Okay, I think all of us have heard the story by now. There was an incident in which a 17-year-old boy ended up shot dead in an altercation. However, even though it’s been over a month since this case began, we really don’t know much more about the case than we did when this first hit the news.

Speaking for myself, I do not know whether or not Zimmermann is guilty or if he acted in self-defense. None of us know enough about the facts of the case to make any kind of intelligent judgments.

What we’ve learned a lot more about is what the media has become over the past decade. Nobody has been arrested, but even without knowing all the facts, the media has already rushed to judgment. Zimmermann is considered guilty and we haven’t even had a trial yet. It’s also assumed that this is a hate crime and that the shooting is racially motivated.

Unfortunately, it’s even worse than just rushing to judgment prematurely. We have had numerous news organization, NBC chief among them, outright lying and misrepresenting what facts that we currently know.

The edited version of the police call had Zimmermann saying this: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” Certainly sounds like someone who has a prejudice against minorities.

Except the unedited clip was this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy–is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

There’s no way that this was simply an oversight; they deliberately lied to portray this as racially motivated.

When you look at the police video of him walking into the station, if you look carefully, there’s something on his head that looks like a gash or wound. However, ABC news, who showed this image on their programs, made no mention of it and claimed that there was no sign of injury.

As a result of all this, we’re having numerous groups screaming for justice, but a lot of it sounds more like revenge. The New Black Panther Party has put a price on Zimmermann’s head, which they claim will soon be a million dollars. Spike Lee tweeted what he thought was Zimmermann’s address, terrifying an elderly couple who actually lived there. His family has already received death threats; his father refused to show his face out of fear that he would be marked. This is not how a civilized society behaves.

Of course, we have groups rushing to exploit this death for political gain. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are already taking to the streets, the former live on MSNBC. I doubt either of them really care about Martin’s death, but this gives them a political platform and both of them are drawn to publicity like a cat to catnip.

We’ve learned very little about the actual facts of the case. We’ve learned far more about what the media and politicians will do to promote their desired narrative.

In these difficult economic times, I can understand why this might be a secondary priority to people, but what’s going on overseas is extremely important. The world’s looking less stable by the day and our president has given a sign of weakness.

However, my eyes are not where many people are looking: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya. I believe there’s a major threat that we’re overlooking: China.

I’ve been watching them for months and the more I learn, the more alarmed I become. Over the past several years, they have been rapidly building up their armed forces, preparing to launch their first carrier, testing a new generation of ballistic missiles, including anti-satellite weapons, and expanding their air force and air defenses.

To put this in perspective, here is their official military budget from 2001 to 2011.

2001: 17 billion

2002: 20 billion (increase of 17.6 percent)

2003: 22 billion

2004: 25 billion (11.6 percent increase)

2005: 29.9 billion (12.6 percent increase)

2006:  35 billion (14.7 percent increase)

2007: 45 billion (17.8 percent increase)

2008: 59 billion (18 percent increase)

2009: 70 billion (14.9 percent increase)

2010: 78 billion (11 percent increase)

2011: 91.5 billion (12.7 percent increase)

Based on the data, their military budget has multiplied over 5 times in the past 10 years. Sometime in March, they will announce their military budget for this year, which I expect will be around 105 billion.

Now even though their increase has been very rapid, our military plans to spend 662 billion this year, so we’re 6.5 times larger than they are. Ergo, there’s not much to worry about, right?

Well, not quite. There’s a widespread belief, and I happen to share it that their real military spending is far higher than the official figure. I’ve seen some estimates go as high as 2.5 times their official budget. I wouldn’t put it that high, but based on what I know about their military, I would put it at 60-70 percent higher than the official budget, in addition to things that may not be officially on the books. That would make the unofficial budget about 150 billion.

Now let’s use it against our budget in Purchasing Power Parity terms. Ours is put at 100, since we’re still the world’s leading economy. Theirs hovers around 60, so the same goods and services, assuming they can afford them, which most can’t, would cost 60 percent as much. If you apply that to their military budget 150 times 1.6 is 250 billion.

In addition, let’s look at their increasingly aggressive behavior over the past several years. They have staked claims to virtually the entire South China Sea, overlapping with the claims of Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Late last year, the Philippines were told to “Prepare for the sound of cannons”.

