When "Cool" Isn't "Hot"

Obama and "Weed"

Justice Dakota

05/23/2012

President Barack Obama, in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, admitted to extensive and enthusiastic use of drugs.

In Dreams from My Father, Obama admits that as a teenager and young adult he smoked pot (marijuana), drank booze, and did a little "blow" (cocaine); however, he never tried "smack" (heroine) because the dealer creeped him out.

Obama writes: "I spent the last two years of high school in a daze ... drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."

Good thing for young Obama a State Trooper or Federal Agent wasn't lurking nearby during his "Daze Days."

If Obama had been arrested and convicted of drug possession -- things may have turned out differently. He may not have grown up to be the President of the United States; and, he may not have had an estimated net worth of around $10 million.

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama famously explained the marijuana-smoking technique: "The point was to inhale. That was the point."

Has Obama even considered that his "hip" and "cool" talk about his personal use of drugs looks bad to the mother of an imprisoned drug possessor/user?

Enter comedian Penn Jillette (who by the way stated he has never used drugs or drank alcohol -- ever).

Jillette, during a recent podcast ("Penn's Sunday School") indicated that President Obama is potentially mocking the "lower class" by bragging about how he managed to use drugs without getting caught ,,,

In Jillette's own words:

"What troubles me about this... I think it's beyond hypocrisy. I think it's something to do with class. A lot of people have accused Obama of class warfare, but in the wrong direction. I believe this is Obama chortling with Jimmy Fallon about lower class people. Do we believe, even for a second, that if Obama had been busted for marijuana -- under the laws that he condones -- would his life have been better? If Obama had been caught with the marijuana that he says he uses, and 'maybe a little blow'... if he had been busted under his laws, he would have done hard f*cking time. And if he had done time in prison, time in federal prison, time for his 'weed' and 'a little blow,' he would not be President of the United States of America. He would not have gone to his fancy-a** college, he would not have sold books that sold millions and millions of copies and made millions and millions of dollars, he would not have a beautiful, smart wife, he would not have a great job. He would have been in f*cking prison, and it's not a god damn joke. People who smoke marijuana must be set free. It is insane to lock people up."

Watch the video of Jillette's podcast (kids out of the room due to language):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/penn-jillette-slams-obama-drug-policy-states-rights-video_n_1533004.html

If Obama decides to go get the Libertarian and/or the Ron Paul vote, Romney might have some problems!

Odds are the President will just joke about his history of drug use and not do anything about the hypocrisy and wasted money associated with the "Drug War."

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

http://www.leap.cc/

Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker Understands ...

... Economics

Justice Dakota

05/21/2012

Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker (Democrat; Obama supporter and self-described Obama surrogate) talked about economic reality on Meet the Press on May 20, 2012.

Booker, who indicated he is an Obama surrogate (he even displayed his "surrogate" notes) suggested that Obama's attacks on Governor Romney's tenure at a private equity firm are "nauseating." Booker sounded like a man who understands how the economy really works (this makes the Obama campaign mad (?)).

Booker forced Obama's campaign into damage-control mode after he implied that attacks on Romney's private equity background are as absurd as Republicans attacking Obama for having associated with Reverend Wright. “Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright,” Booker said.

Also, it can be assumed that things tightened-and-puckered a little bit over at Obama's Campaign Headquarters (OCH) when the popular Mayor neutered the Obama re-election strategy with the following comment regarding Romney's private equity gig at Bain Capital:

“As far as that stuff, I have to just say from a very personal level I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity...To me, it’s just we’re getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people invest in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses [and] to grow businesses."

OUCH!

How long do you think it took for Obama's main re-election campaign dude, David Axelrod, to pick up the phone and demand some dishonesty from Booker? Around 10 minutes?

Also, and this is bold for any politician to admit (sad that the admission of a truth has to be controversial): Booker admitted he sometimes has to fire people!

Booker told a seemingly shocked David Gregory that he had to fire city workers to keep his city functioning. That ostensibly freaked-out the Obama Press. (Governments, in the world-view of the Anti-Romney media, are supposed to have unlimited funds.)

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, if he has the opportunity, should jump on the chance to become our next Vice President because Booker sounds like a Democrat who understands economics and is willing to speak the truth. I like his chances for higher office ...

Subsequent to the Booker "Smack-Down" of Obama and Axelrod, other high-profile Democrats went to the defense of Bain Capital and the equity financial sector:

During an MSNBC interview, U.S. Senator Mark Warner (Dem-Va.) stated that Bain Capital " ... did what they were supposed to do," and that he was proud of his previous private equity career.

Ed Rendell, former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, seemed to support Booker's private equity narrative. Regarding Obama's attacks on Bain Capital, Rendell remarked, “I think they’re very disappointing.”

Former Tennessee Congressman (Dem.) and Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. did not do the Obama re-election campaign any favors with this statement on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:  “I would not have backed off the comments if I were Mayor Booker. The substance of his comments on Meet the Press, I agree with the core of it,” Ford said. “I would not have backed them out … private equity’s not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances.”

Will Obama's "War on Capitalism" go into retreat mode? Or, will POTUS double-down?

I bet Axelrod hates Booker!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9xz4YkUurQ

Time-Out for AZ Eclipse!

Economy, Energy, Deficits

"It's Still About the Economy -- and We're Not Stupid!"
Governor Mitt Romney

Justice Dakota

05/19/2012

Governor Romney is perfectly positioned to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012.

To date, Romney has successfully avoided "social issues" and personal attacks on Obama. However, many influential "conservatives" at the national level are still obsessed with "social issues" and the "vetting" of Obama.

The only historic information about President Obama that matters is the last three-plus years!

Here is what we have as of May, 18, 2012: the potential disintegration of the Euro-Zone; a seemingly never-ending global financial crisis; a stagnant American economy; an American debt to gross-domestic-product (GDP) ratio of around 100-percent; and a world where many (if not most) Western Democracies are in a financial crises and flirting with potential social and political upheaval.

And yet -- the so-called "Real Conservatives" (RCs) -- [think Palin-Newt-Perry-Bachman narrative] -- can not get over their obsession with Obama's teenager/college years, and his former Pastor. Who cares about Reverend Wright? Not independents, and, more importantly, not the majority of conservatives.

