"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem

If you haven't gotten a chance to watch this yet, please do. If you teach economics, fiscal policy, monetary policy, or teach government, show this to the students in your class. It's sweet. The video is 8 minutes of pure awesome.

In Fear the Boom and Bust, John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century, come back to life to attend an economics conference on the economic crisis. Before the conference begins, and at the insistence of Lord Keynes, they go out for a night on the town and sing about why there's a "boom and bust" cycle in modern economies and good reason to fear it. Get the full lyrics, story and free download of the song in high quality MP3 and AAC files at:http://www.econstories.tv/. Plus, to see and hear more from the stars of Fear the Boom and Bust, Billy Scafuri and Adam Lustick, visit their site: http://www.billyandadam.com/.

Green Police- The Real Government Superbowl Ad

The federal government paid taxpayer dollars to advertise during the Superbowl recently, and I'm pretty sure that their real advertisement was not for the census but instead was the Green Police ad.

I know at the end of this advertisement it says "Audi", but the Green Police ad fits a lot better with what the Democrats and Obama want to to do to our nation. In the ad, people are arrested by fascist thugs who disregard rights to due process and rule of law for the following offenses: using plastic bags, throwing away batteries, not composting, installing incandescent light bulbs, using plastic bottles, setting a hot tub temperature too high, and for driving automobiles that aren't environmentally friendly. These 'police' go through garbage, drag people out of their homes, and search cars without cause in order to catch people who aren't 'being environmentally friendly.' This is the future, boys and girls.

And if you happen to think that a freedom-sucking ‘Green Police’ scenario as depicted below is absurd and impossible, I direct your attention to these videos over on Restore–DC–Catholicism. In the second video, Lord Christopher Monckton, who debunked the global-warming junk science notes of the shenanigans discovered at the recent Copenhagan meeting, a meeting which Democrats and liberals and Obama and Pelosi all supported.

Here is the commercial and the vision of the liberal future:

Obama Nicknames

In my classes we've been talking about nicknames for Presidents as a way of better understanding how the public and the media viewed each President, and honestly, I couldn't think of any nicknames that are common usage for President Obama. I tried searching "President Nicknames," "Nicknames for Barack Obama," and "Nicknames for Obama", and although I got a lot of hits, it doesn't look like our nation has settled on any one name for him. I know we each have our own nickname for him that we might use in the privacy of our own home when our kids can't hear it, but in radio, TV, blogs, etc you don't see one nickname that everyone seems to be using for Obama. It's almost if the name "Obama" itself has become a nickname, it is usually said with either worship or bile.

For what it is worth, in my research, I did come across the following list of possible Obama nicknames at brainshavings.com, and thought I'd pass it on to my readers. For the record, my top three are "Waffles The Clown," "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers," and "Captain of the US Titanic Spending." Enjoy!

Anointed One, The
B.O.
Bambi
Bammy
Barack The Wealth Spreader
Barry Soetoro
Bobo the Clown
Boy President, The
Captain of the US Titanic Spending
Chicago-Thug-in-Chief
Chief Walking Eagle
Chosen One, The
Community-Organizer-in-Chief
Comrade Obama
D'OHbama
Dear Leader
Demagogue-in-Chief
Dumbo
Empty Suit, The
Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, The
His Phoniness
Hopenchange
Kenyan Kid, The
Lightworker, The
Messiah, The
Nobama
Obama bin Lyin'
Obamateur
Obamessiah, The
Obamination
Obarfo
Oclueless
OediPOTUS Wrecks
One Big Ass Mistake, America
One, The
President Christ Superstar
President Doubtfire
President Nancypants
President Pantywaist
Redistributor-in-Chief
Solomon Obama
Spineless Wonder, The
Squanderer-in-Chief
Teleprompter of the U.S. (TOTUS)
Thug-in-Chief
Urkel
Waffles The Clown
Wizard of Uhhs, The

Biased Test Questions on Standardized Tests that I Read

Occasionally in my job I proctor standardized tests that are given to every student in the state. This job is usually pretty uneventful- as a proctor, you simply read the directions to the students and then keep an eye on them. Our students test in a big empty cold gym that is filled with row after row of students, busily filling in bubbles to prove that they have learned something after years of public education.

I've written before about how I have personally observed bias on standardized tests- read my entries Liberal Teachers To Students- Play God, Bloomfield Hills Schools Sticking with Leftist Curriculum, Students Accept Majority Tyranny, The Liberal Bias of Government Mandated Tests, I have been Black-Listed, Thoughts after Grading AP Government Exams, Black Listed, and Working on the Standards.

The real tragedy with biased standardized tests is that students who are conservative or right or even moderate will have trouble with the tests not because they lack knowledge or smarts but because they will reject the premise of the question or the agenda of the reading.

During the last test I had a kid wave me over when I was wandering up and down the rows, and I knew him to be a smart kid, so I came over to him and asked him what he needed, figuring he needed a new pencil or something.

"How do I answer this question," the smart young adult asked me, "when I don't buy into the premise behind it?" I read the question that he was pointing to, and saw the problem. The test was a reading test where the students would read from a document and then answer a series of questions. The reading that had this student troubled was a selection about the early industrial revolution, in which factory owners are portrayed as evil and government officials are portrayed as good, and the questions asked students to glorify the government officials and demonize the factory owners.

It was a tad biased of a selection, so I just leaned over to the student and told him- "I see what you mean, it is a tad slanted, but just write down the answer that the grader is looking for- I'm sure the next one will be more moderate or maybe even slanted right for balance."

"The next question is even worse," he said, and had me read the next selection. The second reading that students across the state had to read and then respond to was a story about the gold rush, in which prospectors are characterized as mad and irrational and wrong for seeking to make a lot of money in mining. The selection made it seem as if anyone who was an entrepreneur or anyone who had a dream was wrong, and not someone to be encouraged or supported, and the attached question that students were to respond to asked them to justify those assumptions.