In 2005, a high-ranking officer in the Chinese army said the following: “If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond. We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian [a city in central China]. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

A year later, a diplomat and at the time Chinese ambassador to the U.N. also said this at the top of his lungs:

“The moment that Taiwan declares independence, supported by whomever, China will have no choice but to [use] whatever means available to my government. Nobody should have any illusions on that. …

It’s not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one INCH of the territory is more valuable than the LIVES of our people.”

It’s better for the U.S. to shut up, keep quiet. That’s much, much better. China’s population is 6 times or 5 times the United States. Why blame China? No. forget it. It’s high time to shut up. It’s a nation’s sovereign right to do what is good for them. But don’t tell us what’s good for China. Thank you very much.”

China is a country that we need to start looking at and looking at with far more scrutiny than we currently are. At the rate they’re building up, they will match our military capability in 6-10 years and unlike us, they don’t have overseas commitments all over the world.Let’s remember the last time a country rapidly mobilized and concealed as much of it as they possibly could.

As the election nears, I can’t help but ask myself a question: why did we elect Barack Obama in the first place?

The first is the economy; things were rapidly falling apart by the end of 2008, collapsing just in time for ensure his election. McCain was a poor candidate as well, but in all fairness, I don’t think any Republican could have beaten him, considering the environment.

The second, and the biggest reason, however is that we were voting for the fantasy Obama, not the real Obama. Whatever you might think of his presidency, he was a skilled campaigner and much of the country fell in love with him. Because of that, though, they didn’t listen to what he was actually saying. His slogan was “Change you can believe in”.  He promised to fundamentally transform our country, but not many people bothered to ask what he meant by that. The media was promoting him 24 hours a day, not even pretending to be objective anymore.

Much as I’m ashamed to admit it, I actually supported Obama for a brief period in 2008. I had grown very unhappy with the Republican party at that time, since they had become a party of big spending and big deficits. I didn’t support him the way many of my peers did, but I believed he was worth serious consideration. However, when I heard his wife state that “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country”, I realized who this guy was and immediately withdrew my support.

After that, I saw what kind of person he was and tried to tell others. The typical response was being blown off, particularly among people my age. They kept telling me that I didn’t “understand” Obama and that he was going to bring about “change” and fix all of our problems. When he was newly elected, I was also told: “He’ll move to the center; he has to.”

Nevertheless, even I underestimated what he was going to do. I knew he had a big spending program planned, but I never imagined that he would end up expanding government by 30 percent in a single year.

In addition, I didn’t expect him to essentially nationalize the car industry, along with many of the banks. He claimed that this is only temporary until they get back on their feet, but that was a bald-faced lie. Once government claims power, they very rarely give it up. Not only that, but he was trying to push a health care bill down the throats of a public who didn’t want it.

This is when things took a scary turn. I went on the White House website and saw where it instructed people to let them know if people were saying anything “fishy” about the health care bill. We were supposed to give them their e-mail address and they would set them straight. I’ve repeated this story many times and receive a lot of skepticism, but I saw that with my own eyes! This is not what I was expecting in the United States of America.

Let’s not forget how his political opponents were treated. His mentions of bipartisanship disappeared immediately after he realized that not everyone shared his vision for the country. Just look at how the Tea party was treated in the media; they were considered stupid, idiotic racists for daring to oppose Obama. I saw this on virtually every mainstream media program. The only reason they tuned it on a little bit is because it was costing them dearly in ratings; their opinions of the tea party haven’t changed a bit.

Now we’re hearing his claims that he’s serious about reducing spending and reducing the deficit. Let’s analyze that, shall we?

By no means am I going to let Bush and the Republicans off the hook. Their spending was getting out of control too, but even though Obama claimed that the deficit would be cut in half by the end of his first term, he more than tripled it in a single year.

The Simpson-Bowles commission was appointed to find way to cut spending and reduce the deficit. They ended up coming out with answers, giving ways that we could cut more than 4 trillion of debt over the next decade. Obama could have said that he would listen to the recommendations of the people he appointed, but instead, he ignored them and threw them under the bus. I’d say that’s a pretty good sign that he has no intention of cutting spending at all.