News flash: Obama used drugs! Who cares? Answer: almost nobody except for the RCs.

Why are RCs freaked-out by Obama's "unapologetic" history of drug-use, his "radical associations" and his unreleased college transcripts and college papers?

Does this obsession make RCs look like bitter, tiny, angry, hypocritical, and jealous cry-babies? ("Mommy, Obama broke some rules yet was successful -- boo-hoo, boo-hoo, sniff, sniff ... not fair, mommy ... whaaaaaa!")

The vetting of President Obama has already happened -- and it is a part of the public record: his Presidency!

There is a reason Newt Gingrich is not the Republican nominee for President in 2012 (and it has nothing to do with money). Even conservative Republican primary voters get tired of the anger and hate, the hyperbole, and the sometimes seemingly weird obsession with "social issues" in a time of global economic crisis!

Most Americans (conservative, independent, liberal, or other) have at least one "social issue" violation per the "RC Social Issue Code of Conduct" Policy Manual.

Furthermore, most Americans, at some point in their lives, had a counter-hegemonic thought! There is a name for this phenomenon: Youth.

Romney needs to focus on how he intends to: 1) restore the American economy visa-vis free-market capitalism; 2) pursue energy independence by tapping into our vast oil and natural gas resources; 3) prevent impending U.S. bankruptcy by constraining, if not freezing, the growth of federal government financial outlays.

In other words, it's about economy, energy, and deficits (EED). That wins!

Let the Obama campaign and the RCs obsess over "social issues," and joust over certificates, associations, pastors and religion, college transcripts, birth-control, and teenage angst ... -- the rest of us want to get serious.

Truth be asked, haven't "social issues" always been exploited by both parties because they are easier to communicate and they get an emotional response?

The RCs need to come to terms with this simple fact: More Americans would vote for the man and the narrative associated with the picture at the top of this page than for the man and the narrative associacted with the picture below. That's just the way it is ...   

"It's Still About the Economy -- and We're Not Stupid!"

Paleolithic Man

 ... uh, and Woman ...

Justice Dakota

05/15/2012

A screen-play (the following is not an endorsement of a theory, a science, or an ideology. What follows is an idea for a screen-play -- comedic or dramatic -- it should work either way):

Act I thru VI:

And ... Action!

1) The Paleolithic Period is a prehistoric period of human history. This period (think Cave-Man-Dude) began around 2.6 million years ago and is associated with the use of primitive stone tools (2.6 million years ago to the end of the Pleistocene Period around 10,000 BP).

2) Cave-Man-Dude (CMD) paid a lot of attention to hunting for protein (meat) and reproducing with Cave-Woman-Chic (CWC). It is believed that during this pre-historic era early humans, or early (potential) humans, or early mythical humans (qualifications made for the purpose of helping the "sensitive" reader) grouped together in small non-voting pre-historic counties, districts, tribes, cities ... (let's just call them herds of CMDs and CWCs).

3) Presumably, the CWCs competed for the attention of the CMDs, and the CMDs competed for the attention of the CWCs. Additional competition for a mate, from the perspective of both CMDs and CWCs, was probably considered a bad thing.

4) The Paleolithic Period lasted a long time. Habits, attitudes, behavior, mental and genetic stuff may have formed during this era (hypothetically).

5) Let's assume a good CMD was hard to find 2.6 million years ago. Sure, CMDs liked to run wild with their buddies, and they liked to look at other CWCs ... and, I presume that behavior was tolerated by the CWCs.

6) However (and this may or may not have happened around 2.6 million years ago), the majority of the CWCs were a little uncomfortable when their CMDs started paying attention to the 25-year-old, CMD-Fitness-Guy (CFG) at the tribal club!

And ... Cut!

In Other News: A Poll & and 2 Questions --

A recent poll suggests that women prefer Romney for President over Obama! If that is true ... I wonder why? I really don't know! And, are our frontal lobes growing or not?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/05/shock-poll-romney-now-leads-among-women/613771

A False Euphoria ...

... a False Prosperity?

Justice Dakota

05/10/2012

Greece: Around May 2012

In early February 2012, the Prime Minister of Greece, Lucas Papademos, admitted that Greece was "a breath away from ground zero." The nation has a public debt-to-GDP ratio around 170-percent (meaning if Greece' total economic value is 1 billion, they owe creditors 1.7 billion). Greece is bankrupt.

Around the same time, Nikitas Simos, who is presumed to be a typical, Greek, small-business owner in Koufonissia, Greece, stated: "For the past 20 years Greece experienced a false euphoria, a false prosperity."

Recent economic reports indicate that about six out of 10 Greeks under the age of 30 are now out of work.

Greece is out of money and can not make payments on its loans. Over many decades, the politicians in Greece have managed to bankrupt the country. The politicians, one could argue, were rational actors as their constituents wanted free stuff -- a "false prosperity."

Politicians like to be elected, and re-elected to office, so -- no brainer -- borrow money and give the masses free stuff.

Greece may be booted out of (or quit) the Euro-Zone because not only can it not pay its current bills, it  is increasingly difficult for the country to borrow more money (and is negotiating to have its debts restructured and reduced -- as in bankruptcy).  In order for Greece to pay the interest on its national debt, it has to implement austerity measures (meaning less free stuff for Greeks). As of May 2012, banks and international financial institutions are making plans for Greece to exit the Euro-Zone and return to the drachma currency.

People like free stuff. Greece is in trouble!  

In early May 2012, Greek Neo-Nazi Nikolaos Michaloliakos celebrated the success of the neo-Nazi Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) party during recent elections. The Fascist party won about 7-percent of votes and will have parliamentary representation for the first time -- ever!

"Greece is only the beginning," Nazi Michaloliakos shouted. "You know exactly what I mean. Out of my country, out of my home! How will we do it? Use your imagination. This victory is dedicated to all the brave youngsters who wear black T-shirts with Golden Dawn written in white."

President Obama: Around April 2012

In April 2012, United States President Barack Obama's administration seemed overly concerned with "free" birth-control for women and giving college students who have student-loan debts a little free money in the form of reduced interest payments on their loans.

As of March 2012, the United States had a public debt-to-GDP ratio of around 100-percent (meaning if America's total economic value is 16 trillion, we owe creditors 16 trillion).

