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."

Why do "They" Hate "RomneyCare"

Why is "RomneyCare" a Deal-Breaker for the Radical Right and Santorum?

Justice Dakota

03/26/2012

My mother is 76-years-old, and she has had numerous, major surgeries and medical procedures over the past five years. I know for a fact that she has benefited from Medicare (a federal program that helps pay medical expenses for people over the age of 65). I presume, American tax-payers partially paid for her medical treatment that she otherwise could not have afforded.

A friend of mine who died in his late 50s from kidney failure received dialysis treatments during his "end-stage" kidney failure (paid for by Medicare). Again, I presume the American tax-payers paid for his medical treatment that he otherwise could not have afforded.

I think Medicare is worth having!

In my state, at one time, you could drive a vehicle without automobile insurance. The state changed the law to require a minimum level of auto-insurance because those who did not pay any insurance were getting a "free-ride."

The uninsured driver could plow their $1,000 car into a $50,000 vehicle and not be required to pay for the damage due to a lack of funds and insurance. That required the owner of the $50,000 vehicle to pay insurance for two people (insurance for his vehicle in case he was at fault, and insurance for the uninsured vehicle in case the uninsured vehicle's driver was at fault.) That was a system that penalized the responsible person.

Similarly, the person with health insurance has to pay a higher premium to cover his potential medical problems, and the potential medical problems of the uninsured patient. That is a system that penalizes the responsible person.

When the medically-uninsured person requires a $100,000 medical procedure, that cost is passed on to every one else -- including the state.

So, if a state required, for instance, an additional fee for everyone who does not have private health-insurance to pay for a minimal amount of medical insurance -- the person who normally would pass 100-percent of his medical bills on to the rest of us, would have a portion of his medical bills paid for by a private insurance company. Thus, less costs are passed on to the rest of us. And, this is bad -- why?

If it is a state program (RomneyCare) it allows state's to address their financial health-care deficits. RomneyCare was a state program. That, my friends, is a conservative approach to a difficult and expensive problem in America.

Why do so-called "Real Conservatives (RCs)" hate the state-solution approach? I thought that was a significant ideological foundation of conservatism!

What is wrong with allowing every state to fashion their own uninsured driver and uninsured patient programs? 

When I attended college, part of my tuition paid for "student" health insurance. When I broke my ankle, I did not have to pay a dime. (I did not even know I had insurance.) And, that was a bad thing -- why?

Senator Rick Santorum and RCs should lay off the issue of RomneyCare.

I think most Americans would like to see their state's come up with a reasonable way to insure their uninsured drivers -- and insure their uninsured future patients. What the hell is so wrong with that?

A lot of us remember having the flu and going to the doctor during our college years. We thought it was free -- but, in reality, we were getting treatment we had already paid for. Why was that so bad?

Has anyone considered that every state in the country will be experimenting with a version of RomneyCare as an anti-federal, fiscally conservative solution to out-of-control health-care costs? 

The Cost of President Obama?

Math Matters!

Obama Loans you $38,461 to Vote for him!

Justice Dakota

03/25/2012

"Deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00.

To help put that colossal sum of money into perspective, if you take our deficit spending under Obama and divide it evenly among the roughly 300 million American citizens, that works out to just over $17,000 per person — or about $70,000 for a family of four."

(8:05 AM, Feb 14, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON.)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html

____________________________

However, the Justice Dakota take (http://justicedakota.blogspot.com/):

Around 130 million Americans voted in 2008.

President Obama's 5 trillion deficit divided by 130 million voters = around $38,461 loaned to each American voter.

We have to pay that money back, plus interest.

The illusion of free money is one reason why President Obama is a formidable incumbent president.

Every voter in 2008, Republican and Democrat (Independant and "Other") voted (potentially unknowingly) to receive approximately $38,000 for participating in the process (with no credit check, application -- and a weird, yet typical lack of disclosure of the total cost of re-payment once interest-rates are factored in over the length of the loan -- several, or numerous generations).

Please keep in mind: the $38,000 was a loan -- not a gift!

The $17,000 additional Obama debt per American (even the babies) also has to be paid back.

Obama's easy loans, all that money (plus interest), has to be paid back.

As we all know: The loan gets more expensive the longer we wait to settle the account (the mind-freak of math ... it never goes away -- numbers always have mattered, and they always will).

Increasing the average American federal debt burden (while many Americans are focused on their personal, private, debt-burden) seems like an odd way to get re-elected (?).

(If I was not concerned about future generations of Americans -- I would be all in on the Obama Fiscal Paradigm! -- So, I get it!).

I know that if we are only concerned about our particular lifestyle (as opposed to the future financial sustainability of the United States, we can always simply raise the debt ceiling!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoS52fVtVQM

So, maybe, Romney should stop being so polite?  Maybe, dare I suggest: "Math matters!?

(But, I know, people hate numbers -- so, never mind ...)

God Bless Trayvon Martin

He Encountered Our Collective (Metaphorical) Enemy: Fear!

Justice Dakota

03/23/2012

Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot dead in February 2012 in Sanford, Florida, by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old "community security" volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense.