"Or read this one," the young student said. The third and last selection that students had to read and respond to was a history article about the War with Mexico, in which the US is portrayed as the enemy and the bad guy, including language about how the US had no justification at all for invading Mexico, and about how the Mexican army were the hero's for simply defending their homes from the big bad US, and several individual Mexican’s are specifically named as hero’s while all the US soldiers are just characterized as faceless bad guys. The response question was designed to have students write about how things can be viewed from another perspective- a worthy goal, but since most students lack any knowledge of the other side of this issue and are fed one angle in the prompt, the question is set up to have students simply justify the question's agenda that the US is bad and Mexico is good.

Shaking my head, I repeated my earlier advice, "Just write what the grader wants you to say." The student was disgusted, and did so, but I can't imagine he gave it his best effort or put 110% into the writing of those essays.

Obama is No Visionary

Increasingly, one of the distinctive features of Obama's Presidency is its lack of vision. As I was reading about Obama's decision to cancel NASA's Constellation program, this thought struck me even more so than my earlier "Obama's New NASA Policy- Yet More Broken Promises and Lies" thought. Oh, I still believe that Obama's policy represents yet another example of how he breaks promises and lies through his teeth, but I'm past that now, and now I'm sad about the loss of the Constellation program because it demonstrates the lack of vision by our President.

If Obama was reaching for the stars and falling short, at least he would be getting into the upper atmosphere. If Obama was attempting to do grand new things, it would be a different story, but what we have with Obama is a President who is covering all the bases that Europe and the Soviet Union already covered long ago. Nationalized healthcare isn't bold or new- it's been tried and done and proven to be a failure for decades. High taxes, high regulation, and redistributing wealth to poor, unproductive people? USSR did that and found it failed too.

Go down the list of Obama's bold vision for the future, and what you find is someone who is firmly fixed on visions of the past put forth by people like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Obama is not dreaming big and reaching for big things. He isn't going to remake society, or change society- he is going to drag society back into the mud, try ideas that have already been tried and failed, and display an utter lack of real vision when it comes to solving the problems facing our society today.

This is not to say that Republicans have vision- some of the approaches of the Republican Congress from 2000-2006 and George W. Bush's Presidency were pretty blind-sighted. Oh, there were visionary attempts- reforming social security, No Child Left Behind, Department of Homeland Security- but not enough. And this isn't to say that those were successes- some were, some were not- but at least he was reaching for the stars, trying to hit one out of the park, and doing something that got our nation excited.

Obama sees the moon, and instead of reaching for it, instead of dreaming about getting past it, instead of seeing Americans settling asteroids and exploring the galaxy, he looks down, and down, and down, and sees Chicago, and the power politics of that city, and drags people into the mud to squeal with him at the trough of pork and name calling. He pinches pennies from visionary programs and then throws dollars at failed policies of a bygone-era. He has an utter lack of vision. Listen to Obama talk about the America of the future and it looks strikingly like the Soviet Union of the past or the Europe of the past. It is not visionary in that it looks to the future and imagines how to get there.

As Obama's poll numbers dip, as Republicans win back the House and Senate, Obama will not become more visionary. To be a visionary, you need confidence in your vision, energy and skill to take someone there, and a self-confidence to plow ahead and drag a nation into the future behind you. That isn't Obama- he is a shell of a man, play-acting as an adult, desperately trying to hide his lack of knowledge of history and economics, and rather sadly filled with hubris and unfounded overconfidence. He has only been in office one year, and is snapping and fraying at the edges, looking old and haggard in spite of his low workload and frequent vacations. As he loses popularity, he will become less visionary and will push harder and harder for visions that he read about or was told about by someone else- you can count on that.

UPDATE: At least someone out there has vision- too bad it is Iran. Iran announced Wednesday it has successfully launched a research rocket carrying a mouse, two turtles and worms into space — a feat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said showed Iran could defeat the West in the battle of vision.

Obama and Iran

George Friedman, CEO of Strategic Forecasting, is a noted futurist, someone who predicts future trends in politics and business. According to a recent article of his, one of the biggest threats to the security of the world (and therefore one of the biggest threats to American military, political, and business interests) is Iran. Iran soon will acquire nuclear weapons, and they may just use them against Israel or other US allies in the region, or give them or sell them to terrorist groups out there who may use them to attack the United States. 9/11 was bad, but a suitcase nuke in New York City is an unimaginable tragedy. This is what Friedman wrote about Iran and the United States options, specifically the Obama administration, on how to deal with Iran:

Obama has three choices on how to handle Iran: First, he can impose crippling sanctions against Iran. But that is possible only if the Russians cooperate. Moscow has the rolling stock and reserves to supply all of Iran’s fuel needs if it so chooses, and Beijing can also remedy any Iranian fuel shortages. Both Russia and China have said they don’t want sanctions; without them on board, sanctions are meaningless.

Second, Obama can take military action against Iran, something easier politically and diplomatically for the United States to do itself rather than rely on Israel. By itself, Israel cannot achieve air superiority, suppress air defenses, attack the necessary number of sites and attempt to neutralize Iranian mine-laying and anti-ship capability all along the Persian Gulf. Moreover, if Israel struck on its own and Iran responded by mining the Strait of Hormuz, the United States would be drawn into at least a naval war with Iran — and probably would have to complete the Israeli airstrikes, too.

And third, Obama could choose to do nothing (or engage in sanctions that would be the equivalent of doing nothing). Washington could see future Iranian nuclear weapons as an acceptable risk. But the Israelis don’t, meaning they would likely trigger the second scenario. It is possible that the United States could try to compel Israel not to strike — though it’s not clear whether Israel would comply — something that would leave Obama publicly accepting Iran’s nuclear program.