Wow! We are doing better than Greece!. To date, thank God, there is no serious Neo-Nazi movement on America's horizon.

France: Around May 2012

Francois Hollande defeated French President Nicolas Sarkozy in a presidential runoff. The success of the Socialist party is seen as an anti-austerity vote. The French would like to keep their generous social well-fare nation afloat even if they can't pay for the social programs. The election of a Socialist President indicates France will continue borrowing money in an attempt to perpetuate a  "false euphoria, a false prosperity."

Hollande will be the nation's first "Left-Wing Dude-in-Charge" since 1995. Hollande stated: "Austerity can no longer be something that is inevitable."

France has a public debt-to-GDP ratio around 90-percent (meaning if France' total economic value is 1 dollar, they owe creditors 90 cents).

"It's a great night, full of joy for so many young people all across the country," said Thierry Marchal-Beck, French President of the Movement of Young Socialists.

Spain: Around May 2012

Spain is also sinking under the weight of its debts and nearly insolvent financial sectors. Spain's debt-to-GDP ratio is currently around 80-percent, and the Spanish government is struggling to pay its bills. Spain’s prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, is expected to request external assistance in an effort to avoid bank insolvency as the Spanish financial  sector continues to disappoint.

Spain, like Greece, will most likely say "adios" to the Euro-Zone in the near future. Could Spain return to the peseta as its currency? I remember the peseta -- that was the currency in play during the fascist and/or authoritarian rule of dictator Francisco Franco and his National Defense (the military) Committee.

Does anyone predict that authoritarian and fascist radicals will pick up seats in the Spanish Parliament in the near future? I do ... 

Europe in general May 2012

On May 11, 2012, the executive arm of the EU, the European Commission, predicted the collective economies of the 17 countries that use the euro will shrink 0.3 over the next six months.

Olli Rehn, the EU’s Monetary Affairs Chief, stated the following at the EU's Spring Economic Conference:  “We cannot pile debt over debt and it is essential that we are continuing fiscal consolidation and staying the course.”

An interesting article regarding recent events in Europe:

"Seven Days that Shook Europe"

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3dfdc66-9b56-11e1-b097-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ubdMouPe

United States: On or about May 9, 2012

President Barack Obama stated that he is personally comfortable with legalized Gay marriage (not that there is anything wrong with that). But, he's not doing anything about the issue because he believes it is a "state" issue. So, maybe POTUS can focus a little more on the global debt crisis, the impending break-up of the Euro-Zone, European economic contraction, and our own stagnant economy.

Tick, Tock ...?

The U.S. has a public debt-to-GDP ratio of around 100-percent! Oh well, at least the President is talking about birth control, student loans, and Gay marriage.

Thankfully, I don't see any Nazis on the American horizon (maybe that only happens at the 170-percent debt-to-GDP ratio?)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Obama's "Real Energy" Problem

... and "What Would Romney Do?"

Justice Dakota

May 9, 2012

President Obama appears to not appreciate America's oil and natural gas industries. In fact, one could argue that President Obama seems to despise the concept of creating new jobs and new wealth for average Americans (and America in general in terms of an increase in Gross Domestic Product -- GDP) via the traditional method of gas and oil exploration, discovery, recovery, and production.

Obama rejected approval of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas (causing our Canadian friends to conclude that China was a better business-partner than the United States in terms of energy acquisition). By the way, approval of Keystone would have created "shovel-ready" jobs in addition to sending a message to the world that North America is serious about energy autonomy.

In 2009, President Obama enthusiastically committed a minimum of $2 billion to help Brazil and its state-owned oil company, Petrobras, explore a huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin. Obama told Brazilians: “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.” (I wonder why we can't develop our own reserves and sell them to Brazil?)

In a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama attempted to explain a part of his energy policy:

"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

Note to Self: "Keep it Simple, Stupid!"

Okay, economy and the economics of Real Energy gets complicated so let's simply wrap our heads around "Big Picture" examples: Russia, China, Brazil, India, Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, North Dakota ... etc ... every nation (and North Dakota) on Earth except for the nations of Europe and the United States -- are aggressively pursuing oil and natural gas in an attempt to improve the standard of living of their citizenry (and increase international influence and national power-status compared to competing powers. So old-school, I know ...). Those nations who are not into getting "dirty," but have attained a level of technological sophistication, tend to pursue nuclear power (France gets 70-percent of its electricity from nuclear power).


Meanwhile, in February 2012 President Obama schooled us all with his energy science: “We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance known as algae.” Actually made from a plant-like substance? Wow! Plants can sometimes be green in color ... That's awesome! Let's all go take a nap under a tree knowing the problem is solved ...

We all know that Obama is 100-percent ideologically committed to "Green Energy." He seems to really like solar, wind, and oil made from algae (pond scum). We can presume he does not like nuclear energy because he never mentions this industry as a substitute for oil and gas.

It is safe to say that Obama does not like the two energy sectors (nuclear and oil/gas) that actually, reliably produce "Real Energy" (meaning they have a net plus in energy produced after subtracting the energy required for production -- uh, kind of like an "energy profit").

It appears as if President Obama is infatuated with energy from "alternative" and "Green" sources that have energy deficits (they have a net loss in energy produced after subtracting the energy required for production -- uh, kind of like a "budget deficit").

I smell an ideological, economic, and political pattern with Obama's world-view! Net deficits are good; net profits are bad! It is almost as if the pursuit of failure (net loss) has been glamorized, and the pursuit of success (net gain) has been demonized.

And, what do the "adults" in the oil business have to say:

In August 2011, Chevron Chief Executive John Watson said the following:

“Energy is the industry that makes all others possible. There aren’t many industries that can fairly be called indispensable, but the energy industry is surely one of them. It is absolutely essential to growth, development and prosperity for the country as a whole. Conservatively, we’re looking at a 40% growth in global energy demand over the next 25 years. Over that same period, renewable sources are going to expand rapidly, but at nowhere near the pace required to keep up with overall demand,” he said. “Most of our energy needs – roughly 80% – will continue to be met with fossil fuels."

Watson continued with this: “Far from peaking, the world’s estimated base of recoverable oil and gas is continually rising. In fact, over the past 30 years, as the peak oil theory has gained traction in some quarters, the world’s known reserves of oil and natural gas increased by roughly 130%, to 2.5 trillion barrels. We could accomplish great things if America had a rational, robust and comprehensive energy policy."