I was told that after the mid-term landslide that he would wake up and make some moves to get control of the deficit, if nothing else because he wants a second term. Clinton did that, albeit kicking and screaming, and it was assumed that Obama would do so too. Nope, he’s only doubled down on his positions and if anything, he’s moved farther to the left.

Think of the near government shutdown in April. The Democrats and Obama screamed their heads off, saying that the republicans are looking out for the wealthy, and that these cuts would cause enormous harm to the country. How much did they end up cutting? Let me think… about 400 million dollars, roughly how much we borrow in 2.5 hours. Look at what happened over cuts that meant nothing.

We saw this again in the debt ceiling debate. The only thing Obama was doing is accusing the Republicans of playing games with the country’s future, warning that seniors citizens would not get their checks if the debt ceiling was not raised. He didn’t threatened welfare, or other government organizations; he decided to use scare tactics to further his big-spending agenda. They set up a super-committee to find 1.2 trillion to cut over the next decade; nothing happened. It wasn’t meant to go anywhere; this was nothing but a political calculation.

Don’t worry, though, there are some cuts he’s willing to make: the military. Why is that always the first on the chopping block? Granted, I think we could probably save money by cutting waste out of the military budget, but he has refused to consider cutting anything else. If we’re going to cut waste, look for waste in every program, not just the military budget.

Even more good news: his website attackwatch.com. This is where we’re supposed to report if anyone has been spreading “lies” and “falsehoods” about President Obama. He evidently didn’t listen the first time and I sometimes feel like we’re living in “It Can’t Happen Here”.

All in all, he has added more debt in three years that Bush managed in eight. Our debt has already exceeded GDP and will be over 16 trillion by the time the election rolls around. However, I listened to one of his speeches where he said that everything he has achieved is on the line in this election. He has no intention of cutting a dime and if anything, he will only raise spending even higher. Just look at Europe to see what kind of fate that’s going to lead us to.

Obama has to be stopped. He must be a one-term president. Granted, I don’t see miracles occurring under the republicans, but any of the Republican candidates are better than what we would see under a second term of Obama.

Okay, considering my distaste for the presidential candidate, he’s the last person I ever expected to defend. However, considering what’s coming out, I feel like there really isn’t any choice.

I’m watching the ads about Bain Capital, and here’s what I can point out: they bought up failing companies and tried to turn them around and sell them for a profit. Sometimes they succeed in doing so, but sometimes in spite of everything, the company goes under.

This means that even if Bain had not bought up those businesses and had done nothing, these people would still have lost their jobs because the companies would have gone bankrupt regardless. You really can’t blame that on Romney.

By the very nature of capitalism, some people fail. Not everybody makes it; what capitalism is meant to do is give everyone a chance of success. That doesn’t mean that they will succeed. By making this argument, all Romney’s opponents are doing is giving Obama more ammunition to use against him in the general election should he get the nomination (and however much I hate to utter these words, he will likely be the nominee)

While I support him, I am disappointed that Perry has chosen to use this as a method of attack against. He’s supposed to be a true, free-market conservative, and it’s why I decided to throw my support behind him.

However, that is trivial compared to what Gingrich has decided to do. He’s an extremely arrogant man, saw himself as the inevitable nominee, but the ads had essentially robbed him of his chance at greatness. He ran a positive campaign and for a while, seemed like a breath of fresh air in the political maelstrom. Realizing that he’s not going to win the nomination, it seems like what he’s decided to do is launch a kamikaze attack against Romney. This is Gingrich’s darker side and it’s really beginning to show itself. He’s losing my respect by the minute.

The Republican Party is supposed to be a party that supports free-market capitalism, a favorable business environment, and believes in small government. They’re supposed to have a winning message against Barack Obama. Instead, it seems like they’ve decided to complete collapse into infighting and useless. When a nutcase like Ron Paul is in second place in the primary, we’ve got some major problems.

If Romney’s opponents want to hit him and bring down his lead, there are far more legitimate methods of doing so. The biggest one is of course the Massachusetts health care bill, which was the basis for Obamacare and to this day, he has refused to denounce it. That’s a glaring weakness, but they don’t seem willing to use it against him.

