are accounted for. In swing states, the real number needed to win could reach as high as 63-64%. In order to win this election, we will need to get 100% of the eligible voters in this country who want to preserve the freedom, prosperity and opportunity for which America was founded and will always be remembered (in the event Obama wins and the nation is disassembled or integrated into a North American Union). In order to do that, we will need to contribute whatever we can without losing our homes or failing to put food on our respective tables.

Please donate to Newt's campaign. If you support Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, donate to them as well. Fat Lester will be donating $120, $80 to the Gingrich campaign and $40 to the Santorum campaign. Please make one sacrifice on an item you can live without (as long as it's not something you're considering buying from Fat Lester or his affiliated businesses ;-), and instead use that money to help defeat the great American Saboteur-in-Chief.

---

On a totally separate note, it appears Mitt Romney's got some problems on the horizon:

Small Business Directory Inadvertently Opens Door for Competition

LOS ANGELES, CA - Like most everyone else throwing their two cents into the discussion over the 2012 edition of Merchant Circle versus the community we'd all grown to know and love, I'd like to personally take this opportunity to state on record my opposition to MerchantCircle's 2012 overhaul of the site design and functionality.

Merchants who contribute content should be rewarded for their efforts, and before January of 2012 they were. Now, our blog posts aren't even featured on our company homepage, nor are our products, photos or coupons. The fact that MC has shifted focus away from those creating content and towards those paying for placement is a move that will undoubtedly upset a number of business owners in addition to myself, opening the proverbial door of opportunity for competitors to move in on the space the old MC had occupied.

Merchant Circle's 2012 overhaul has angered users, opening the door for competitors to move in.

Instead of the 2011 profiles, which largely featured a merchant's contributions on his or her own small business' homepage on the site, those pages now have more ads to competitors' pages and websites, with only reviews displayed beneath the company bio on company homepages. The category links that once appeared on my Merchant Circle company homepage are now gone, as is the Google +1 button (although it remains on some of the pages that haven't yet adopted the new design).

Many formerly free features now cost far more than fair market value based on pricing for similar services at those few companies who do charge for them.

Rather than labor for the benefit of companies with the resources to pay to be prominently featured on my Merchant Circle company homepage that doesn't even link to my recent blog posts, photos, coupons or deals, I will instead most likely be spending more time on similar sites --- alternatives to Merchant Circle --- preferably sites that won't use bait-and-switch tactics to trick users to generate loads of free content, only to see the commercial benefit of said content be taken away from them.

One such site is called StoreBoard. At StoreBoard, you have a company profile, such as the one I have already created for Egan Medical. Like Merchant Circle, companies get their own blog, and can add coupons, list products in the marketplace, post images, classifieds and even links to their company's respective site-within-a-site.

The company blogs are superior to those at MC as the option to add photographs to posts actually functions properly, meaning the photo actually appears, and all text and HTML show beneath the photo also appears on the page for each respective post. As most users of Merchant Circle who've tried to add photos to blog posts without completely coding the entire page from scratch, the photos usually don't appear, and all text/HTML appearing beneath the photo does not appear either. I once lost more than an hour's work because I forgot to independently save a copy of my MC blog post on my own computer, and lost it when I attempted to include a photo in the post, only to find that all photos and everything appearing beneath them just gets deleted on MC blogs. StoreBoard blogs also give the user superior formatting options compared to those offered by MC.

Here is an example post by Egan Medical Equipment about a new line of products (maternity supports, to be specific) which now are available for purchase through the company's online store: Egan Medical Unveils New Line of Maternity Supports.

Obviously, the site is newer and not as powerful, so the benefit of your activity there won't have the immediate and meaningful impact being featured prominently at Merchant Circle once had.


In fact, each company gets its own links page, and as long as the links don't violate the company's terms of service, users can pretty much post anything they think their customers will appreciate, be it links to products, articles, news stories or whatever else might be useful.