According to the "Oil-Guy," a rational energy policy: " ... would encourage alternative sources, not by mandates and subsidies, but by allowing the market to identify the best new fuels and bring them up to commercial scale.”

When an alternative fuel can (100-percent) power a jetliner to fly from Los Angeles to New York -- without the passengers having to pay more than $5,000 per ticket -- then, and only then -- will there be a legitimate substitute for oil and natural gas.

In the meantime, maybe we should hire/elect a businessman who actually understands Real Energy and market forces ! To that end, Governor Romney needs to have an "Energy Contract with America" moment where he spells out exactly how a Romney Presidency will encourage, increase, and support gas and oil exploration, discovery, recovery, and production.

A video that may sum up Obama's energy policy for America: "If I Wanted America to Fail ..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

Is Obama Running out of Milk?

Is it Time for an "Adult?"

Justice Dakota

April 26, 2012

Governor Mitt Romney's victory speech (April 24, 2012), after he won a slew of North-Eastern Republican primaries, represented at least half of his general election strategy.

Romney delivered this key line: “... the last three years have been the best that Barack Obama can do, but it’s not the best America can do … it’s still about the economy, and we’re not stupid.”

Romney continued with this:

"This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the very taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next."

Romney effectively summed up Obama's world-view this way:

"Government is at the center of his vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it can’t take, consumes a greater and greater share of the economy. You know, with Obamacare fully installed, government would have control of almost half of the economy, and we would have effectively ceased to be a free enterprise society."

In that one speech, on that one day, Romney hit a double with two bases to go for the win. No one expected a home-run -- as he is not even "officially" the Republican nominee for POTUS. However, Romney's political, economic and ideological belief-system came across -- loud and clear! He announced to the World that he is the Ronald Reagan of our times (absent the charisma and personality). But, charisma and personality does not pay the bills!

If Romney's 04/24/2012 "victory" speech becomes his narrative ... -- his contract with America is 50-percent complete -- and he is very close to becoming the next President of the United States.

The reason Romney has the advantage over Obama:

On or about the same day of Romney's victory speech, President Obama was concerned about college students and their student loans!

Speaking to some college peeps, President Obama championed low interest rates on federally subsidized student loans and pledged to put "a good education within the reach of all who are willing to work for it."

Obama, scarily told college students: "Americans now owe more on their student loans than they do on their credit cards."

Obama may have freaked-out the iPhone-Facebook-Ipad-Twitter (IFIT) Generation (IFIT Generation, copyright, Justice Dakata, 04/25/2012) when he potentially scared them big-time by reminding them they, on average, will owe $25,000 when they graduate! And, even more super-duper scary ... Obama warned college students: "So that means you've got to make pretty tough choices when you are first starting out."

Did that Obama political ploy to reach out to the "youth-vote" really scare the college students? To me, it seems as if POTUS is getting worried about his re-election chances. So worried that I would not be surprised if he promises to forgive the $1 trillion in student-loan debt currently owed.

The President seems willing to buy his voting blocks:

This Administration flirts with such crucial issues as: free birth control for women; student-loan debt forgiveness or reduction for the college kids; billions of dollars to the "Greenies" in the form of subsidies for wind, solar and other "renewable energy" magic carpets (not to mention the "War on Real Energy").

If the student-loan debt-thing demands the attention of the most powerful person in the world (still the most powerful, I think), how come the President is not talking about this really, super-duper scary thing:

Around 130 million Americans voted in 2008. President Obama's 5 trillion deficit divided by 130 million voters = around $38,461. Meaning Obama saddled every American voter with around $38,000 in additional debt in less than four years.

If, at a national level, President Obama was concerned about debt and the difficulty in paying back loans (college or otherwise) -- ... uh, maybe he could talk about the federal debt carried on the shoulders of every tax-paying American?

Why is the POTUS not going to "Town-Hall" meetings across America warning us about how every tax-paying American now owes Uncle Sam around $129,000 as a result of our massive national debt? Is that more scary than college students with computers and iPhones owing $25,000 for a college degree (on average)?

If President Obama wants to join the world of "Scary Stuff," he needs to come up with an ordinal ranking of his Scary Stuff. After all, the last time I checked,  $129,000 is more money than $25,000! Me thinky it is best to solve the big stuff first ...

As a casual observer of American Politics, would I be wrong to suggest that Romney seems like the adult in this Presidential race? Romney is ostensibly concerned about macro-economic deficiencies (deficits). Obama appears to be more into "being cool" with the college kids (and dealing with the little stuff first).

Would I be wrong to suggest, as a metaphor, Obama may soon run out of milk?

What will the college kids do then? Will they give up their iPad? Their iPhone? I hope so, because no one wants them to give up their birth-control!

The $5 Trillion Man!

President Obama

Justice Dakota

04/18/2012

The U.S. debt has increased more than $5 trillion since President Obama was sworn in as President of the United States in 2008! That's a lot of borrowed and/or fake printed money for one President to spend in 42 months.

The entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States (think of that as our national net worth) is around 15 trillion.

In less than four years, President Obama has borrowed and spent one-third of our national wealth.

Keep in mind that it took the United States 236 years to build a $15-trillion economy; and 42 months for Obama to borrow one-third of our national wealth. And because that money was borrowed, interest on the loan (s), in addition to the loan (s) themselves, have to be paid back over time. As a result, the $5 Trillion Man could be responsible for that $10 trillion sucking sound -- the sound of money being sucked out your, and your children's pockets.

Obama is the $5 Trillion Man:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/5-trillion-man-debt-has-increased-under-obama-502776147648456

Obama is bold! He's confident! He boldly and confidently spends our money. He does not appear humble or apologetic. He seems to spend our money without apology and without reluctance. He does not sign those checks with a trembling hand. He signs them in a manner akin to a celebrity giving an autograph -- casual, wrapped up in the moment, looking numb -- as if he does not want to be bothered. "Here's some more money, now scram children." (Tiger Woods appeared to have that attitude when my children asked him for his autograph.)

The gross and casual manner in which Obama spends our money has put a spot-light on what the federal government does with our cash. Hence, it is not surprising more and more people are watching "The Lifestyles of the Hacks and Outrageous."

