Romney's 10-Point Plan for Victory

How Romney Defeats President Obama!

Justice Dakota

04/04/2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how does Romney defeat Obama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations!   

Information on the Penny Plan @:

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

Time for Rational Conservatives to Buckle-Up!

Have Real, Rational Conservatives Decided on Romney?

Justice Dakota

04/03/2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for Real, Rational Conservatives to Buckle-Up!

Obama: No More Euro Model!

Let's Go China Model on Energy!

Justice Dakota

03/29/2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rubio Endorses Romney!

Romney/Rubio Win in 2012!

Justice Dakota

03/28/2012

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

But here is the future headline:

"Romney/Rubio Win White-House!"

Republicans and Religion

Summing It All Up

Justice Dakota

03/27/2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Across the street from our house is a Mormon family.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2011 Evangelicals for Mitt. All Rights Reserved

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

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

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

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 ...)