And this, of course, would jeopardize Obama’s credibility. It is possible for the French or Germans to waffle on this issue; no one is looking to them for leadership. But for Obama simply to acquiesce to Iranian nuclear weapons, especially at this point, would have significant diplomatic and domestic political ramifications. Simply put, Obama would look weak — and that, of course, is why the Iranians announced the second nuclear site. They read Obama as weak, and they want to demonstrate their own resolve. That way, if the Russians were thinking of cooperating with the United States on sanctions, Moscow would be seen as backing the weak player against the strong one. The third option, doing nothing, therefore actually represents a significant action.

Elections have consequences. Obama is in office until 2012, and we have to hope that getting him out of office at that time will not be too late. In the meantime, there are Congressional elections in 2010, and Congress can put some pressure on the President in foreign policy, so make sure you vote correctly in the coming elections.

Winners and Losers in Obama's Budget: Really, We're All Losers

The Atlantic came out with its list of Winners and Losers from Obama's 2011 budget. I modified it somewhat. Those who win the game of using the state to redistribute wealth from one person to another are:

1. Those people who are currently on the low end of the income tax breakdown, either because they are just beginning their careers, or they do not work very many hours, or they do not have very many useful skills that they bring to the marketplace, would be winners as Obama in all his infinite wisdom has decided to keep in place the tax cuts that Bush gave these people that have worked so well. As these people gain more experience, work harder, and gain more valuable job skills, they will become losers, as Obama's policies do just that- punish success.
2. Public school teachers, such as the NEA, which has so strongly backed Obama and his policies, even though doing so has destroyed education funding in our nation and led to massive pay cuts and layoffs for teachers. Obama's healthcare plan would destroy teachers, but oooohh, he is handing out an extra $3 billion to schools, so that's makes them winners.
3. The government would revoke $6 billion of Bush-era tax breaks on energy producers such as oil, gas and coal companies, and instead give those tax-breaks to clean energy technologies that are little more than boondoggles that suck energy from the system and are inefficient at using resources. This makes these politically correct industries 'winners' in the government lottery of holding a gun to my head to give them my money.
4. Government employees are the biggest winners. Discretionary spending skyrockets, in spite of Obama's recent lies to be a budget fighter and deficit hawk.

Biggest losers from Obama's budget:

1. Successful people, who create jobs, invest wisely, live within their means, and work hard. Obama doesn't like those people, and so is going to raise taxes on them to punish them for being good people (ie, let the Bush tax cuts on households making over $250,000 expire).
2. Banks and companies would be losers, as Obama attacks the money and companies in our nation in a determined attempt to chase it all out of the USA. Multinational corporations will pay higher taxes on overseas earnings.
3. Oil, gas, and coal companies will be shaken down for another $40 billion by eliminating Bush-era tax breaks. These companies will respond by cutting jobs, investment, and production in our nation, and raising prices on everyone who uses energy, making everyone a loser.
4. The biggest loser in the proposed budget is NASA. These people supported and believed in Obama, and now they are being backstabbed by having the mission of NASA changed to 'support of the global warming lie' and the cancelling of all space flight activities.

The Third Way: Obama and Fascism

There is a blog out there called "Third Way." It is staffed by Obama supporters and three of its former chairs now serve in the senior ranks of the Obama administration. This is the sort of blog that Obama reads and the sort of blog that Obama takes his marching orders from. This blog is a fascist blog that preaches a fascist ideology.

While listening to the radio today, I was struck by the number of callers to both liberal and conservative radio shows that embraced the so-called third way- a political strand that emphasises its opposition to both communism and capitalism and attempts to embrace a variety of nationalism. The third way attacks big banks and big companies, all while owning larger and larger pieces of those banks and companies. The third way attacks communism by hurting labor unions and workers of the world and rejecting the workers of the world unite slogans, preferring instead to buy into a pseudo-populism. The third way is the way of the fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini, who both rejected the politics of the left and right in order to usher in a new era of hope and change.

The Third Way blog that Obama reads for his ideas is a 'progressive blog', and one would be wise to read about all the horrors of the progressive movement, from its support of fascism and eugenics to its oppression of free speech and individual liberty. The blog supports an economic agenda that is focused on 'a culture of shared values' and 'a clean energy revolution'- clearly it does not believe in a culture of freedom and liberty and sensible energy solutions, but instead it buys into the same environmentalism that Hitler and Mussolini were both enamored with and strives to force everyone to buy into their ideology.

Interestingly enough, one of the major positions for The Third Way blog that Obama likes is that prisoners should work a 40 hour work week. I noted last month that the US Government Employs Slave Labor to Compete Against Private Companies, but astute observers would note the date that the US started to employ prisoners to compete against private businesses- Federal Prison Industries Inc. was created in 1934 by FDR at the height of the popularity of the third way, or fascist, movement.

There is a lot of scary movements out there, but one of the most horrifying that caused some of the greatest tragedies is the fascist movement. Be on guard always for 'third way' thinking in our political leaders.

Air Force Academy Builds Altar to Green God

Via theblogprof, Riehl World View brings to my attention that the The Air Force Academy in Colorado has set up an outdoor worship area for followers of Wicca, Druidism and other Earth-centered religions. Our government, which is flush with cash and not distracted by fighting two major wars, decided to spend its time and resources building a double circle of stones atop a hill on the campus near Colorado Springs, so that cadets and other service personnel in the area can worship 'Earth-centered faiths.'

I understand that a lot of people really do believe in the vengeful Green God, but to change NASA's mission prove global warming is wrong, to change the EPA's mission to the control of our economy in the name of global warming is wrong, and to have the Air Force Academy spend its time building alters and shrines to the Green God is also wrong.