GSA Scandal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gsa-officials-wife-accompanied-him-on-trips-at-taxpayer-expense/2012/04/17/gIQAHdrEPT_story.html

Because it is difficult for most people to wrap their heads around $5 trillion, and because the size of our federal government is almost literally incomprehensible, the General Services Administration (GSA) scandal (decadent conferences and outrageous spending for entertainment), coupled with the Colombian Secret Service scandal (the boozing and prostitution thing) may become accurate metaphors for President Obama's irresponsible spending, and an indictment of his ideological faith in central, federal, government control and efficacy?

The GSA Employees' Rap Song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vofWkCJvbDo&feature=related

While some of the absurd photos and videos of federal bureaucrats living like mega-rich rap stars and/or Saudi Princes may be out of context -- they provide the American people with a glimpse of a federal bureaucracy where money has no meaning! A glimpse into the Obama ideo-economic world-view. 
Does the federal government have accountants -- or are they also doing rap-video spoofs in Vegas?

As the United States of America accelerates its debt and deficits, is it not legitimate to ask: "Who the hell is going to pay the bills?"

Does President Obama, in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, seem casual about his government's massive borrowing and spending? Does he seem oddly comfortable with spending money we don't have?

Obama has to know that most of us know that even if he confiscated all the "rich" people's money, he could only fund the federal government enough to pay for his federal agencies' annual Fall, Winter, Spring, and Summer Conference five-year plan (?)

Have you ever had a group dinner with friends or co-workers where one guy orders the most expensive food and drinks, but when the bill comes he stands up and walks away?

Obama has not yet left the restaurant, but he is headed to the bathroom -- talking on his cell-phone, trying to figure out how he can get out of paying his fair-share of the bill. By the time the waiter tells the party-goers they are short on cash, Obama has already left the building! (He had another dinner to go to.)

Former Governor Mitt Romney is perfectly positioned to defeat Obama in 2012. Romney wins with these words in a debate:

"It's been your federal government, and its not doing very well. It's broke, its credit rating has been downgraded, it spends money it does not have by borrowing from the Chinese -- and these bills will someday come due. Paying for such reckless spending will necessarily impoverish many more Americans for future generations to come."

Romney should continue in this manner: 

"As a Chief Executive, which you are (Obama), I would want my employees to spend less time in the hot-tub, and more time doing their job -- working on behalf of the American people who, by the way, pay their salaries."

"It is time to freeze federal spending, at a minimum, for at least two years, so that we can make sure that public servants are serving; that tax-payer money is not being wasted on frivolous federal bureaucratic junkets and excesses; and to fully investigate the potential systemic dysfunction within the federal government that may encourage the reckless waste of taxpayers' money -- sometimes for no other reason than to have a good party -- courtesy of the American taxpayer!" 

"Maybe we should have less hot-tubs for federal bureaucrats, and more jobs for the American people!"

"So I ask the American people, 'Are you better off now than you were five trillion dollars ago?'"

GSA Scandal Continued:

http://www3.hoh.rollcall.com/jeff-neely%E2%80%99s-pacific-adventure/

Secret Service Scandal:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SECRET_SERVICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-17-19-28-14

Romney Winning as of April 17, 2012 Poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

Obama's New Problem With Women

Debt, Deficits, Recession -- and Now Chics?

Justice Dakota

04/12/2012

Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen attempted to rip Ann Romney's history and experience of motherhood on CNN on April 12, 2012: Rosen indicated that as a wealthy stay-at-home-mom Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.”

Rosen implied that Ann Romney can not speak about women's economic issues because, well, because she was a stay-at-home mom who had things easy because she was married to Mitt Romney.

Ann Romney responded by saying: “We have to respect women in all the choices they make. Raising children, it’s for me the most important thing we can do ... Mitt said to me more times then you can imagine, Ann, your job is more important than mine.”

Governor Romney stated, “Her work raising our boys was tougher than any job I had.”

So here we go again: More Social issues! More about life-choices and life-styles ... SNORE.

The only thing interesting about this story is that it is not about Newt Gingrich (BTW, where is Newt and what is he doing?) and/or Senator Rick Santorum freaking people out with their social and moral needle-hole they expect everyone to thread.

Ms. Rosen unknowingly revealed the bigotry of the Obama administration, the radical left, and the virtually non-existent radical feminist movement with one to several comments.

At a minimum, Rosen implied that Ann Romney had it easy ... you know, that easy life of raising five boys, surviving breast cancer, and coping with multiple sclerosis. Wow!

What Rosen said was so politically stupid -- you have to believe she diminished and disrespected Ann Romney because of hate/envy -- or because of who she works for (?)

In an odd, yet legitimate way, it is safe to say that Hilary Rosen may be hugely important to President Obama:

Reportedly, since Obama's election in 2008, Rosen has visited the White House 35 times (Guests are listed by name, not by title).

Gen. David Petraeus, dude in charge of our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current CIA director, has been to the White House nine times.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (former CIA director), has been to the White House 12 times.

Surprisingly not surprising, it appears as if records indicate Vice President “Joseph R. Biden” has been to the White House only six times.

So, Rosen matters -- at least a little bit -- to the Obama world-view (a little bit, at least).

Ms. Rosen used to work for the Recording Industry Association of America. In 2003, she resigned to spend more time with her family. She and her significant-other, Elizabeth Birch, had adopted twins, Jacob and Anna, and Rosen chose family work over salaried work (Rosen and Birch separated in 2006).

In early 2008, Rosen signed with CNN. She subsequently joined as a partner at the political communications firm SKDKnickerbocker.

How Rosen became so important to the Obama Administration is over my pay-grade. However, it is undeniable that her level of access to the White House makes her a significant player in the Obama administration.

So, I'm trying to figure out why Rosen seems to resent Ann Romney? Women should be free to choose life-styles, and they should be able to freely make life-choices.

Why the anger toward stay-at-home moms? I don't get it! Maybe Rosen, Newt, and Santorum can start a consulting firm called: "We Don't Like People Who are Not Like Us -- and We are Bitter and Angry (WDLPWaNLU -- aWaBaA)."

BTW: Many professional women I have known through-out my life chose to work to get some relief from working as a stay-at-home mom. Most of them have indicated that salaried work is much easier and less stressful than stay-at-home work.