A second big weakness is that he’s taken one political position after another. I will be fair and state that people do change their minds over time, but he has been around so many times, it’s hard to know what his beliefs really are. Not only that, but he has failed to give a satisfactory explanation for why he has changed his positions, meaning that this is likely political opportunism.

Both of these are strong arguments that can be used to harm his campaign. Instead, his opponents are writing Obama’s re-election campaign. People call the Republicans the stupid party; this charade is the reason.

I am not a Mitt Romney supporter, but this is just repulsive.

Okay, I know this is a bit late, but here’s my impression of the New Hampshire debate.

Romney had a good night tonight and wasn’t hit nearly as hard as many people were expecting. One of his strongest moments was where he stated that any of the candidates would do a better job than our current president. He spent most of his time hammering Obama’s failures, rather than going after his republican opponents. From the looks of things, he’s going to end up being the Republican nominee. The only moment where he didn’t do as well was when he stumbled when the moderators were hammering him.

Perry’s strongest moments are when he touted his job record in Texas and talking about how the country needs an outsider to get the country working again, doing everything in his power to distinguish himself from the other candidates. When talking about his economic plans and his energy policy is where he manages to do well, stating that we have hundreds of years worth of energy under the ground.

However, I have to say where he didn’t do so well is when he said that we should send our troops back into Iraq, although I wouldn’t go so far as to call it campaign suicide. Granted, he gave some legitimate reasons, like the fears of Iran gaining influence, and not losing what we fought so hard to achieve, but that being said, that certainly isn’t going to help him any. This is the clip that will go viral, I guarantee you. Overall, he survived, but he didn’t give a sensational performance.

There’s not much to say about Ron Paul. He went on a rant about how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unconstitutional, unwinnable, etc. Apparently making drugs illegal equals racism and not only that, he claimed that it was racist because whites are never arrested. The speech sounded like it could have come from the NAACP. To his credit, he does well when discussing economics, but when he gets on any other topic, he sounds like a raving nut. He was also by far the most aggressive towards the other candidates.

From the sounds of it, the old Gingrich is back. He took a couple of jabs at his fellow candidates, but didn’t turn into the “angry old man” persona that many were expecting him to do. Where he did get somewhat miffed is when Ron Paul went after him, calling him a “chickenhawk”, to which he responded by talking about his life in a military family.

In my opinion, the best moment of the entire debate is when he called out the moderators for their bias, stating that bigotry and prejudice swing both ways, and that the media is virtually silent on bias against Catholics. Prejudice is not acceptable, no matter who the target is.

In my opinion, Santorum had an average performance. He wasn’t hit tonight nearly as much as I would have thought, considering his surge in the polls. The accusations of corruption that Paul threw his way aren’t going to go anywhere, since he is a likable person, whatever you might think of his qualifications for president.He sounded relaxed and well-informed on the stage.

His problem is, though, sometimes he’s still treated as a second-tier candidate, in spite of his upset in Iowa. Also, there are parts of his record that are big government, which will hurt him, even if allegations of corruption won’t.

Jon Huntsman didn’t do too badly, either. He tried to portray himself as more conservative than he’s attempted in previous parts of his campaign. He went on to discuss the “trust deficit” that the American people have developed with both government and Wall Street. His low point was when he starting talking in Mandarin during the middle of trade policy, earning a disbelieving look from Romney. I don’t think that was intentional, but it’s not going to help him any.

Now for the big loser of this debate: none other than ABC news. George Stephanopolous went on and on and on about a hypothetical scenario where a state banned contraception. This wasn’t a brief topic; he continued to hammer at it, to the anger of both the candidates and the audience. To me, he sounded like he’s just fond of listening to himself talk. Now we’ve got a national debt at about 15.2 trillion, on track to adding another trillion by the time of the election, we’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, our unemployment rate is 8.5% (11.5 if you add the people who have simply given up). Health care costs are skyrocketing, despite Obama’s bill promising to lower them, and social security and medicare will collapse if we don’t do something.

However, a debate about contraception and gay marriage was far, far more important than any other issue our country currently faces. The republican candidates were quite unhappy about constantly being hammered on this, and based on the loud boos, the audience didn’t respond to it very well, either. They’re not even pretending to be fair anymore.