The only thing we know about this horrific incident is that an ostensibly good and decent young man was shot dead.

The nation grieves for the Martin family. We collectively send our thoughts and prayers to the Martin family. 

All parents in America (White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, Native American, or Other... ) -- all know that their child could have been Trayvon Martin.

Fear, stereo-types, bigotry -- (and did I mention fear) -- contribute to incomprehensible acts of violence.

My "arm-chair" analysis of what happened is as follows: Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, and that caused Martin to become afraid of Zimmerman. One of them had a gun, Zimmerman; and Martin, a good, decent, young man went home way too early!

Martin's tragic demise is illustrative of what is wrong in our society: Fear of "Others."
It's not always about race! It is usually about fear of different things!

Too many people are afraid of different acting, different looking, different speaking, different praying, different playing, different singing ... etc., people.

Those who fear different people cause different people to fear them (because they are different to them). Hence: conflict, wars, and needless killing of innocent children in the streets of America.

I feel compelled to offer a bit of subjective analysis based on my personal experience (for legal reasons, I will keep this as general as possible).

Over the years, I've noticed a tendency of people who have a gun, and a tiny bit of "security" or "protection" or "guarding" or "supervision" authority to, in general, display a little bit of a Napoleon Complex. They sometimes want to stir up trouble to prove the importance of their position or task.

These "security" people sometimes get bored with having authority never demonstrated. Some people like this, look for trouble. Their motive may not be intentionally bad, but they are motivated toward "positional" validation.

Nothing written or said eases the pain and suffering of Martin's family members.

I would like for everyone who knew, loved, and liked Trayvon to know that his killing, despite his innocent, normal trip to a store to buy some skittles, could potentially change an American societal paradigm that, for whatever reason, is increasingly based on fear of others.

Trayvon Martin could change America -- Help make us less fearful!

Also, those who have tiny amounts of authority and guns; people who happen to "feel" small, who are filled with fear. and who tend toward being control-freak, xenophobics --  (and individuals who have a Napoleon Complex) --  should learn how -- to sometimes -- just simply walk away. Their "Crystal Ball" is not science! When they pull the trigger, or simply display their gun, they do it with all the baggage they have carried with them for their entire lives.

Zimmerman could have simply walked away ... and let the police handle the situation ... He will have to deal with his decision to follow a young teenager for the rest of his life! 

Many times, these "enforcers" are not objectively killing a perceived threat -- they are subjectively shooting, or chasing, something they fear.

Fear sucks!

God Bless Trayvon Martin and his family!

Obama and Magic Carpets

Romney Defeats Obama if He Goes Back to the Future!

Justice Dakota

03/22/2012

President Barack Obama, either politically or ideologically, put all his eggs in the one basket of alternative energy. In a sense, Obama believes in a "magic carpet" approach to America's energy future.

President Obama's administration seems to indicate that with investment and research, America will soon, or in a generation, or in several generations, will dominate the world in alternative energy technology. This is a hopeful, wishful, potentially possible (yet possibly impossible), unproven approach to energy independence. It's a big gamble!

The problem is: if we don't invent the magic carpet, President Obama will do just fine -- future generations of Americans may be reduced to striking two pieces of coal together to make fire!

Has anyone considered that nations that are economically expanding and becoming more wealthy (China, India, Brazil ... dare I suggest Russia?) are aggressively pursuing oil and gas? And that nations that do not like to get dirt under their fingernails and are pursuing magic carpets (nations of Europe and the United States) are economically stagnating?

I will keep it simple: abundant, efficient energy creates national wealth (just ask Brazil). In America, national energy wealth improves the lives of each and every American. Energy from oil, coal, and gas is the ultimate egalitarian national model for universal economic prosperity. Oh, and by the way, pursuit of these energy resources creates a lot of jobs -- shovel-ready jobs!

What happens if President Obama's magic carpet does not fly? What happens to the standard of living for the average American?

Who would have ever thought that Canada, in terms of tapping national resource wealth, would lead and mentor the United States? When did Americans decide they wanted the United States to be a giant National Forest Preserve? As Donald Trump likes to say, "The rest of the world is laughing at us because we are so stupid."

People hate numbers so I will make this short: Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the stated reserves of Saudi Arabia. Most of the nation’s oil shale reserves rest under the control of the U.S. government – a legacy of a 95-year old Congressional Act.

In an effort not to over-simplify the issue, oil shale extraction is more expensive and requires more sophisticated technology (technology we have). Canadian Tar-Sand oil is more expensive and required enhanced technology. The Canadians did it, why can't we?

Does Obama hate oil and love magic carpets? He killed the Keystone Oil Pipeline. He recently toured a solar company that employs about five people, and he is still trying to articulate why the federally subsidized (around $500 million) Solyndra solar company failed.

Governor Romney, if you hear me: You defeat President Obama if you "Go Canada on him!" You need to go back to the future!

America is blessed with almost unlimited natural energy resources. That means jobs, wealth, and an increased standard of living for every single American -- almost immediately! Tax that energy a little bit to fund the potential for magic carpets in the future (plus double down on the national debt with all that wealth-creation).