Is there a chance Rosen could not cope with the rigors of being a stay-at-home mom -- so she jumped into the cushy world of "White House" visits?

Bottom line: If you have children, as Rosen does, nothing in the home is easy! She should know that!

Did the "Republican Establishment" Touch Rush ...

... Limbaugh Inapropriately?

Justice Dakota

04/10/2012

I am not the "Republican Establishment." I am more of a "Reagan-Goldwater-Buckley-Conservative (RGBC)."

As a result, I voted for Governor Mitt Romney in my state's Presidential Republican Primary contest (because Romney was the most conservative within the context of RGBC).

Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio guys can't hide their frustration and disappointment in the fact that Romney is the choice of Republicans for POTUS in 2012. (After all, Romney has received more votes and more delegates than his opponents.)

Romney was, arguably, favored to win Senator Rick Santorum's home-state of Pennsylvania in April 2012.

Can you imagine Santorum losing to Romney among blue-collar, social, and religious conservatives, on his home-court of Pennsylvania?

A Romney victory in Pennsylvania would have been difficult for the "Blame-Stream-Media" (conservative radio and television elites who blame the Republican Establishment whenever conservative Republicans vote for someone they don't like) to swallow.  

{Romney has received more votes in the Republican primaries than the other candidates!(Empirically, those who vote in Republican primary elections tend to be more conservative than the average Republican.)}

The Republican primary voter chose Romney more often than any other candidate. Romney was not selected by the "elite" or the "establishment;" -- he was chosen by people like me who preferred his rational conservatism.

So, as a psychological metaphor: Did someone in the "Republican Establishment" inappropriately touch Rush at some point?

If Rush starts blaming the Republican Establishment for hurricanes I will officially be concerned. For now, I presume the "Elite RCMs" are exploiting the emotions and passions of Tea-Party viewers and listeners for ratings.

(I believe the Elite RCMs misinterpreted the Tea-Party movement of 2010 as a social and moral movement -- when in reality, what made the Tea-Party appealing to millions of Americans was its focus on economics and sound fiscal policies).

The Elite RCMs forgot that conservatives are not stupid. We know Ronald Reagan would have never passed their contemporary litmus-test for the Republican nomination! He would have been considered too moderate! Ironic?
 
I am trying to figure out why Rush, and so many other "Real Conservatives (RCs)" who claim to be part of a "Real Conservative Movement (RCM)," disrespect my vote so much they accuse me of being a naughty, naughty, elite establishment guy?

Here is Rush accusing me and millions of  Conservative Republicans of being members in the Secret Society of the Republican Establishment:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75002.html

Finally, if Rush is right and there is a "Boogy-Man" known as the Republican Establishment, I would like for them to collectively apologize to Rush for their real or perceived inappropriate behavior -- and let the healing begin.

(Isn't there a statute-of-limitations on that stuff?).   

Can Romney Get Tuff on Energy and Fed. Spending?

Justice Dakota

04/05/2012

In addition to President Obama's failed "Green Energy" solar meltdown (solar energy companies Solyndra and Solar Trust of America may have cost tax-payers around 2.5 billion before they filed for bankruptcy), President Obama may have also pissed-off the Canadians who have an energy advantage over the U.S. (never thought that would ever be said, by anyone).

If a picture (video and/or graph) is worth a 1,000 words ... then Romney can easily defeat President Obama if he can communicate to the American people the grossness of the following:

1) Obama's Failed Energy Plan:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently explained that President Obama's rejection of the Keystone oil pipeline had forever changed Canada's paradigm with respect to energy markets.

"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper stated.

Harper indicated the damage can not be undone!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/04/03/canada-after-keystone-wed-rather-sell-oil-to-china

2) Obama's Federal Spending & Wasteful Spending is Out of Control:

Martha Johnson, who led the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages the federal government's property, resigned from the Obama Administration in April, 2012, after reports of inappropriate spending at a conference near Las Vegas.

Reportedly, the GSA administrator insisted its 2010 Western Region's Conference be, "over the top, bigger and better than in years past."

The cost for "training" around 300 federal employees was $832,000.

http://nation.foxnews.com/general-services-administration/2012/04/05/american-idle-croons-about-being-under-inspector-generals-investigation

3) The National Debt will Cause National Poverty:

The National Debt Clock (Live!)"

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

$73,000 Debt Per American under Obama Budget Plan!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/73000-debt-american-under-obamas-budget-plan_635499.html

Here is Obama accusing Bush of being unpatriotic because of his $4 trillion in deficit-spending over eight years (Obama has subsequently added $5 trillion in debt in about four years):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84

Because I know how complicated macro-, and micro-economics can be, let me simply say: when a nation's interest payment on its debt is greater than what it spends on other major federal program(s) -- the other programs will have less funding in the future.

By now we should all know that paying interest on your credit card does not reduce the debt and means you have less money for future financial needs.

The U.S. government most likely will spend more in 2019 to pay the interest on the national debt than it will spend on its military and/or some of its most favored, institutionalized social programs:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-budget-interest-payments-will-exceed-defense-budget-2019_635445.html

Romney's 10-Point Plan for Victory

How Romney Defeats President Obama!

Justice Dakota

04/04/2012

Governor Mitt Romney has won the Republican Nomination for President of the United States!

This accomplishment would have been more difficult to achieve if his Republican opponents had not been so weak, weird, goofy, or so socially conservative (pandering to the religious right).

Not only is it a "Big Country," it's also a "Big Primary" process. Meaning the "Social Conservative (SC)" in South Carolina may not share the same political philosophy as the SC in Wisconsin.

Romney deserves credit for keeping "Religion out of Politics."

The Romney campaign also deserves credit for a "Big Country" campaign.

The "Not Romney" candidates seemed to employ "Small Country" campaigns. They seemed to dismiss the average Republican primary voter (who is conservative) in favor of the extreme, social conservative Republican primary voter.

There are not enough extreme social conservative Republican primary voters to nominate
their Presidential candidate. That's not an analysis, that's math!

So, how does Romney defeat Obama?