Where all of the candidates made a mistake is attacking Obama for planning to cut the military. Granted, I think they’re correct, but nonetheless, the media will spin that as proving that they don’t care about the country. A better method would have been the question: where are the other cuts? Why isn’t Obama planning to cut anything else? Where are the cuts on discretionary spending? Why have we done nothing to reform social security or medicare? That’s what would have been more effective: not hitting him for cutting the military, but for cutting the military alone.

To summarize things, there was no candidate who really broke away from the pack, either positively or negatively.

Okay, this is a list of things that I believe will happen this year, after watching the news in detail.

1. Economic growth will remain anemic. For this year, the growth in GDP was less than 2 percent, the slowest since the Great Depression. I know Obama fans like to talk about how the unemployment rate dropped, but that was because people have simply given up looking for work.

2. The unemployment will remain high. Obama stated during his rise to the presidency that unemployment would not go above 8 percent if the stimulus bill was passed. Stating it wouldn’t go below that number would have been a lot more accurate. The CBO had stated that it will remain above 8 percent throughout 2012, which even the White House is now admitting. There’s a good chance it may even go back up to 9 percent. If we were using the same numbers for the Labor Force that we used in 2008, unemployment would be 11.5%

3. The national debt will reach 16 trillion. With the way he’s spending, Obama’s request for a 1.2 trillion increase to the debt ceiling may not even last him until the election, meaning that he’s going to have to go through it again at the worst possible time for him.

4. The full details of the Fast and Furious operation will be revealed. Holder is resorting to charges of racism, telling us that he’s getting desperate. Considering the new e-mails that we found with ATF agents discussing: “How can we use this to push gun control?” it’s something that Obama’s opponent will be able to hang around his neck.

Not only that, but now Joe Lieberman talking about starting his own independent investigation in the Senate, it’s going to be far harder for them to claim that this is a political witch hunt.

5. We will see an official Greek default. As bad off as we are, Europe is in far worse trouble. Greece will not be able to hang on much longer,  and have a deficit of 15% of GDP, which is an almost unbelievable figure. Once they default, it’s anyone’s guess what will happen then.

6. Italy and Spain will require bailouts as well. The IMF is already talking about taking action to keep the two countries afloat.

7. Further credit downgrades for the United States. All three agencies have a negative outlook on our bond rating, and since it doesn’t seem likely that we’ll get our budget under control, they will decide that we don’t deserve the rating we have.They’ve warned that if we don’t do something, we could be downgraded by 2013; personally, I think it’ll be a bit sooner than that.

8. This election will be the most brutal, ugly campaign in the history of the United States. 2004 and 2008 were bad enough, but that’s trivial compared to what we’ll see this time around. We’ve already seen ads like Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff. Obama’s got nothing else to run on; his record is abysmal. Therefore, negative campaigning and class warfare is the only thing he still has. He doesn’t care what he has to go to get reelected; anything goes. Expect half-truths, omissions, and bald-faced lies.

9. Obama will probably drop Joe Biden and replace him with Hilary Clinton, because Biden has got to be the stupidest person in politics, which is really saying something. He makes gaffes on a daily basis, makes up facts on the spot, and was chosen because he wouldn’t outshine Obama. Now that he’s a liability, he’s gone. I’m sure they’ll come up with an excuse, saying that he’s retiring after decades of service, but that’s a load of bull.

And here is what I think may happen in 2012:

1. A double-dip recession. Considering our shaky economy, and what’s happening in the rest of the world, it’s a good possibility that our economy will sink again. Europe is collapsing under its own weight and that’s going to have an effect on us.

2. For all the talk of China’s economy surpassing us in 10 years, that’s not going to happen. Their problems are many, and their economy is falling apart as well; their growth is already starting to slow down. As 2012 goes on, this will become more and more apparent. The country’s much less stable than it appears at first glance.

3. There’s also the possibility of a trade war looming between the world’s major economies. Not only is a bill in Congress being discussed to “punish” China, Europe is already requiring outside airlines to pay a carbon tax, intending to put this into law by 2014.

Out of all the possibilities, I don’t think anyone was expecting this to happen. Now that Iowa is over, we’ll see what happens next.