Romney, my man, that is the "Game Changer" for you!

I've Never Met a Real Conservative!

{At One Time Ted Haggard Was Considered a "Real Conservative"}

Justice Dakota

03/21/2012

I, and most rational people, have always known Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator Rick Santorum had no chance at the Republican Nomination for President of the United States.

We know Santorum is a religious radical! Americans, in general, don't like Religious Radicals! So, Santorum is out. (The following video of a pastor in Louisiana introducing Santorum would make most Americans a little nervous).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2emBxDOY7g

Americans of all stripes can sense hate and intolerance. Americans (Democrats and Republicans) are especially uncomfortable when xenophobia comes from the pulpit or the political podium.

Newt was never serious. Worse yet, he is so severely flawed as a national candidate he has potentially embarrassed the Republican Party. He is now not even running for the Republican nomination -- he is running to prevent someone else from being nominated. Again, I am not a psychologist, but that suggests either anger, hate, bitterness, narcissistic personality disorder, or ego-mania as his primary motivation. Americans tend not to like loud-mouth, mean, know-it-all, angry, saboteurs. So, Newt's out!  

Famous radio and television conservative pundits called the Republican primary process wrong from the beginning. Their fetish for a mythical "Real Conservative (RC)" has become an obnoxious rant. They even attempt to falsify the history of the Presidency of Ronald Reagan in an attempt to convince us that there once was an actual RC Republican.

The American people (conservative, liberal, and independent) are generally not radically conservative or radically liberal. I know that those who make money by fanning the flames of extremism pretend to despise the moderate political cosmology (even while personally living by a moderate political ideology).

Every Conservative I know stutters and mumbles when asked about cutting or eliminating that particular federal program from which they benefit.

I know conservatives (who hated unemployment benefits) who lost their jobs who subsequently appreciated the "safety-net" of "unemployment checks."

I know Social Conservative, "Balance-the Budget," Tea-Party Republicans who work for the government who think it is outrageous when they don't receive an annual pay-raise or cost-of-living adjustment.

In several former government occupations, when I was surrounded by Social and Fiscal Conservatives, I would suggest to them that, because we were paid by the tax-payers, we should collectively request a reduction in pay, or at least request no increase in pay.

The Fiscal Conservatives accused me of being insane, and the Social Conservatives accused me of hating the Lord!

The problem with the "Real Conservative Movement (RCM)," is the same problem experienced by followers of myths and fables during their life-journey: when reality shows its Frowny-Face there are only three options:

1) simultaneously embrace and deny your own hypocrisy;

2) demonize others who behave the same way as you but who are not among your particular group;

or 3) admit that you don't give a poop about anyone but yourself while comforting yourself in the knowledge that the Lord picked you as his special, most favorite, internally-conflicted hypocrite.

In the political context, as in a "diet/food" context, "moderation," I believe, is associated with reason!
                            ______________________________________________

(P.S.:  In November 2006, a male alleged that Haggard had paid him to engage in sex with him for three years and had also purchased and used crystal methamphetamine. Eventually, Haggard acknowledged almost all of the allegations against him, including using meth.

Haggard's immediate response was denial. He told a Denver television station, "I did not have a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver . . . I am steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife." Haggard also said, "I have never done drugs--ever.")

Follow the Rules?

Newt, Santorum, Paul Supporters ... Would-Be Rule Breakers?

Justice Dakota

03/17/2012

Rightly or wrongly, I tell my children to follow the rules!

Senator Rick Santorum is talking about how Puerto-Rico Peeps should be required to speak English, and how he would like to prevent Professor Stephen Hawking from enjoying pornography and strip-clubs.

Speaker Newt Gingrich is talking about how he can become the Republican Presidential Nominee despite winning fewer states, receiving fewer popular votes, and being awarded fewer delegates than either Governor Mitt Romney or Santorum.

Newt wants to have a "60-day conversation" prior to the Republican Convention to, apparently, talk about Newt.

Congressman Ron Paul does not have a chance at the nomination; however, his supporters agree with Santorum and Gingrich who have indicated they want to have a "meeting" to discuss how each of them should be the Republican Nominee for President of the United States despite losing the National Republican Primary contest.

At some point, will Republicans demand that their votes count? Paul has won fewer votes and delegates than Newt; Newt has won fewer votes and delegates than Santorum; and Santorum has won fewer votes and delegates than Romney. So what are the "Losing Three" complaining about other than the fact that they are losing? (Note: Congressman Paul seems not to be complaining -- his followers do that for him).
 
Romney keeps amassing more votes and more delegates than his opponents. And, Romney is playing by the rules!

When did the Republican Presidential Primary process devolve into an "Emerging Nation" nomination process -- a process where power-hungry, narcissistic, ego-maniacs invent their own rules as they go because they care more about their personal power, wealth, fame, etc ... -- more than they care about the collective good of the country?

American Political Parties (historically) have attempted to enforce rules. (Are we a nation of men? Or, are we a nation of laws?)

Regarding the nomination of presidential candidates: Do the parties represent rules to be followed; or do they "Kiss the Ring" of the newest megalomaniac politician with a compelling personality disorder?