Like Merchant Circle, all that is displayed on a given company's homepage is their bio and contact info (including website link). However, I haven't seen any ads for competitors either while logged in or out, so if they exist they're minimal and out-of-the-way, and you won't see your hard work serve to benefit a larger competitor with a bigger advertising budget.

While we're on the topic of new competitors to the Small Business Online Directory business, one not-so-new player is making a new and significant push to add features that might lure users away from competitors such as MC. Well known, established directory site Manta has added a number of features that will definitely appeal to merchants, and which are superior to the comparable features offered by MC.
Take for example this product page, which is more like a general category page about maternity supports (basically an orthopedic support for women during pregnancy) than a singular product page. The maternity supports page was recently created for a small business profile at Manta. Observe the large photo of the product, the ability to list either a singular price for a specific item or a price range for a class or group of items. Also, observe the length of the product description, which far outpaces the amount of space given by MC for product pages, and even then there were no links to the actual product page on the merchant's website. Manta has all that and more. While I'm no profit, it would seem a logical conclusion that Manta may be soon offering merchants the opportunity to blog directly from their Manta profile, which would get Manta up-to-par in terms of everyone else in the business with regard to the amount and extent of features available to merchants willing to spend their time creating content for the site for free in exchange for a small but sometimes meaningful bit of a promotional opportunity and benefit.

Unless and until Manta and StoreBoard "pull a MerchantCircle" and revokes the most appealing features of its site for the benefit of a handful of each industry's largest and richest players, I will likely be spending as much if not more time developing Egan Medical's presence within the StoreBoard community as I will continue to spend here on Merchant Circle.

I'll also stop paying for a certain Merchant Circle paid upgrade if said upgrade (they know to which one I am referring) fails to reappear on my company profile within the next 7 days.

Anyway, I hope someone at Merchant Circle is eventually made aware of all the displeasure among business owners and their respective employees about the recent overhaul of Merchant Circle's design and functionality, and I sincerely hope the big MC can get it together and make real improvements rather than changes that prey upon small business owners as much as they help them.

How Evil is George Soros?

Is George Soros the world's most evil man? The question relates to and includes women too, for whatever it's worth. I have my reasons for phrasing it in an exclusively male context (If you must know... In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that any woman who is not an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend --- your ex-wife or girlfriend to be specific, not just anyone's --- could be more evil than the world's most evil man? . . . I didn't think so).

Is he (Soros) even evil to begin with? Or, is it possible for a person to be as genuinely confused about right-and-wrong as Uncle Soros would have us all believe is the case with himself?

The question unfortunately begs numerous other questions best left to a theologian to answer. Some of these include:

• What is evil?
• Is evil defined by actions, behaviors, words, beliefs and/or some combination thereof?
• Who is to say what is evil?
• Is morality relative? What about ethics?
• Is it possible that some people who are born with fully functioning brains and organs lack what most of us would refer to as a conscience?
• Who am I to judge ("Judge not, lest thee be judged")?
• Can evil exist without the existence of God (a question for athiests and agnostics, obviously)?
• Does evil exist period?

Is there a certain threshold as to what constitutes evil in any sense (actions, thoughts, behaviors, etc.), or is whether or not something "is evil" determined on a case-by-case basis? If so, by whom (another question for non-believers, who for the record I am not judging in any way, shape, manner or form, and against whom I have not one iota of angst)?

I'm not going to attempt to answer any of those questions, but for those who wish to delve into them further, I will provide to the resources I utilize to help wrap my mind around these concepts:

• Regarding Moral Conscience
• Regarding Good and Evil
• Regarding the Nature and Sources of Morality
• Regarding Sin