Obama's Cabinet Has Least Amount of Private-Sector Experience... Ever

Via Powerline comes this quote from Investors Business Daily that explains why the stock markets have been jittery and why economic recovery is fragile at best:

Right now, the market seems to be saying: "It's the policies, stupid." Specifically, the socialistic policies that the Obama administration keeps pushing at Americans who know that's not the way this great country was built. It isn't just the efforts to socialize medicine or nationalize the car industry or control banks or punish both consumers and industry for climate variations that have little to do with it either. It's every initiative that comes out of this White House.

It is not shocking that the Obama administration has blasted the economy. Via IBD, we can see that Obama's administration has the least amount of experience, information, and knowledge about the economy, business, job creation, investment, or anything else that happens in the private-sector. Obama himself is clueless about these things, living his whole life in a bubble of government, school, community organizing, and a brief stint in elected office, and he has chosen to surround himself by equally clueless individuals. Don't take my word for it- here is the graph:

Obama's Spiritual Guide is a Progessive Political Operative Who Feeds Obama Quotes from Other Faiths to Reflect on Through His Blackberry

One year later, it appears that Obama has abandoned his 'search' for an official Church and instead has decided to make up his own religion through his Blackberry. I won't judge his actions- that is up to other people to do. But I can pass on to you the information.

In the middle of the campaign for President, Barack Obama (D), quit Chicago's embattled Trinity United Church of Christ only weeks after a 'great speech' where he claimed that he would never abandon his pastor. That was months before he took office, and since then, he has not formally joined a new Church. Once regular churchgoers who weekly choose to sit in the pews listening to Jeremiah Wright bash America and rejoice in the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11, he has now publicly attended services in Washington just three times in the past year, by ABC News' count. He didn't even make it to Church on Christmas.

But, that does not mean that he does not worship something, after a fashion. Obama told ABC Nightline's Terry Moran that his personal BlackBerry, which he famously fought with the Secret Service to keep, has actually become a tool of keeping the faith during his first year in office.
"My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, Scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."

The President's chooser of religious readings to read is Joshua DuBois. His path to power, according to www.whorunsgov.com, started after he was “struck by the injustice” of the acquittal of four New York City police officers who had shot and killed unarmed Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo. After that, he protested 'social injustice', and that led him to be invited to become a pastor and preacher at the United Pentecostal Council of the Assemblies of God church. DuBois earned his bachelor’s degree in political science in 2003, and went on to Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, where he received his master’s in public affairs in 2005. He moved further south to Washington, D.C., to enroll in law school, going part-time to Georgetown University. At the same time in 2004, he worked as an intern in Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-N.J.) office and then as a fellow in Rep. Charles B. Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) office. After Obama's 2004 Convention speech, DuBois thought that Obama was going to be someone powerful, and so decided to hitch his star to Obama's wagon. He was hired as a legislative correspondent in Obama’s Senate office in May 2005. DuBois never completed his law degree, leaving instead to work on the 2008 Obama presidential campaign. In 2008, at the age of 25, DuBois was appointed director of religious affairs for the Obama campaign. After Obama became President, he was named the head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

President Obama is receiving his spiritual guidance from a young political operative who has degrees in political science and international relations (from the liberal-slanted Woodrow Wilson school) and became a religious figure through political protesting. He, like Obama, worked on a law degree but never was a lawyer of note, and his stated support of Obama stemmed from a purely objective calculation of how to obtain power over other people.

Obama's spiritual advisor has decided to focus the Office of Faith in the White House less on faith and churches and instead redirect its mission to supporting neighborhood and community groups like ACORN. He is also an active member in an evangelical anti-poverty organization called Sojourners, which is characterized as "a loose network of progressive-minded Christians" who have been meeting in Washington for the past few years.

So, every day this guy, Joshua DuBois picks "a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day" (as Obama said). Even though Obama is supposedly a devoted Christian, he begins each morning with "quotes from other faiths to reflect on," quotes picked by a progressive, liberal pastor with a thin resume of spiritual and religious accomplishments but a thicker resume of political activism and powerful connections.

I know I started this post by saying that I wasn't going to judge Obama and his faith, but I can't help but opine that I am indeed concerned about the type of spiritual guidance that Obama is receiving during his time in the great office of President of the United States of America.

US Government Employs Slave Labor to Compete Against Private Companies

The United States government is forcing federal prisoners to make products that federal agencies have to buy, undercutting and driving out of business companies in Michigan and elsewhere.

Federal Prison Industries, Inc., also known as UNICOR, is a wholly owned government corporation created in 1934 by statute and Executive Order that produces goods and services from the labor of inmates of the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons. In fiscal year 2008, UNICOR employed 21,836 inmates and generated US$854.3 million in sales. UNICOR has 109 factories in federal prisons, producing about 175 different types of products and services, including electronics, green technology, automotive components, industrial products, and office furniture.

Under US laws and regulations, federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense, are required to purchase products offered by UNICOR. This "mandatory source clause" lets UNICOR unfairly compete with private businesses, all while paying substandard wages and require that inmates work in unsafe conditions.

I'm probably way off on this, but my dad produces furniture and automotive parts, and can't get a job, and I would hate to believe that a part of the reason for this is that the US government is employing slave labor to produce substandard quality goods in unsafe work conditions for resale to other government agencies.

Obama SOTU Address 2.55% on Iraq and Afghanistan

Obama, as he himself said, still is in the middle of fighting two wars, wars which, again according to him, are one of the main reasons for the massive deficit that he ran his first year. And yet, out of a State of the Union speech of 7171 words, he only used 90 of those words on the War on Terror in Afghanistan and only 93 words on the War on Terror in Iraq. That is 183 words out of 7171, or only 2.55% of his speech that was devoted to these two wars.

So what exactly did our wartime President say about these wars?

In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans - men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.