Try selling this model to a "Third-World" country!

(Guess what? Missouri is having a Caucus, "Beauty Contest," and a Delegate Election):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/politics/in-missouri-the-gop-fight-for-delegates-enters-round-2-post-beauty-contest.html?_r=1

Does anyone really want to see Newt be the Master of Ceremonies (MC) at a "60-day Conversation" about his "Grand Ideas?" Is it becoming pathetic, and potentially anti-democratic and disrespectful, to every Republican who has voted for someone other than Newt or Santorum?

It is not cool for a political party to articulate a narrative that individual votes and pre-established rules of political competition should be discarded for "politicians of personality."

In reality, the country needs to get over religious bigotry, ad hominem attacks, Clowns, and "the cult of personality" if we are to ever have a chance at re-gaining our Political and Economic Super-Power status!

Santorum Always Blows it ...

When it Matters!

Justice Dakota

03/15/201

For a "Brief History of Time," almost like Stephen Hawking, I was thinking that I have been too hard on Social Conservatives ...

Side-Bar Alert!: Cambridge University reports that physicist Stephen Hawking, who goes to sex-clubs, admits that the professor has been to the sex club, but denies that he’s a frequent guest ...

For a brief second, I thought, the Real Conservative Movement (RCM) "Spear-Heads" of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and every "tool" who is trying to copy their 20-year-old, out-dated, bigoted, and ad hominem approach to political analysis had found "Reason ..."

Then, while doing research on unemployment; lagging American gross domestic product (GDP); American deficits and national debt issues; America's lack of a national (rational) energy policy; and, Peyton Manning's future career ... 

... About that particular time in history, I wanted to give the RCM and the Social Conservatives a break and allow them to freely  condemn someone for something  ... I wanted to lay off the RCM for a while ... but then ...

Then, I came across this ...  

By Steven Nelson
The Daily Caller

Associate Editor

03/14/2012

Internet pornography could conceivably become a thing of the past if Santorum is elected president.

The unapologetic social conservative, currently in second place behind Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, has promised to crack down on the distribution of pornography if elected.

Santorum says on his website, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”

If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”

Nice! Thanks, Rick! We had been focused on how to re-establish America as an economic and political Super-Power! But, if you want to think about Internet porn ... well, then ... uh ... good-luck ... weird?

By the way, Santorum ... check this out:

"Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking spends a lot of time talking about the universe and what it might all mean but when the former “Newton Chair” holder of Cambridge University isn’t talking to sold out crowds he can be seen spending his time in sex and strip clubs."

"The Daily Mail is reporting that the 70-year-old has visited various swinger clubs, sex clubs and strip clubs over the years including a Southern California swingers party which he was brought to by his nurses and assistants.

Whoa! I am Officially Freaked Out! Not by Stephen, but by Rick!

Americans Don't Like "Meanies"

Ad Hominem Attacks Will Re-Elect Obama!

Justice Dakota

03/15/2012

President of the United States (POTUS) Barack Obama, is really good. He may be the best campaigner ever. And, people like President Obama. I like President Obama -- and, if you are slightly open-minded, you probably like the POTUS as well (at a personal level).

President Obama is smart, articulate, young (for a President), cool (and, old-folks, please don't try to define "cool" -- you know it when you see it ...), attractive, healthy, active, and ostensibly a good husband and father.

As America's first black president, Obama is a historical figure above and beyond his role as POTUS. It's a big deal for a person who would have been considered a slave and three-fifths human in terms of representation in 1787 (The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution) to become POTUS in 2009!

Americans know that Obama as President of the United States is a big deal. President Obama gives us a sense of pride by reminding us that we are collectively stitching a horrific, historic, national wound.

The contemporary political problem with POTUS is that he happens to be ideologically extremely left-wing, and he has governed during an exceptional period of American economic decline. From a policy standpoint, it is reasonable to argue that President Obama has contributed to America's economic decline.

However, because Obama is generally liked and respected, only Governor Mitt Romney, despite the current economic mess that must now be owned by Obama, has a chance to defeat him in 2012.

Romney (strategically or intuitively) knows Americans hate "Meanies." Is it possible that Romney's integrity, intelligence, and personal disposition will not allow him to engage in ad hominem attacks? 

Definition: Ad hominem

1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments

2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason

The Real Conservative Movement (RCM) which idolizes the Right-Wing Social Conservative Republican Primary voter, seems to worship the ad hominem attack. They love appealing to emotion (fear, mostly) as opposed to reason.

Apparently, Romney is the only Republican candidate for president who does not have a "political potty mouth." I for one appreciate his "Gentleman" approach toward his political adversaries.

Think about it: Social Conservatives in South Carolina loved Newt's barking at the press! They loved Newt's ad homenen attacks on President Obama and other Republican candidates. The audience responded like a crowd at a professional wresting match when Newt, as opposed to addressing a question regarding his second wife's allegation that Gingrich wanted an "open marriage," blamed the mainstream media for detracting from the issues.

But, wait a second: I thought Southern Social Conservatives cared about things like family values, non-traditional marriage arrangements, etc.?