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other person that is alive at present that I'd consider to be "more" evil than George Soros, at least according to my understanding of evil*. And yes, that includes serial killers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (whom I'm still 98% certain died in 2007 or 2008, but is still "officially" alive, so he's included here for the purposes of conversation).
In the case of Ahmadinejad, while he may aspire to kill more Jews than Hitler himself was responsible for murdering, he lacks the capacity to single-handedly orchestrate such a massacre, and could only succeed in doing so with significant help from George Soros --- which he has gotten. That said, Soros has the ability to put a stop to the nutjob in Iran if he wished to do so. Unfortunately, he does not, and in fact has been an integral part of Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons, not to mention the fact that for at least the past three years, Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without a hitch, but with the blessing of the U.S. Commander in Chief, who as we all know was hand-picked by Soros, who propagandized America for long enough to get him elected. Not that he really needed to, Soros' SOS Project (SOS is an acronym for Secratary of State, which makes the complete name of this sinister undertaking by George Soros the Secretary of State Project) has been such an unprecedented success that Obama would only have needed to win about 35% of the popular vote in any of the states he won in order to "win" those states.

For anyone unfamiliar with the SOS Project, Soros funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into statewide elections for the position of Secretary of State. He did this across the entire United States. The mission behind Project SOS is to ensure that in any election between a democrat and a Republican in which the statewide demographics are such that a democrat victory would be anything less than proposerous to even conceive of --- meaning that a vast majority of the voting population would be less than 100% certain of a fraudulent outcome should the democrat emerge on top --- that the democrat wins each and every one of those elections regardless of what it takes to meet those ends.

The responsibilities of the Secretary of State on a statewide level are far different than the position at the federal level. For states, the SoS's job is typically to oversee business and corporate filings, and to manage and coordinate elections for each given state. Relative to any other position in a typical U.S. state government, the SoS has the most power to illegally influence the outcome of an election in a variety of ways, and Soros' minions have figured out all of them, mastering most in the process.

Take the 2010 Nevada election for U.S. Senate between Harry Reid (who has been termed the "Second-Most Evil Man in America") and Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle. All of the polls leading up to and even on election day (exit polls in the case of election day itself) showed Angle with a comfortable lead ranging from 3.5 - 5.5 percentage points. Not a blowout by any stretch of the imagination, but outside the margin of error for all but a few of the more obscure polls that were released. Nevada's Secretary of State, who was effectively appointed by Soros via the SOS Project, contracted with --- of all people --- the SEIU (an uber-liberal, proactive democrat PAC. The name is an acronym for the Service Employees International Union) to manage, maintain and perform "maintenance" on Nevada's electronic voting machines.

This directly resulted in two (2) different types of election fraud. Not surprisingly, both just "happened" to work to Harry Reid's advantage. The two different forms of mass election fraud from Nevada's 2010 race are:

1. Thousands and perhaps even tens of thousands of the machines were pre-programmed to cast votes for Harry Reid. Upon each vote being registered and the voting form cleared for the next voter, the device was set to vote for Harry Reid by default!! Wait, it gets worse. When intelligent and informed voters with stable minds went in to cast their ballots, hundreds of voters observed their vote for Sharon Angle switched at the last second by the machine. The switch occurred after the voter had pressed the "cast ballot" button, but was apparently visible for just long enough for several hundred voters to take notice. We can only guess at how many hundreds or thousands just pressed the button and left the polling place, never even stopping to consider that a United States Senator would resort to such scandalous and illegal tactics for the purpose of subverting the democratic process and the will of the people.
2. In heavily democratic precincts (those most predictable and most likely to favor Reid over Angle by a wide margin based on demographics and past voter behavior alone), numerous precincts submitted more votes than there were registered voters residing within and/or registered to vote within the precinct. For anyone wondering how that happens, there are two scenarios that in all likelihood both occurred. The first involved the same people voting more than once. It's no secret that this goes on in every election involving a democrat without exception, and has ever since the days when the democrat party was heavily aligned with the Klan (sadly, not much has changed on that front), with both organizations' (the democrats and the KKK) primary objective being the subversion of the rights of black U.S. citizens. The second scenario us unfortunately also fairly common in elections involving democrats. This latter scenario involves union thugs simply pulling the lever over-and-over again for Reid after the polls had closed.