Summery: We are increasing our troop strength because its needed and is doing good things, but we're going to yank them out in a year, but not before we say hopeful things.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

Summery: After Bush's surge won the day in Iraq, which Obama opposed, we will pull our troops out. Everything else about this situation we will just pretend is not important enough to mention to Congress and the nation.

The War on Terror in Iraq and in Afghanistan has cost our nation a lot of political capital, a lot of money, and a lot of good men and women. Obama should have spent more than 2.55% of his historic first SOTU address on those subjects.

Best State of the Union Address Ever

President Obama's State of the Union Address was the best ever. Not the actual address- that was the usual bunch of lies, rhetoric, and deception- but I watched the address with a crowd of over 150 people at a local event that was hosted by the Americans for Prosperity.

Americans for Prosperity, Rocky Raczkowski (Republican-candidate for the MI-9th), and the Core Principles-Center Right Coalition sponsored a State of the Union speech watch party at the Sheraton in Novi. Organized only a few days in advance, it drew anywhere from 150-200 people, who packed in the crowded room to watch Obama's speech on the big screen. A couple speakers spoke beforehand, and then the crowd watched his speech, hooting and hollering and making comments as he went.

With a crowd of Tea Partiers, of course they were critical of Obama's speech, especially his talk about the budget and the debt. People around me were engaging in conversations about economic theory and principles, history, and political theory and thought while we watched his speech. This crowd was not politicians and rich people, but rather good decent citizens who care about our nation and just want to see it prosperous and happy. The words that this group was using the most often in conversation by this group were 'liberty,' 'freedom,' 'citizen,' 'republic,' or 'responsibility.' It contrasted with President Obama's speech, which instead highlighted regulation, taxes, partisanship, and blame.

And this group wasn't a 'Republican' group either- every speaker spent time bashing the Republicans for their failures in office when they were in charge. We expect Democrats to raise taxes, put in place more regulations on our lives, and be corrupt, but we don't expect Republicans too, and so this group ripped into them as well.

As to what I thought about Obama's speech... I thought it was one of the most divisive, partisan speeches ever uttered to a joint session of Congress. Maybe Obama's teleprompter was to his left or maybe he just always looks left all the time, but if it not, it seemed to me he spent most of his speech staring down at the Republicans, brow-beating them and lecturing them. His little chin started drifting up, his shoulders got all narrow, and in this pose, he stared to the left for most of the speech, directly at the Republicans, lecturing them about subjects of which he has little to no knowledge or experience in. He pushed his agenda, spoke about everything in 'us vs' them tones, and spent little time laying out his vision or goals for the nation. I don't think he has any visions or goals, other than power and control, and he didn't disprove my theory in his SOTU address tonight.

There were parts that made me angry- when he took credit for the isolating of Iran when he wants to meet with them without precondition, or when he began to cite the Declaration of Independence and simply stopped with equality and fraternity, or when he said that every generation has fought for change but failed to mention that every generation that fought was fighting for freedom and liberty and not what he wants, or when he blamed Bush for the debt- but mostly I shook my head and thought to myself 'who actually believes this guy anymore.'

As I drove home from the AFP event, I listened to the radio, and heard a much better vision of America from the Republican response. If you haven't listened to their response yet, look it up and do so- the GOP's vision of America is a lot more hopeful, a lot more change for the better, a lot more free, and a lot more prosperous than the stuff Obama uttered tonight.

The picture is from the AFP event- I hope for you it was also the best State of the Union Address ever.

UPDATE: The Detroit Free Press covered this event- read their article on it by clicking here.

As a side note, one way that bias is introduced by the media is through misleading crowd counts. By my count, there were closer to 200 people at this event then there were (as the Freep notes) "about 150 people". The Freep is right about this though- "The catcalls, boos and ridicule from the crowd were frequent" and deserved.

Obama's New NASA Policy- Yet More Broken Promises and Lies

Out of all of the broken promises of President Obama, this one is probably not the biggest to a lot of people. Out of all of the phony and lying rhetoric about hope and change, this latest policy announcement that kills hope and changes things for the worst is probably not the most backstabbing that he has uttered. But that does not mean that Obama's plans to destroy NASA's budget and redirect its mission away from exploration is not big or important to me.

Probably a lot of you didn't read this story, but it is the kind of backstabbing that is becoming familiar to those who follow Obama's policy actions. Obama is going to release a budget proposal Monday for NASA that will cancel the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020, cancel the Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, cancel the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon, cancel any hope for lunar landers or moon bases, and cancel any near future for Americans to explore and conquer outer space.

Instead, Obama will have NASA focus on studies and reports and analysis for future plans- in other words, do nothing and change nothing about our world and our future in it. Furthermore, NASA will be instructed to change its mission away from exploration of outer space to research and monitoring of climate change. That's right- Obama is turning NASA into yet another agency whose resources will be devoted to that failed religion of climate change.

These changes to policy are bad changes. NASA is not being instructed to do more with less, as Bush told NASA to do. NASA is being told to do nothing, or worse, spend its money and energy and expertise trying to reinforce failed theories. It isn't getting leaner and meaner it its quest to take humanity to the stars, but instead is being beaten down and embarrassed in a quest to make humanity less prosperous and happy.

And these changes are not what Obama promised while on the campaign. On the campaign, he lied through his teeth, told people what they want to hear, and was deceitful about his future intentions. In August of last year, then-Senator Barack Obama detailed a comprehensive space plan that included $2 billion in new funding to reinvigorate NASA and a promise to make space exploration and science a significantly higher priority if he is elected president. Since then, he has made NASA a low priority, not even bothering to name a director for NASA for several months, and instead of increasing funding by $2 billion, NASA's budget is going to be slashed.

This is why I call him the Bizzarro President- whatever he says, you can take to the bank that he is going to do the opposite of what he says. He is a serial liar, a deceitful snake, and an untrustworthy person. His word is meaningless, and his promises worth less.