Is it any wonder that Newt has only subsequently won one other state -- his adopted home state of Georgia where he does not live and was not born? Is anyone surprised that, but for his ego and/or narcissistic personality disorder he would have dropped out of the race after losing in Alabama and Mississippi?

Once the universe broadens beyond the Southern Social Conservative Republican Primary voter, ad hominem attacks appear desperate, mean, irrational, and are not politically effective.

Without having conducted a poll, I suspect average women voters are particularly offended by ad hominem attacks (maybe they have been on the receiving end of such attacks more than most?)

Senator Rick Santorum, in 2007, went ad hominem on Romney's religion. Santorum wrote: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"

Santorum's next paragraph began: "Assume for the sake of argument that there are valid considerations (to the comments noted above)."

Santorum, in his article, drew distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity. Referring to Romney's "Freedom of Religion Speech," Santorum wrote: "He tried to address the questions by discussing Jesus, suggesting that the specific theological tenets of Mormonism are not in any important respect different from those of traditional Christianity. I disagree."

Very, very slick ad hominem attacks by Santorum. A clever, but obvious attempt to bring religious bigotry into the Presidential Campaign. Again, proving (or at least suggesting) that only Romney has the personal attributes (he's not a "meanie") to successfully compete against President Obama in 2012.

What is a Bigot?

A Bigot:

Justice Dakota

03/13/2012

1) A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

2) A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I have a Republican friend who is educated who thinks President Obama is a Muslim Communist. He has indicated that this particular view is shared by many in his Baptist Church Congregation. Whoa!

Oh, and my Republican friend thinks Mormons are cult members -- Wow!? What will he do in November 2012? Muslim Communist versus Cultist? His delimna got me thinking, "It must really suck to be a bigot!" Or, does being a bigot somehow make life more organized?

So I did a little research:

45-percent of voters in Mississippi and Alabama believe Obama is a Muslim, while only 14 percent correctly identified Obama as a Christian (President Obama attends Evergreen Chapel at Camp David, the same church former president George W. Bush attended during his time at the White House).

While researching Religious Social Conservatives, I read a bigoted comment made by the Evangelical pastor Robert Jeffres, a Governor Rick Perry supporter: Pastor Jeffres strongly implied in his introduction at the 2012 Values Voters Conference that Evangelicals would have a choice between a non-Christian ‘good man’ (Romney) and a ‘born-again Christian (Perry).’

In later comments, Jeffres explicitly called Mitt Romney a “non-Christian” and termed Mormonism “a cult.” Nice!

Even though my posts are intended to be political in nature, it occurred to me that we may have a presidential election where a sizable percentage of religious bigots will "infect" the political process.

What happens in the mind of a religious bigot when they perceive the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election a battle between The Boogy-Man and the Demon hiding under their bed?   

I discovered something not-so-interesting: Christians can be divided into two groups when it comes to the age of the Universe:

One group is the young-earth creationists, who take a literal interpretation of Genesis and believe the Earth is around 6,000 years old based on Biblical genealogies.

The other group is the old-earth creationists, who accept the scientific evidence that points to the Earth being approximately 4.5 billion years old because they don't interpret Genesis literally.

Question: If one or the other group of Christians noted above is intolerant toward the other group, then are Christians bigoted against themselves? Mind-Freak Alert! Mind-Freak Alert!

Then, throw into that anti-intellectual spiritual mess: anti-Mormonism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Amish (yes, even the Amish are hated by some), anti-Lutheran, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhism, anti-Hinduism, anti-ME, anti-YOU, anti-secularism, anti-Auntie, anti-Freaking Everything ... Please, bigots, just stop! For the love of God -- just stop being bigots!! 

Not that science matters to religious bigots, but I feel it only responsible to offer the following:

"The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13 billion years, that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago."

Romney is Mormon! It's okay. President Obama is what he says he is -- a Christian, Very, Very Liberal, Democrat. It's okay.

Lets do politics and avoid religious bigotry. There was a reason our Founders feared the combination of religion and politics. It makes everyone HATE!

Romney Can Save Us From Ourselves!

Women, Moderates, and Independents
will Choose Next POTUS

Justice Dakota

03/12/2012

Despite the yelping from the "Real Conservative Movement's (RCM)" self-proclaimed "Real Conservative (RC)" King-Makers (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and a boat-load of other self-anointed Tea-Party leaders), the fact is that the 2012 Presidential Election will be decided by women, moderates, and independents.

How many Republicans are tired of hearing about the precious so-called "Republican Base"? Has it gotten to the point where the RCM King-Makers are making the rest of us sick with their idolization and worship of the almighty "Social Conservative (SC)"?

Has anyone considered that there may be no such thing as a true SC as the RCM has defined that term? What does the SC do when they have a child or grandchild who is "alternative"?

What happens when an SC loses his/her job and subsequently sincerely appreciates President Obama's extension of unemployment benefits? Does the SC really want their son with his "boots on the ground" in Iran?

How many people do you actually know who really care about what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes? How many Republicans do you know who are truly and totally freaked-out by porn, "alternative" life-styles, marijuana, boobies, same-sex marriage, sexual content on TV, the Spanish language, or by people of non-Christian faiths? Seriously, what percentage of Republicans are that uptight about those issues?