1) Be nice and polite (see No. 2);

2) Remember, and don't ever forget, that 50-percent of the voting public is female;

3) Consider the idea that Independents are former Republicans who got freaked-out by the increasing power of the "Religious Right" (including "Mr. Conservative," Governor Barry Goldwater);

4) Make this question a mantra: "Who pays for it?";

5) Ask this question: "Are you better off now than you were five trillion dollars ago?;

6) Remind Americans of our vast natural resources and how a responsible, national energy policy that encourages recovery of oil, gas, and coal will allow us to compete with other countries. Our resource-development will create jobs and grow the economy which will allow us to invest in new, future, realistic alternative energy technology;

7) Promote a "National Energy Marshall Plan" bill that would open-up specific federally-owned lands for shale-oil development, recovery, and market delivery;

8) Remind Americans that what allows the federal government to pay for social goods is based on the success of our free-market economy (capitalism creates the wealth that Obama wants to re-distribute);

9) Health-care matters and people are concerned about the high-cost of health-care. It should be a state issue. Actually encourage individual states to come up with their own, best solution to rising health-care costs (their own version of "RomneyCare"). Remind Americans that a state-level approach is more practical, efficient, possibly necessary, and definitely Constitutional (as opposed to a federal mandate that is unconstitutional);

10) Freeze, or establish a thresh-hold limit for federal spending increases (time to consider the "Penny Plan?"). Romney must show some discipline on federal spending. Americans need a conceptual model of when a cut is a cut, or just a decrease in the rate of growth.

Congratulations!   

Information on the Penny Plan @:

http://mack.house.gov/index.cfm?p=Articles&ContentRecord_id=f18dea5d-c7db-400d-8eb5-bc0a5ee9d104&ContentType_id=a993f954-3acb-477f-b874-3661f9f6fb25&Group_id=2c61596a-fccc-47a0-8682-eeac569510d9

Time for Rational Conservatives to Buckle-Up!

Have Real, Rational Conservatives Decided on Romney?

Justice Dakota

04/03/2012

A strange narrative that has always smelled of intellectual and ideological dishonesty has permeated the Republican Presidential Primary process.

That smelly propaganda was perpetuated by conservative television and talk-radio hosts at the national and local narrative.

The Anti-Romney-Media-Elite parroted the following mantra: "Romney is not a real conservative." And, because of the lack of empirical evidence for that mantra, those who chanted it were forced to find an alternative to Governor Romney.

Some of the "Irrational Conservatives (ICs)" seemed to want a "Bomb-Thrower," angry, mean, "Big-Ideas" candidate -- so they went for Newt.

Others, those who are really into "social" and "moral" religious issues wanted an Evangelical or Christian Fundamentalist candidate -- so they sided with Catholic Senator Rick Santorum -- thinking he was a Baptist or something (?).

And, of course, the Libertarian Conservatives have Congressman Ron Paul.

The "social/moral" conservative candidates like Congresswoman Michelle Bachman; 999-Herman Cane; and, "No more gays in the military," Christian Fundamentalist Texas Governor Rick Perry, received very little support from Republican Primary voters.

The "social conservatives" were quickly dismissed by Republican voters.

That caused the "Real Conservative Movement (RCM)" to panic and subsequently jump on the Newt-train because he was at least yelling at the "Left-Wing" media and employing "mean-speak" that gets the "Real Conservatives (RCs)" in the media all fired-up (show material to get the testosterone flowing -- as if being a good President requires nothing more than anger and adrenaline).

Once the curtain opened on Newt (The Wizard) -- the American public saw Newt for what he really is: Newt! Not Newt the Wizard.

So Newt could not get Dorothy back to Kansas. As a result, the radio and television RCs turned to Santorum.

After all, despite his losing history up Northeast (Pennsylvania), and despite his philosophical support of the "Big-Spending" "Compassionate-Conservative" domestic agenda of President George W. Bush, the RCs liked Santorum's social conservatism.

The RCs and the RCM must have been thinking: "A marriage is between a man and a woman ... and that notion will defeat President Obama." They could have been thinking, "Pennsylvania is south of Massachusetts -- advantage Santorum."

Maybe the RCs were thinking: "Santorum will go after Internet porn, strip clubs, and bring Baptist values ... uh, er, Catholic values, uh ... family values ... to the White House -- that will defeat Obama."

(By the way, Obama seems like a great family man -- good husband and father -- almost as if he has "family values?")

Unfortunately for Santorum and his supporters -- values are personal. Most Americans prefer to be informed about spiritual, religious, social, and moral values by their parents, their culture, and their religious leaders; and/or they tend to educate themselves and form their own opinions with respect to social and moral issues.

The above analysis does not leave Romney as the default Republican nominee for President of the United States. To the contrary, it makes Romney the preferred, rational choice for Conservative Republicans.

No more excuses from Romney's opponents (who, by the way, claim POTUS makes too many excuses for his political failures).

The Republican voters are speaking -- and they did not agree with their elite radio and TV RCs.

It is now -- officially -- Governor Romney versus President Obama in what will be a difficult, tight, close 2012 Presidential election. 

Time for Real, Rational Conservatives to Buckle-Up!

Obama: No More Euro Model!

Let's Go China Model on Energy!

Justice Dakota

03/29/2012

A 13-year-old Chinese company called PetroChina just surpassed America's Exxon Mobil as the world's biggest publicly traded producer of oil. The crazy thing is that the Beijing company was created by the Chinese government to secure more oil for that nation's booming economy just 13 years ago.

It is safe to say, "China is kicking Ass!"

PetroChina (and possibly China in general), is kicking Western ass because PetroChina's goal is to acquire more petroleum reserves in places like Canada, Iraq and Qatar.

China figured out what most 5th graders in America should be taught: Oil fuels economic growth and prosperity; prosperity improves living standards; improved living standards, not surprisingly, is something all people want (it pays for education, pays for a strong military, creates jobs, provides for cheaper consumer goods -- including food ... oh and cheaper gas -- and, acquisition of oil generally makes life better for everyone).

China figured this out at about the same time the United States and Europe began investing in wind-mills, corn (Ethanol), carbon-taxes, solar panels, and non-functioning (from a practical standpoint) electric vehicles that may or may not work (not to mention that when you plug them in, you need oil, gas, coal or Nuclear energy to charge the "Green" electric battery.)

How did China get so smart? Or, how did we devolve into macro-economic illiterates?

It's not a fair fight! China does not have a "Green" movement. As a result, I suspect they will continue to get stronger and wealthier while the United States and Europe will get weaker and poorer. I find that to be very sad. It did not have to be this way.

