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!