Answer: One Republican out of 10 harbors resentment toward people who choose different life-styles! That is my anecdotal conclusion.

I have asked my Republican friends if they are freaked out by the social issues listed above. About 10-percent of them think those social issues matter. The other 90-percent tend to say, "Who cares about that stuff!?" That 90-percent knows that Playboy and Penthouse magazines did not destroy America (deficit spending and constant wars might -- but, they intuit the reality that -- as a nation -- we somehow survived pornography).

The 90-percent also, somehow, know that mandating a Christian prayer in a public facility (such as a public school) is potentially offensive to people who are not Christian -- and they would not tolerate a mandated Muslim prayer in their public schools.

The 90-percent is very fair. They can walk in other people's shoes ...

The 90-percent knows that they want a smaller federal government -- but, they also know they like their government benefits.

The 90-percent is willing to kick our enemies' ass, but they also don't want their sons and daughters killed in regime-change and nation-building endeavors.

The 90-percent is uncomfortable when we attack people who have not attacked us -- they may support the mission -- but they are uncomfortable because they can walk in other people's shoes ...

Our "National Swagger" came from the following collective American mindset: Don't mess with us, and we will not mess with you! Hit us, and we will go Ape-Poop on your ass! That made us cool! That made us wise! That made us strong!

So why do 90-percent of Republicans have to suck up to the 10-percent that no one likes? The Republican Party needs the votes of women, moderates, and independents to win the White House. That is simply a fact. We also need their votes to keep the 10-percent from turning us all into monsters!

As my mother is fond of saying, "Everything in moderation." Why does the 10-percent hate my mother as well?

Truth be told, only Governor Mitt Romney is following my mom's advice. And, only Romney can get the votes needed to win ... Romney can prevent the 10-percent from turning us all into monster-enablers!

Romney Most Like Reagan!

& Reagan Resembled Romney

Justice Dakota

03/11/2012

As has been documented in previous blog posts, the contemporary "Real Conservative Movement (RCM)," which has been promoted by national talk-show hosts and conservative pundits, have worked tirelessly to construct a mythical "Real Conservative (RC)" Republican candidate who can defeat President Obama and return America to the era of "Reagan Conservatism."
The RCM has loudly proclaimed Romney as anti-RCM. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and many other "Real Conservative Candidate" myth-makers love to disseminate propaganda designed to convince the American public that President Ronald Reagan was a real conservative -- and that Governor Romney is a moderate-to-liberal Yankee son-of-a-bitch with too much education and brains.

After all, Romney does not cut wood on a high-country ranch or drive a truck through the tumble-weeds of a Texas Dude Ranch.

Without really knowing, I suspect Romney reads and studies a lot. He probably has a nice library filled with a lot of books (no cigars or alcohol). And, the RCM may hate him for such habits.

I imagine the RCM is really pissed off because it appears that Romney does not ride horses (not yet, anyhow). And, Romney seems as if he does not like killing animals with a gun as much as the RCM would prefer.

Does the RCM believe Big Valley, the TV show, was a documentary? Do they want their Presidential nominee to role-play a character from the Bonanza TV show? Do they realize that President Ronald W. Reagan, in 2012, would not fit their hyped-up "Real Conservative" template?

If the RCM knows they are myth-creators, then they disrespect us all and don't deserve Republican support -- because they are nothing more than propagandists. If they believe their own myths -- well, then, Wow! Whatever happened to reading and reality?

Reagan, who is objectively considered one of our greatest Presidents, would fail the RCM "Social Conservative" test. He was married twice, estranged from certain family members, earned his money, and achieved stardom in Hollywood, had flip-flopped his party identification, ballooned our federal deficit and national debt, and was in the White House while the First Lady non-apologetically turned to astrology for guidance and comfort.

And, with respect to national deficits and debts, did Reagan "kick the can" down the road?

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Feb 5, 2011:

Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.”

Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

As governor of California, Reagan reportedly “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then” and state spending nearly doubled. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
_____________________________________________________________________________

So, as a Reaganite, I believe the RCM has disrespected Conservative Republicans. They have given us a choice of perpetuating mythology versus defending a Real, Rational, Conservative (Reagan).

Reagan had to govern! He had to compromise! Romney will have to govern. And good government can not be mythologized. Reality matters.

God Bless President Ronald Reagan! A Rational, Real, Conservative Republican!! May the Spirit of Reagan's rationality be with the next Republican Nominee (Romney). Maybe the RCM can forgive Romney for not riding horses, driving trucks along dirt roads, and shooting animals. I bet he likes to ski!? What's the big deal?

By the way, for the contemporary RCM: Ben Cartwright was not real. Cartwright was a character played by the actor Lorne Green in the Bonanza TV series.

Numbers Don't Lie!

Pundits Do!

Justice Dakota

03/10/2012

Governor Mitt Romney, thankfully for the future of the Republican Party, and for the future of America, will be the Republican Nominee for President of the United States. And, Romney will defeat Obama and become President of the United States. This is such a forgone conclusion that Social Conservative Talking-Heads and Radio-Heads are freaking out about how they will fill the dead-air. They will have nothing to do other than blab about their hatred -- hatred of Obama and hatred of Romney.