"We must push ahead," PetroChina chairman Jiang Jiemin said in January 2012"

Today, March 29, 2012, President Obama moved to end subsidies for oil and gas companies. Uh, those subsidies are called tax-break incentives to encourage a particular behavior -- like research, development, discovery, and recovery of new sources of oil and gas. A mortgage tax-break was a policy to encourage a particular behavior -- home ownership.

So, as PetroChina is " ... pushing ahead," the leader of the United States is is trying to put the brakes on American oil discovery and recovery. He is ostensibly "demonizing" oil companies. I presume PetroChina is laughing at the United States. They are bidding on abundant Canadian oil more than Canada's oil-thirsty neighbor to the south.

I assume President Obama has calculated that if he can convince Americans to blame "Big Oil" for the high price of gasoline, they will not blame him. What about the greater good of the American economy? What about prosperity for future generations of Americans? Maybe China has it right ... do you think the POTUS has considered that possibility?

Here is the huge irony: America is giving up on future wealth-creation and future generational prosperity despite the fact we are the most resource-rich nation in the world.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service: America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. It’s far larger than that of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined.

With all due respect to the President, he may go down in history as the POTUS who hated oil so much he jeopardized the future economic well-being of numerous future generations of Americans (rejecting the Canadian Keystone Oil Pipeline could end up being symbolic of his antipathy toward North American oil and gas exploration, discovery, and recovery). 

I get the impression Obama wants us to go Euro-style with respect to energy (skinny-pants -- they seem to be required --, tiny cars, and a lot of annoying scooters).

Instead, maybe, in the context of energy, we should go "China-style" on the world? Maybe, we should re-establish ourselves as being serious about jobs, prosperity, and national wealth creation?

I can't "carry all of Governor Romney's water for him" when he faces Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election; however, I will give Mitt the following advice: figure out a simple way to communicate to the American people that which we already know in our guts (that we have everything we need to be a rich, prosperous and powerful nation for generations to come) -- if we responsibly tap our energy wealth.

Rubio Endorses Romney!

Romney/Rubio Win in 2012!

Justice Dakota

03/28/2012

Yes, I know ... there will be a lot of "process" between now and November 2012 ...

But here is the future headline:

"Romney/Rubio Win White-House!"

Republicans and Religion

Summing It All Up

Justice Dakota

03/27/2012

Every Conservative Republican Primary voter (2012) knows that Governor Mitt Romney's religion has been a factor -- especially in the South! (In case you did not know, Romney is Mormon.)

I don't know why the so-called "Real Conservatives" (RCs) in the South tend toward religious bigotry more than other regions of the country -- I just know it is a reality.

I find it interesting that Evangelical Conservative Christians in the West, North-West, and South-West areas of the United States don't struggle with Romney's religion as much as the "Bible-Belt" South. And, I also know why -- people don't like what they don't know.

Out West, we know Mormons/Latter-Day Saints to be some of the best, most patriotic, most moral and ethical citizens among us. We also know them to be Christians with a few faith-related traditions that make some Christians uncomfortable.

Anecdotal: Mormons tend to be law-abiding, patriotic, educated, 10-percent-tithing, church-going, followers of Christ.

So, out West, we are not freaked-out by our Christian neighbors -- because we grew up with them and know their traditions, moral, ethical, and spiritual attributes.

Without doing any research, I assume Orthodox Jews have different traditions, customs, and religious paradigms than non-Orthodox Jews. Who cares?

I assume Israeli Jews have different traditions than American or Middle-Eastern Jews. Again, who cares?

A Sunni Muslim owned and ran my children's pre-school. He was one of the best, most professional, decent business-owners I have ever known.

Across the street from our house is a Mormon family.

Because of where I live (geographically), most people I encounter who claim to be religious are either Protestant (of many variations -- all with separate traditions, customs, and Biblical interpretations/emphasis) and Catholics -- who have their own particular customs, traditions, and  Scriptural emphasis. Not a problem!

The most generous, kind, good-natured person I ever met was a Hindu who introduced himself to me subsequent to the 2001 Terrorist Attacks on America this way: "I assume you hate me, but ..."

One of my best friends, who was Jewish, had a son who became a Buddhist. As my friend was dying from kidney failure, he debated with himself (out loud, in front of me): "If I give my son money, he will give it to his religion." He paused, internally struggled over his decision-making analysis, and then said: "Who am I to tell him how to find peace. I will give him exactly what I give my daughters."

Just read one, valid book on the evolution of religion and you will realize all religions are constantly changing, fighting amongst themselves, separating into different sects, etc ... and then each particular sect proclaims they have it all figured out -- history be damned!

Any one who says they have it all figured out is lying -- or, they are so uncomfortable with the "grey" area of life (the "unknown" area), they radicalize themselves -- like religious or political zealots (and in the worst case scenario -- like religious or political terrorists).

We all share similar fears, have similar struggles, similar goals, and similar hopes and dreams; and (possibly unfortunately) we tend to always want affirmation that our way is the right way.

So we are all in this gig together! That should not be an epiphany for anyone. That is not profound. That is so obvious ...

Maybe we should all read more? Not about our traditions -- but about the traditions of "other" people?    
_____________________________________

© 2011 Evangelicals for Mitt. All Rights Reserved

"Mitt Romney has been a standout conservative governor of a very liberal state. He believes in the traditional family, and he has fought for it — just ask Massachusetts’ pro-family leaders. He’s admitted he was wrong on abortion, and is now solidly pro-life — as his record in Massachusetts testifies. He also opposes embryonic stem cell research’s speculative and open-ended carelessness with human life. He’s shown courage under fire in several challenging situations, and has lived out his values (both publicly and privately) during a time when other Republicans, sadly, have not.

In addition, we challenge our readers — friendly or hostile — to name one national political leader on either side of the aisle with a better record of business and economic leadership than Mitt Romney. We do not know what the economy will be like in 2012, but if it’s anything like it is today, who would you want at the helm? The former community organizer we have today? Or the founder of Bain Capital, the man who rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics, and the Governor who brought a state back from the brink of bankruptcy?

In other words, he’s not just a man evangelicals can support — he’s the best choice for people of faith. It’s not even close."