Speaking to potential voters in Florida last year, who bought his lies and promises and voted for him, Obama said:

We cannot cede our leadership in space... (we need to keep) supporting continued funding for NASA; by speeding the development of the Shuttle's successor; and by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired.

Count the broken promises- I count 4 out of 4 statements. Once President, he is going to cede leadership in space, turning us away from exploration and development of the moon to work on reports, studies, and global warming. He is going to do the opposite of 'speed the development of the Shuttle successor'- instead, he is going to totally stop all development on it. And he isn't going to make sure that those good union folks who supported him so much have a job any more- by slashing funding and cancelling the building of new shuttles and rockets, it is projected that as many as 7,000 highly trained workers will lose their jobs after Obama's policies take effect.

For Obama, the rhetoric never matches the reality, and it doesn't with space policy either. In order to convince people that he was a real fan of space exploration and had a vision to take American forward in outer space, Obama said “I grew up on Star Trek!” I don't doubt that, but I think that what he learned from Star Trek was not a love of exploration, a sense of adventure, or the desire to conquer the stars, but rather I think he learned to love the communist-military government in that show. Obama does not want to take man boldly where he has never been before- he instead wants to make NASA into a government-run institution to prove global warming in order to realize the visions and dreams of Karl Marx and Mussolini.

President Obama has broke many promises, lied through his teeth often, and backstabbed supporters without the slightest hesitation. His latest policy decisions with regard to NASA are just another example of this.

Life, Liberty, and Property- Remember Those Words

John Locke said that the purpose of government is to protect and enforce our natural rights, mainly our right to live, our right to live free from interference in our lives, and our right to earn and keep property. Here is his argument, shortened for time. Imagine that you live in a state of nature, a place where there are no laws or government. If someone killed you, it wouldn't matter if there were no laws, because it would be wrong- that means that there are rights that exist before and after government. If you went to Mars, and there were no laws, and someone put you in a cage, that would be wrong- they would have violated your natural right to liberty. And if you go into the middle of outerspace and someone robs you, that would be wrong, because your right to earn and keep property existed before government was ever around and exists even if government isn't there. These rights do not come from the government, and it is not the lawful creator or destroyer of those rights.

So, continuing the lecture, given that we have these natural rights, and given that in a state of nature they may be inadequately protected, the rational thing to do is to agree (ie, to consent) to give up our right to enforce our rights to a government, which will be better able to protect these rights. We do not give up our natural rights- we simply give up the power to enforce them. Therefore, the only reason why government exists is to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property.

That is not to say that government should do nothing. One could convince me that providing a bare-bones safety net of welfare (food stamps or medical care) helps to protect life. One might be able to convince me that liberal rights for criminals could better protect my liberty. And one might even convince me that paying for fire and police services help to protect my property better. As you can see, I'm not a fringe nut- I'm more of a Reagan Republican. That being said, think about what government does right now, what Obama wants government to do, and what your Congressman votes for government to do- do they believe that the purpose of government is to protect your life, your liberty, and your wealth?

Obama is going to give a State of the Union address tomorrow- I predict that in it, he is going to talk about how the government can take more of your property (or some other sovereign individual in our nation), control more of your liberty (or someone else's that you may or may not know), and quite possibly might let slip that he is changing the rules regarding the valuing of human lives (pro-choice and all that stuff).

Call up your Congressman and ask him if he believes that the sole purpose of government is to protect your life, liberty, and property. He better say "heck yah!", or else you better donate to his opponent next election and knock door-to-door so that you can throw him out of office.

Listen to a great interview with 760 WJR's Frank Beckmen as he speaks with Amity Schlaes, Senior Fellow for Economic History at the Council on Foreign Relations, about Obama and if he is repeating Roosevelt's mistakes, and you'll see why I am getting so upset about property rights violations by the Obama administration.

Life, liberty, and property. Remember those words.

Feb 3, Go to the Taxpayers State of the State Address in Michigan

Most likely, the Governor of your state will have a 'State of the State' address coming up soon. If you have a liberal or Democrat Governor who is out of touch with reality too, I suggest that you contact your local taxpayers association group or organize something similar to this yourself. Via the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, written by the great libertarian Republican Leon Drolet:

On February 3, Governor Granholm will present her eighth State of the State Address to Lansing lawmakers. there are fancy receptions prior to the Governor's speech featuring rich hors d'oeuvres and premium bars. Politicians dress in their finest clothes and bring their families and friends to the Capitol to attend the parties. Every state representative gets to bring a special guest - usually a big financial donor - to sit next to them in the House chamber during the governor's speech. It is all very nice. You are not invited.

You see, the State of the State Address isn't about you or your family. Much of the Governor's speech is about the government's budget, not YOUR budget. When Governor Granholm talks about helping the economy, she means giving special tax breaks and subsidies to politically connected and politically-correct companies while raising taxes on every family and business that doesn't have a solar-powered windmill and a healthy lobbying fund.

Let's seize the day of February 3rd away from Governor Granholm and the political class in Lansing.

On the evening of February 3rd, at the very same moment that Governor Granholm begins her speech, the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, and other activist groups like Common Sense in Government, are hosting a different speech outside the Capitol Building. This speech will be a "State of the Citizens Address" where everyday citizens will gather to air their grievances against Governor Granholm and Lansing's government class - and you are absolutely invited!

The protest starts in front of the Capitol Building at 6:30PM and the 'State of the Citizen Address' starts promptly at 7:00PM. Go to www.makelansinglisten.com for more information. Also, check out the great youtube video here.

Friends, it is time to seize the day. It's time to drive to Lansing (dress VERY warm!), and join us outside on the steps of the State Capitol Building. Bring your protest signs and join with fellow frustrated taxpayers in demanding an end to Lansing's failed policies of tax hikes, spending increases and broken promises.