I'm no psychologist, but where does all the hatred come from? Is it a move for ratings? Or, are these "Real Conservatives" just mean people? So much hate coming from the Radical Right! Why? It's offensive to the majority of Republicans -- and to the majority of Americans.

It would be nice if the Real Conservatives who fabricated a mythical "Real Conservative Movement" (in the hope of having a mythical "Real Conservative" candidate) just bottled up their hate and put it in a lock-box and buried the box in a deep hole somewhere in a cave -- so deep that our most sophisticated bunker-buster bombs could not even shake the box upon repeated bombardment.

By the way, the Real Conservative, Radical, Social Right-Wing of the Republican Party (to the extent they are not largely a mythological creation in terms of their influence) should grow up just a little bit. Newsflash to those Peeps: No one cares about President Obama's previous "radical" associations.

A video-tape of Obama hugging a radical college professor is about as powerful as knowing that TV Evangelist Pat Robertson had extensive business dealings with Liberian president Charles Taylor. Taylor reportedly gave Robertson the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia's mineral-rich countryside. SNORE on both stories!

Guess what, during my Ph.D program I went to a party at my Marxist professor's house where we all enjoyed his swimming pool and Argentinian wine. He was my professor. I think I was hoping for a good grade, a fun time, and a decent wine-buzz. That did not make me a Communist!

So, again, I feel the need to quote Mr. Conservative, Governor Barry Goldwater (may he rest in peace): "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

Kiss politics goodbye if the Republican Party becomes a religious organization! Wow! Barry, can you and Ronald Reagan come back and kick these "condemnationophiles" in the ass?

Is it possible the Radical Right, Social Conservative, self-described Real Conservatives who have a national platform are child-like in their political analysis? Or, is it simply that they talk dumb to improve their ratings and make more money?

But, back to the point: Mitt Romney will face President Obama in the 2012 Presidential election. And, we at JusticeDakota.blogspot.com are predicting a Romney victory. Romney will be the next President of the United States.

The fact that Newt says he will not get out of the race does not bode well for his mental health (and we are seriously, compassionately, concerned about this).

Senator Rick Santorum is doing what a failed Senator must do -- become famous to obliterate the notion that he was a Big Loser when he ran for re-election -- and, increase his national profile so he can make more money to support his large family (all very rational decisions). We wish him the best of luck. He is a good man, and he deserves, as much as anyone, the opportunity to potentially cash-in on his national celebrity.

But, for the serious people out there -- it is Romney Vs. Obama in 2012! Sorry if that hurts the ratings of the main-and-lame-stream media, and sorry it may put a dent in the alternative media. It is what it is!

The South May Favor Romney over "Mean"

Did Barry Goldwater Endorse Mitt Romney?

Justice Dakota

03/09/2012

In his later years, Goldwater warned about "Social, Religious, Conservatives" Destroying the Republican Party:

In 1994, Goldwater said: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

Governor Mitt Romney is currently doing better in the South than anyone expected. Is the spirit of Goldwater speaking to the "Social Conservatives"? Is Goldwater saying, "Be cool, freedom and liberty for everyone -- that's the Real Conservative Movement. Don't be so uptight on social issues."

(I don't think Goldwater would have liked Governor Sarah Palin ...)


By Lloyd Grove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 28, 1994; Page C01

"At 85, after a life in politics spanning five decades (he retired from the Senate in 1987), Mr. Conservative has found himself an unlikely new career: as a gay rights activist."

This month he signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals. The effort, dubbed Americans Against Discrimination, is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the influential gay lobbying organization."

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Could it be true that the right-wing social conservative agenda has always been somewhat of a turn-off for the majority of Republicans -- let alone the majority of Americans?

Do these historical facts explain Romney's strength and staying-power? Is there a chance that the Right-Wing, Social Conservative, Republican Primary Voter is becoming more socially moderate? Just a tiny chance?

(Would Goldwater have done better with his sincere 1994 social views as opposed to his potentially "Republican establishment-forced" radical social views of 1964?)

Pat Robertson & Pot; Goldwater & Gays

Why Do "Social Conservatives" Wait So Long to Moderate Their Views?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PAT_ROBERTSON_MARIJUANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-08-13-11-19

Justice Dakota

03/08/2012

On March 8, 2012, Pat Robertson, the charismatic Evangelical Christian host of The 700 Club television show, and the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, called for the legalization of marijuana.

In 2010, Robertson, the 81-year-old TV Evangelist called for an end to mandatory prison sentences for possession of marijuana. WTF!?

In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post, Barry Goldwater -- Arizona Governor, Right-Wing Christian Conservative, Republican candidate for President of the United States in 1964 (he lost to President Lyndon Johnson by a massive landslide while the GOP lost many seats in the House and Senate) -- Goldwater said (at around age 85):

"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

In response to Christian Fundamentalist Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court (Falwell had said: "Every good Christian should be concerned"), Goldwater stated: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

In 1996, Goldwater is reported to have told Bob Dole, "We're the new liberals of the Republican party ..."  In that same year, Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana -- further pissing off social conservatives.