When all was said and done, Harry Reid was "reelected" by a slim margin. TRANSLATION: Sharon Angle won the election by 6-10 percentage points, but Reid was reelected anyway due to the rampant fraud that occurred, which was on display for all to see, and of which little attempt was made by the guilty parties to conceal the sinister actions and intents. With a so-called Department of Justice that is in cahoots with Reid, Obama and the democrats, it came as little surprise that there was no federal investigation into these widely documented reports and claims, for which the evidence is so readily available one could fill the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans with all the witnesses and documents supportive of the allegations.

The point of this story is that none of this (Harry Reid's fraudulent reelection) would have been possible if it weren't for a Hungarian-born devil of a man by the name of George Soros.

VIDEO: George Soros Discussing China's
Role in the New World Order





* NOTE: For the purposes of discussion and debate, I am obviously taking a leave of absence from my usual approach of deferring judgment to someone I deem more qualified than myself to judge other human beings (that would be God, for those of you in Eugene, Oregon).

Newt May Be GOP's Best Matchup vs Obama

Newt a Sure-Thing Winner Over Obama in 2012

While Newt Gingrich's campaign staff may be in need of a makeover, he still remains an exceptional candidate. In a one-on-one matchup versus Barack Obama, Newt may well represent the GOP's best shot.

Newt Gingrich at the RLC in New Orleans

Where Newt elevates himself from the rest of the pack is in the specifics of his proposed policies and solutions. He is by far the best of the candidates in the current field at articulating the specific reasons why Obama's policies are destructive for the country, what he would do to correct the problems Obama has caused and why.

I had the privilege during last year's SRLC (Southern Republican Leadership Conference) in New Orleans of attending a private meeting with the former House Speaker in which he met with local Tea Party leaders to discuss the direction of the country. I was extremely impressed with Gingrich's depth and breadth of knowledge about the intricacies of the problems facing the country - both in a practical as well as a legislative sense. Newt would not only win the election should he get the nomination, he has the answers to actually fix the problems plaguing the country.

When I try to envision how each candidate in the GOP primary field would fare in a one-on-one election versus Obama, I see Newt being the least risky candidate. I just cannot see Obama defeating Gingrich in a mono-a-mono matchup. I can't say that about the rest of the candidates.

Newt is probably the most intelligent of the bunch --- the man is a certifiable genius. He is the most accomplished as a legislator, having balanced a budget and secured tax cuts in spite of the Clinton White House. Newt is also probably the best debater of the lot, especially when the debate is occurring between Obama and a Republican.

Make no mistake, Newt would absolutely obliterate Obama in a debate. It wouldn't even be close - not even remotely so. The extent of the shellacking would excite Republicans to cheer him like rabid LSU fans in Tiger Stadium in a home-game against Auburn, while sending Democrats running for cover.

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the field for the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary features a number of very strong and extremely qualified candidates. Of those candidates, it is my belief at this point that Gingrich offers the best shot at defeating Obama.

Newt at the RLC in New Orleans



Newt Announces 2012 GOP Candidacy



Newt in the New Hampshire GOP Primary Debate

Crowded Conservative GOP Field Bodes Well for Moderates

For the record, I do still fear that my two favorite candidates for the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination (Herman Cain and Ron Paul) may hurt each other's candidacies by splitting the Tea Party vote and thus diluting each of their chances to capture statewide races, which in turn could potentially result in another moderate winning the nomination - not because he or she is the most popular candidate, but because the other cluster of candidates were too similar on the issues for any one of them to distinguish themselves enough to outshine the rest.

For example, if four in every five of Republican voters want a strong conservative to win the nomination, and there are eight strong conservatives and one moderate in the race, the moderate could end up winning the party nod by virtue of the other candidates destroying each other's chances by splitting up the conservative and Tea Party votes such that a moderate with 20% of the vote would defeat eight candidates who average 10% each, with none of them eclipsing the 20% held by the moderate.

We all saw how well the moderate Republican fared against Obama in 2008. I hope the the candidates do not allow their personal ambitions to work counterproductive to each of their stated goals by dividing up the conservative vote in such a way that the least desirable candidate gets in thanks to the crowded field of hard-right candidates.