Santorum had to be the biggest surprise tonight, no question about it. He was at the very bottom for most of the race, but campaigned tirelessly in Iowa and as of the moment I’m writing this, he’s in first place, even if it’s by an extremely narrow margin. Even if it turns out that he’s in second, that’s still an astonishing leap from where he was just a couple of weeks ago. Let’s keep in mind that he managed to win in spite of the fact that he had very little money to buy airtime and his strategy of going out there and visiting every country was an enormous success.

The next couple of weeks will see if he can sustain his lead as the new anti-Romney candidate. He surged at just the right time, but it’s an open question as to whether or not he can keep it. We’ve seen one candidate surge and collapse. I guarantee the media is preparing a barrage against him, as are his fellow candidates.

Romney did about as well as I expected. He’s managed a very close second in what was probably the closest Iowa caucus in modern history. In over 4 years, he hasn’t managed to increase his supporters. That being said, he’s still in a strong position and much as I dislike him, I believe he’s the one that’s the most likely to become the nominee. He’s got the money and the organization. Next week in New Hampshire, he’ll almost certainly win the state.

However, as the republican field narrows down, he’s going to have a much harder time with his “divide and conquer” strategy. If the voters become concentrated, his 25% won’t be enough to guarantee him victory. When a couple of the Anti-Romney candidates drop out, I find it highly unlikely that they’ll go to him. Throughout the whole campaign, his support has been stuck.

Ron Paul has a small but very devoted group of followers, giving him third place in Iowa. As for his chances going forward, they’re all but nonexistent. The Iowa Caucuses only have about 120,000 people voting and his small groups would go through anything to vote for him.He’s got some good ideas on the economy, but his foreign policy is too far outside the mainstream and it’s going to turn most potential voters away from him.

Newt Gingrich is at a survivable fourth. Considering the massive barrage of negative ads hitting him, it wasn’t a bad turnout for him. I’ve noticed he’s abandoned the idea of not going after his fellow republicans and headed at full speed. He’s easily the most knowledgeable of them and a very skilled debater. This tells me that the economy is going to be the central issue, far ahead of social issues.

Even so, there are two crucial things he lacks to win in further states. Compared to many of the other candidates, he doesn’t have a whole lot of money, and even his surge didn’t give him the kind of funds that some of the other candidates have. He’s not completely broke, but 4th place isn’t enough to give him what he needs to win the nomination. An even more important trait he lacks is organization, which is absolutely crucial, especially when you start moving into the larger states.

In spite of spending over 4 million in campaign ads, Rick Perry has only managed to receive ten percent of the vote. I stated earlier that he needed to win at least fourth place to have enough momentum to continue. He started out strong, but he hasn’t managed to get much of his previous momentum back.

Not only that, but he’s gone to Texas to “reassess” his campaign. Strictly speaking, it’s a bad sign whenever a candidate speaks those words. I think he was expecting to do a lot better in Iowa than he actually did and the fact that he only got 5th was a bit of a shock.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/perry-returns-to-austin-to-reassess-campaign-20120104

Despite all the bad news, the race isn’t over yet. If he decides to continue and we’ll find out as things unfold, his only chance is to knock it out of the park in South Carolina. I read that his strategy was to skip New Hampshire and head to South Carolina. He’s still got enough money to continue the fight, his organization is getting better and I know a lot of people on Red State support him, but this is not something that you can put a positive spin on. My advice to him: focus on your job record. That’s your best chance.

Bachmann… she’s finished. There’s no other way to say it. She came in last place (not counting Huntsman), she’s out of money and it’s unlikely that many people will be donating to her. I fully expect her to withdraw in the near future.

In conclusion, it’s been an exciting race and gives us a good idea as to where the candidates are headed.

With the Iowa Caucuses less than 48 hours from now, all the Republican candidates are going overboard trying to get as many supporters as they possibly can. There’s both hope and fear with the candidates, so which one is likely to win Iowa?

I suggest we keep in mind that even at this point, about 40 percent of likely voters have stated that they could still change their minds and there are still some undecided voters, meaning that this is very much an open race, meaning that the polls right now should be taken with a grain of salt. So who has the best chance to win Iowa and what will it mean for them?