Goldwater also disagreed with the military's ban on homosexuals ("Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.")

Just prior to his death, it is reported that Goldwater told the republican establishment, "You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

Why do "Social Conservative" pundits not learn from history? Where is it written that social conservatives have to wait until their final years to become less judgmental and more humane?

Santorum should study Goldwater -- the man after ambition did not contaminate his motives --
Oh, and props to Robertson! Sad that all these guys wait so long to become HUMANE, kind, and generous (from a political policy perspective).

Could this be Governor Mitt Romney's gift to American politics? He does not have to go through the "Hate" and "Mean" process ... ?

Could Romney be the wise, conservative Sage already? (And, why do the self-described "Real Conservatives" continue to enjoy the "hate and mean" phase of the process?)

Why Southern Women Won't Vote Newt!

Newt: The Political Cartoon

(Back by Request and Reluctantly Re-Published)

Justice Dakota

03/07/2012

http://www.photoshow.com/watch/Qa5VM3qf

Is Romney the True Conservative?

(Minus the Hatred, Contradictions, and Anger of a "Social Conservative"?)

Justice Dakota

03/06/2012

It is unknown when the "Real Conservative Movement (RCM)" began. However, we do know that the Social Conservative element of the Republican Party has been around for some time.

In 1976, Robertson announced that the end of the world was coming in October or November 1982. In September 1986, Pat Robertson announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that the terrorist attacks were partly a result of pagans, gays, and feminists. Oh, and the ACLU. Robertson and Falwell also suggested that lesbians played a critical role in the attacks. George W. Bush asked both men to reconsider their analysis. Falwell subsequently apologized.

So, did the Real Conservative Movement begin September 1986 with Robertson's presidential bid? Who knows? We do know that many RCM leaders love to dip into that religious well for political purposes. We also know they are attempting to re-make the Tea Party into their own image.

Many RCMs misinterpreted the Tea Party success in 2010 as a revival of the Social Conservative Movement in America. Their reasoning for such a revival was -- and is -- critically flawed and damaging to the larger universe of Conservative Republicans and Conservative political and economic theory in general.

Interestingly, what was unique about the success of the Tea Party in 2010 was its almost exclusive emphasis on free-market economic principles and a smaller federal government. In general, Tea Party voters wanted less taxation and less spending -- knowing that those two things would result in greater freedom and prosperity.

In 2010, the Tea Party, at its core, was a Constitutional movement.  Its supporters mostly avoided social issues. As a result, they were successful.

Unfortunately, the original rationality of the Tea Party was hijacked by the religious interventionist. The "old" (emphasis on "old") Social Conservatives moved in to exploit, manipulate, and mold the Tea Party into something akin to Pat Robertson's 700 club in an effort to promote their social, "moral," and religious agenda. These "Body Snatchers" consider themselves "Real Conservatives (RCs)." They have been promoted and supported by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and numerous other social conservative reactionaries. How many times have you heard well-known conservative pundits talk about finding a "real conservative"?

When they say, "real" do they mean Evangelical or Christian Fundamentalist? When Rush Limbaugh focused on the sex-life of a college student, and called her a slut and a prostitute on his nationally syndicated radio show -- was he morally condemning her personal, legal, life-style choices?

I listened to Rush obsess over how to calculate the number of times per week this student has sex. Granted, Rush was addressing the issue of government subsidized birth-control. Still, is it interesting that RCs appear to be irrationally focused on peering into the private, "social" lives of Americans?

Must the RCM continue to reinforce the stereo-type that Social Conservatives are focused on what people are doing in their bedrooms? Rush even said he wanted the student to post videos of her sex acts so he and other RCs could watch! Creepy Alert!! (I wonder if Cotton Mather suffered from these types of internal contradictions?)

We all know that Senator Rick Santorum is not reluctant to talk about sex (and Satan). We know that Speaker Newt Gingrich loves to talk about his salvation, redemption, conversion, etc ... (I forget all the various terms he uses to to avoid the reality of his previous non-socially conservative lifestyle: affairs, divorces, support of open marriages?) Despite his "socially hot" background, Newt came up with a way to say, "I am now a true social conservative!" Luckily for Newt, he changed his ways just in time for his 2012 presidential bid ...

What is interesting about the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary is that Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Ron Paul have avoided exploiting religion for political purposes. Romney's strong, sincere religious convictions have never been questioned. He is universally considered a man of faith; a moral and ethical family man; and a man who lives a socially conservative life-style. Is Romney the epitome of a socially conservative, family-values guy? How does Romney manage to do this without telling the rest of us how to live our private lives?

How can Romney be so non-judgmental given his strongly held religious views? How can he so easily delineate the roles of church and state? And, why is it so difficult for other candidates to separate their personal religious convictions from their public policy pronouncements?

Could it be that because Romney is confident and secure in his faith he does not feel the need to lecture people about their own religious or non-religious world-views? Could that skill make him the ideal conservative candidate for President of the United States?