War on Drugs May Work to Ron Paul's Advantage in 2012

The U.S. government's insane bipartisan position on the "need" for the War on Drugs may well be the issue that converts me into a Ron Paul supporter before all is said and done.

I've already stated my support for Government outsider Herman Cain in the 2012 Republican Primaries. However, with so many good candidates in the race, my vote will factor in performance of the respective candidates in the primary elections leading up to the Louisiana GOP Primary. Specifically, I am not going to vote for a candidate who hasn't won a primary by the time Louisiana's nominating contest rolls around, and I reserve the right to vote for a candidate who may not necessarily be my first choice based on among other things, a candidates respective standings in the race to be the party's 2012 Presidential nominee.

So while Herman Cain may be my first choice, and while I would ideally like to see him win the party nomination (and ask Ron Paul to be his running mate), should Cain fail to make a splash in the states leading up to Louisiana's primary, I may well cast my vote for someone whose campaign is in play for the nomination. My first choice among the other candidates Cain excluded is Ron Paul, who is almost neck-and-neck with Cain in the race to win over my vote. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are in a virtual tie for third, and I could feasibly see myself voting for any of these candidates should the others fall out of contention early on.

Of the four names mentioned, the one who has gained the most traction with me as a voter and Tea Party activist in the time since the 2008 elections is Ron Paul. Many of my readers may remember my cold reception to Ron Paul's candidacy in 2008, even as he took the digital world by storm with his staunch libertarian beliefs and apparent disdain for the government.

I did not consider Congressman Paul to be a serious candidate in 2008. My how things have changed. I not only would consider voting for Paul in the GOP Primary this go-round, I have an unprecedented level of optimism for both he and Cain --- two candidates who in other election cycles would have been quickly relegated to the realm of "fringe candidates" who are quickly dismissed by the media and voters alike. Typically, these candidates might get a few percentage points in each of their party's primary elections, but never come close to actually winning one.

I believe the political dynamics this go-round are markedly different from any other election cycle in my lifetime, and I think the very same positions on the very same issues and dynamics that in years past would all but disqualify men like Ron Paul and Herman Cain may not only work to their advantage this time around, but may even be significant enough to put both men into real contention.

There are just so many things wrong with the so-called war on drugs. First and foremost, the very premise of such prohibitions are un-American and unconstitutional. America's war on drugs has created a real war in Mexico pitting the nation, its government and its law enforcement agencies against drug-gang militias that have killed tens of thousands of people in the last few years alone.

How many lives must be lost before the U.S. government decides to start behaving like adults with regard to the issue? How many non-violent Americans whose only crime was pursuing happiness in a manner the U.S. government deems illegitimate must be locked up, taken away from their families, losing their jobs and any prospect of a normal remainder of their lives in the process before Americans say "enough is enough".

For all the Democrats' nefarious behavior in terms of their rewarding campaign contributors with big government contracts, bailouts and other corporate welfare, the Republicans are on-par in their support of the "Big Law Enforcement" industry, whose lobby is hell-bent on seeing to it that drugs remain illegal for the foreseeable future.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who I am confident would do everything within his capability to end this expensive and ultimately counter-productive war. In the end, that may go an awfully long way to securing my vote in Louisiana.

Author's Note:  For the record, my position regarding the war on drugs is in no way an endorsement of use and/or abuse of illicit substances. I do believe addiction in America is a serious problem, but one that is not solved by incarcerating Americans who develop addictions to mood-altering chemicals. A propensity to abuse alcohol and drugs is passed down genetically from addicts to their children. Technically, addictive disorders are a medical illness, and putting people in jail for suffering from a genetic illness seems as un-American to me as anything with which I am familiar.

Governor Haley Barbour Tests Presidential Waters at CPAC

Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of Mississippi, appeared by all accounts to be testing the political waters with GOP voters in preparation for a potential 2012 presidential run when he addressed a youthful and exuberant crowd during CPAC's (Conservative Political Action Conference) 2011 annual gathering.