Bring your family, friends and coworkers. The more people we have at this 'State of the Citizen Address', the more the media and (most importantly) the politicians inside the Capitol will pay attention.

Also, call your state representative and state senator and invite them to come too. Tell them that, if they want to really represent you, they should leave their seat on the House floor vacant and go outside and listen to the people. They might tell you that they "have an obligation to attend the Governor's State of the State Address" or that it "would be disrespectful" to miss it. Politely inform them that their obligation is to the citizens, not the Governor. And that we are not asking anyone to interrupt or be rude during the Governor's speech - we are asking them to simply not attend. And to join the citizens outside, instead.

Michigan taxpayers need you to step up. Our economy, our future, need you to step up. Let's do it. Let's rescue Michigan. Let's seize the day on February 3rd! You are invited.

This is a great idea, and I wanted to let you all know about it now, so that you can plan on being there if you live in Michigan, or if you are from another state so that you can begin to plan your own.

Spending Growth Freeze is a Handful of Beans

Democratic US President Barack Obama continues in his quest to be a "a really good one-term president (as judged by liberal progressives that only make up 20% of the US population) rather than a mediocre two-term president (as judged by voters after evaluating him after 4 years)," as he told ABC's "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview recently. His newest effort in his quest to be a one-term President is that he will announce that he wants a three-year freeze on discretionary, non-security spending.

Now, this is not a bad thing, and Republicans should support him in this. About $447 billion of US government spending is 'discretionary, non-security funding'- the rest is mandated by law (the entitlements) or related to defense, intelligence, veterans or national security issues. Obama is promising to veto any budget that Congress submits to him that spends over that threshold, not adjusted for inflation, over the next three years. All of this is good, and a step in the right direction, and Republicans should support him with this effort.

But, this effort is laughable for many reasons. Obama has already greatly expanded the amount of 'discretionary, non-security funding' in his first year, and all that money is still sloshing around finding its ways to corrupt individuals and buying votes while contributing to the massive debts that is driving our nation into bankruptcy. Freezing it now, after its massive expansion, isn't that much of an effort by Obama.

And it isn't like he is 'really' freezing spending- he is freezing the mind-numbing growth in spending after his wild orgy of spending first year. Spending on 'discretionary, non-security' spending will continue at a rapid and high clip of $447 billion a year, a staggering amount already by any real measure. Oh, and it is not a 'hard' spending cap- inflationary increases of 3% a year or whatever inflation is is apparently not going to count towards the 'freeze'. 3% a year of 447 is $13 billion, over 3 years, means that the 'freeze' will only grow this portion of the budget $40 billion over the next 3 years. One has to wonder how much he was intending to grow 'discretionary, non-security' spending while running massive deficits a year before this freeze.

Oh, and this freeze, which is expected to save a couple hundred billion from the budget, would not even make a dent in controlling spending if the President manages to ram through a trillion dollar healthcare bill that no one wants. It is wrong to characterize someone as 'fighting debt' or 'spending money wisely' when on one hand they want to 'freeze' spending growth and on the other hand they want to push through a massive bloated spending increase.

To be perfectly honest, you have to wonder if this is yet another promise that Obama intends on breaking. During his campaign for President, he ridiculed his opponent, the moderate Republican John McCain, for calling for a spending freeze, which is the very thing that he is calling for now. One wonders what has changed, other than his poll numbers or experience in office, to reverse his position.

New Faces in 2012? Nah, Make it Mitt Instead

After the Republican resurgence of 2009, it is worthwhile to think about what this means for 2012. After all, if everything continues as it is going, Barry is a happy one-termer, a guy who did as much damage as possible to the American Republic as possible in 4 short years before voters throw him out and turn to a Republican to begin the probably hopeless task of digging our nation out of the problems of Barry's term.

So, what sorts of people can the Republican party look to for leadership in 2012? Bill Schneider, writing in the National Journal Magazine, says:

What Republicans need in 2012 is a conservative version of Obama. There were high hopes for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, but he flunked his screen test last year. And Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has not yet lit any fires. Right now, the "tea party" movement is trying to energize -- or take over -- the Republican Party. But it doesn't have a leader with presidential stature. Still, you can bet that, after November 2, a major national publication will come out with a cover story showcasing "The New Faces of the GOP." Who will they be? We don't know yet. First they have to get nominated for an office open in 2010. Then they have to win.

Winning Edward Kennedy's Senate seat puts Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown at the top of the list. Marco Rubio will likewise be on the top tier if he beats Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in their state's Republican Senate primary and then wins the election. Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey might be also if he bumps off Sen. Arlen Specter. And so would any Republican who defeats Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. South Dakota's John Thune holds an honorary place on the list for having defeated Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

There is likely to be a whole class of new Republican governors to talk about. Already enrolled: Bob McDonnell, who won election in Virginia in November. Other key members would include Scott McInniss if he wins in Colorado. Ditto for Ohio's John Kasich, Massachusetts' Charlie Baker, and Nevada's Brian Sandoval.

Although Schneider makes a good argument, I disagree with him. Republicans don't need a 'conservative Obama'- we already have seen what happens when you put an inexperienced idealistic rube in office, and it isn't pretty. We don't need a 'new fresh face' or even someone 'from outside the establishment.' What the Republicans need to do is put a responsible, solid, experienced, and learned President in the White House- not someone who is going to set the world on fire and be a revolutionary, but one who will start the task of 8 years of solid, steady, digging.

Everyone knows that it takes years and years of steady investing and growth to build up wealth, but it only takes a short amount of time of reckless spending to burn through it. That's the situation facing America right now. George Bush wasn't pretty and didn't set the world on fire, but after 8 years as President, he left American marginally better than he found it. That's tough to do- I don't think that Obama is going to do that, Carter didn't do it, Ford didn't do it, Nixon didn't do it, and LBJ didn't do it.