Let’s start with Mitt Romney. I don’t think he’s going to win first place in Iowa, and I expect him to hover at around 2nd-4th place. He only started campaigning in Iowa a couple weeks ago, later than many of the other candidates, focusing many of his efforts towards winning in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul… what is there to say about him? Even if he gets first place, he’s not going to win the general nomination, so it really doesn’t matter.

For most candidates, though, Iowa will be make or break.

Newt Gingrich I believe will have an average showing. All the negative campaign ads have had an effect on him, but an obstacle that is just as great is his personal life and I guarantee that social conservatives will be keeping that in mind when making their final decision. His advantages are that his name is already well-known, as are his weaknesses, and I know numerous people who smile at the thought of him debating President Downgrade. Since the debates for the year are over, however, it’s not going to help him as much.

Michele Bachmann has not been able to gain a lot of traction, either nationally or in Iowa. Admittedly, she might make a surprise showing, but I don’t see her too far. Her constant insistence of “I am a serious candidate!” means that she knows that a lot’s on the line.

Rick Perry’s throwing everything he has into winning in Iowa. He’s spent about 4 million dollars in campaign ads and like the other candidates, is continuing his bus tour. He’s moved up in the polls a bit and I’ve read the claims that the media is deliberately downplaying the size of  the crowds he gathers, so he’s a wild card.

Rick Santorum has been a big surprise in the past week, surging as Gingrich has fallen. He rose up in the polls at a favorable moment and has done more touring than any of the candidates and from the videos, he does well in town hall meetings. However, the voters haven’t really gotten a chance to know him, since his surge into the limelight is quite recent. Nevertheless, I think he’ll make a strong showing.

Jon Huntsman isn’t even campaigning in Iowa and is dead last in every poll I’ve seen in that state. He’s not going to get anywhere in that state, hoping for a better showing in New Hampshire.

The question is: how well do the candidates have to do in order to move onto the primaries?

A poor showing in Iowa is something that both Romney and Paul can survive. Romney has a lot of money that he can use in the future and even more importantly, has organization and name recognition. So long as he doesn’t come in dead last in the caucus and I don’t think that’s likely to happen, he’ll have enough strength to continue. Paul will continue no matter what, since despite what you might think of him, his followers are extremely devoted.

For the other candidates, though, they need to show strength in Iowa or their campaigns are dead in the water. To have enough momentum, the others must manage to get into the top three. Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum don’t have a whole lot of campaign funds at the moment and their organizations leave something to be desired, so this is their lifeline. Perry is in a more advantageous position than the other second-tier candidates. He’s got enough money to continue, meaning he’ll be able to survive if he gets fourth, but anything below that is going to sink him.

After Iowa, our field will be narrowed to 3 or 4 potential candidates. Then it’s off to new Hampshire.

If you want to know where Obama’s policies are taking us, look no further than my home state of California. We have taxed and spent ourselves into the ground and our current governor and legislature has still more spending bills planned.

Our gasoline tax  is 64.5 cents for every gallon of gas that we put in the tank, 46.1 cents of which is the state gasoline tax. We have the highest rate in the country, even higher than democratic strongholds like New York and Massachusetts.

The highest state income tax rate is 9 percent, surpassing all states save for Hawaii and Oregon.

Sales tax in California is the highest in the country at 8.25%. As if that wasn’t enough, the state is making plans to raise them yet again to over 9 percent.

Our average electricity prices are the eighth highest in the country, at least for the time being. The state is making plans to require 30 energy of its energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. Since this is extremely unlikely to happen, it guarantees that even though our energy prices are among the highest in the country, they will climb still higher as the years go by.

More good news. California has slightly over 10 percent of U.S. population, but accounts for 1/3 of all welfare recipients in the country.

Now we’ve been repeatedly told by Obama and by the press that the increased spending is meant to stimulate the economy and create a strong recovery. Therefore, because of all these taxes and spending, we should be doing pretty well, according to their logic.

However, the unemployment rate in California is 11.3 percent, the second highest in the nation. Only Nevada is worse off than we are. We’re borrowing 26 cents of each dollar, an enormous number for an individual state and the 6th highest in the entire country.

Look at what has happened to California over the past decade. Look into our crystal ball. California is a refutation of Obama’s big spending agenda and it’s exactly where he’s taking the rest of the country. He and his supporters claim that it will get us out of the recession; the facts show otherwise.