I was lucky enough to have had the opportunity to meet Governor Barbour back in 2004 at a fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's '04 Congressional campaign, for whom worked as a grassroots intern.

Granted, back then he was just "Bobby" as at that time had never held elected office, and he insisted back then that his staff and interns refer to him only as "Bobby", not "Mr. Jindal", not "Soon-To-Be-Congressman-Elect," just Bobby.  At the time, the current LA Governor was all of 33 years of age.

Anyway, it was an honor and privilege to meet the newly-elected Governor of Mississippi back in 2004 while working for the current Governor of neighboring Louisiana.

I can honestly say that I've met no less than three of the top seven or eight names mentioned in terms of possibilities for the 2012 GOP Presidential ticket, although one of those would most likely only appear on any prospective ticket as the VP nominee.  For anyone who may be tempted to question by credibility when I make bold statements about my involvement and association with the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Read more about Governor Barbour's CPAC speech:  http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/12/barbour-tells-cpac-its-all-about-white-house-0

GOP Should Focus on Defeating Obama in 2012, Not Before

This post is in response to calls from folks on the right for President Barack Obama to resign, and also to those calling for his impeachment.

Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with many of these people. I agree with many of the reasons they cite as to why President Obama should resign or face impeachment. I do not necessarily agree with all of them, but with enough that I normally wouldn't go out of my way to argue with them.

However, in this case, I believe the issue is one of strategy first and foremost. From a purely strategic perspective, I think that a Republican electoral victory in 2012 would be far more likely to yield more of the actual desired legislative goals than would likely become reality should the President resign prior to the completion of his term.

For starters, both Obama and Biden would have to resign in order for it to do any good. That scenario is extremely unlikely, as the Democrats would not sit idly while high-ranking members of their party put a Republican in the white house without an election. That said, an Obama resignation without one by Biden means a Joe Biden Presidency, which most Americans should agree is an absolutely terrifying scenario.

The damage the Democrats have inflicted upon America is done, and they're limited in how much more damage they can do before the next round of elections. While we won't be able to undo any of the damage without the Presidency at the very least (although it would still be difficult without the Senate), we can at least do damage control while keeping the issues that contributed to the 2010 GOP sweep on the table and in the forefront.

If Obama is President for the next two years, the Republican-controlled house can pass a new repeal of Obamacare every week until either it passes and the President signs it, or until the 2012 elections take place, whichever comes first.

The GOP can submit budget bills that dramatically reduce the size of the federal budget, forcing the Democrats to veto economic measures that will be wildly popular among the voting public.

They can pass legislation that they know will either die in the Senate or will receive a Presidential veto, solely for the purpose of forcing Obama and Senate Democrats repeatedly take unpopular measures in either the Senate failing to approve the bills or the President vetoing them.

They can only do all of this if Obama is President. Obama's resignation would generate unprecedented sympathy for him, while stifling any and all good will the Republicans have earned from voters in the past few years.

Even if he did resign, would a President Biden really be any better? They'd both need to resign in order for the GOP to gain any governing power from the move. Even still, the Dems would control the Senate and could filibuster anything the GOP wanted to get done.

If the GOP waits until 2012 to unseat Obama, they very well may win the Senate, perhaps even by a considerable margin. This would be crucial if the party seriously plans to repeal as much of the past two years as possible legislatively speaking. Remember, all it takes is 40 Senators or one President to stop legislation from becoming law.

In light of everything outlined above, it makes much more strategic sense to me for Republicans and Tea Party independents to actively work toward 2012 rather than push for a resignation or an impeachment prior to the next election cycle.

While an embattled Obama resigning amid shame and controversy might be enjoyable to witness, it would not necessarily help the GOP accomplish anything legislatively. In order to really repair the damage the Democrats have done since over the past four years, the Republicans will need both the Senate and the Presidency in addition to their existing majority in the House. Emotional gains at this juncture are not worth the potential costs, especially if they distract us from the primary goal, which should be to unseat as many of these Democrats as possible (Obama included) in 2012.