So who should the Republicans nominate in 2012? The guy they should have nominated in 2008- Mitt Romney. He has experience pulling debt-destroyed disasters of the of fire and making them successful (Olympics), he has experience running states (MA), and he has a solid, although not overwhelming, conservative record. Don't get greedy people, and don't fall for the glitz and glam of a fancy new candidate- that's what Democrats do. Republicans are responsible, reasonable, calm, and rational, and that means that our pick for 2012 should be Mitt.

Oakland County Government Needs to Be a Limited Government

Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people. Oakland County (MI) government needs to wake up and realize this.

If you need a marriage license, a death certificate, or a birth certificate, you should go to Oakland County Government. If you pay your property taxes or get a map of the county, you should go to Oakland County Government. If you need to pay a ticket, find out about the court systems, or look through campaign finances of local elected officials, go to Oakland County Government. If you want a county park or recreation area, go to Oakland County Government. Oakland County Government should be in charge of sewers, elections, roads, libraries, jails, morgues, and children's services.

But, Oakland County should not be manage an airport. It should not be in the movie making business (Office of Arts and Film). It should not be helping to sell industrial or residential properties, or listing foreclosed homes. It should not be speculating in business ventures, gambling on what kinds of industries to support with investments or tax breaks, and should not be picking and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. Oakland County Government should not be running job placement services, or teaching people how to use a computer, or providing charity for veterans.

These are all worthy and noble efforts- but Oakland County Government should not be doing them, private businesses or private charities should, as they are better able to, provide better services, and do so more efficiently.

And Oakland County Government should not be in the business of providing healthcare to citizens. This is important, and one would hope that an employer would provide this to its employees or the healthcare would be priced so that an individual could afford it, but it is not the business of county government to provide these services.

Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people.

Democrats Know Best How to Threaten Your Life, Liberty, and Property

Today I was listening to a speech by House Republican leader John Boehner. He said

Democrats believe that government knows best how to spend your money. They believe that we are just one new tax, one more czar, and one giant bureaucracy away from solving all of your problems. That's not America. For months, an American revolution has been brewing- one born from the American peoples opposition to greater government control over our economy and our lives.

Democrats are people who think they are better than you. They think they are better able to make decisions about your education, your healthcare choices, your economic decisions, or your energy decisions. A Republican says that you were born free and that government is supposed to protect your life, liberty, and property- a Democrat says that you were born free, but now you bust be controlled, and that your liberty and property is not yours to freely deal with, but instead will be controlled by Democrats through the power and authority and force of the government.

YOU WILL BUY A SMALL ELECTRIC CAR, the Democrat yells. YOU WILL NOT TURN YOUR AIR UP, yells the Democrat. YOU WILL SEND YOUR STUDENT TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL, the Democrat chants. YOU WILL GIVE ME MONEY SO THAT I CAN GIVE YOUR MONEY TO SOMEONE ELSE, the Democrat intones. YOU WILL GIVE MORE MONEY IN 'CHARITY' TO POOR PEOPLE, the Democrat demands. Democrats believe that they know best.

And the way to make the world better, according to Democrats, is to just raise taxes a bit more on some certain group, or to pass another regulation, or to control your health and reproductive decisions. Democrats, at least today as we can see them under Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, talk over and over about how they want to take away your property (or someone else's), take away your liberty and choices, and take away the right to life (taxpayer money for abortions, death panels, etc).

This is a tyranny. And the response to a tyranny is a revolution. Vote the bums out in 2010.

Obama and Democrats Anti-Business and Pro-Recession

U.S. investors overwhelmingly see Democrat US President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a recent Bloomberg survey. It is not a surprise then to this humble blogger that the Great Recession continues- the unemployment rate 'only' stayed at 10% in December because 661,000 people gave up looking for a job and quit applying for unemployment benefits.

The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and only one-out-of-five are confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency. Since the Great Recession began in 2007, some 8.6 million jobs have been lost and small businesses, the normal source for new jobs, are still shedding workers. Fewer than 10% added employees, while more than 20% cut back— and the cuts averaged nearly twice as many per firm as the hires at the expanding companies (source here).

Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 the recession started, although Republican lame-duck President Bush can be tagged with 2 years of the recession, and President Obama has now overseen an additional year of recession, with no end in sight. We've had recessions before, but most have only lasted 2 years before we recovered- this one is different because it has gotten worse in the last year and now looks to go on several years longer.

Bloomberg reports:

“Investors no longer feel they can trust their instincts to take risks,” said poll respondent David Young, a managing director for a broker dealer in New York. Young cited Obama’s efforts to trim bonuses and earnings, make health care his top priority over jobs and plans to tax “the rich or advantaged.”

To recover from this recession could take as many as five years or even more to recover all of the eight-plus million jobs lost since March 2007. That's because we would have to create an additional 1.7 million jobs annually beyond those for the 1.3 million new people who enter the work force every year. And jobs will not be created in a high regulation and high tax environment overseen by an anti-big-business President who's most stirring rhetoric can be summed up as 'business is bad.'

According to the Washington Post, the top 20% of the nation's households account for 40% of all spending, and now are facing a President who is determined to 'spread the wealth' and 'soak the rich'. These households, in the face of the threat of government, are now hoarding their resources and cutting back on spending, leading to a dramatic drop in economic activity in our nation.

The issues might come and go, the personal politics might come and go, and politicians will come and go, but in the end, the most important factor to consider when voting is whether to elect a President or Congressman or Governor or Commissioner who is going to encourage job creation, encourage business, and make people feel good about making money (and spending and saving and investing money). And usually, these people are not Democrats.

Michigan Businesses Now Forced to Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions to EPA

Michigan businesses are now subject to a greenhouse gas reporting rule (source). This is a new regulation that just takes effect this year, and is going to cost local businesses time and money to figure out if the rule effects them and then more time and money to calculate their greenhouse gas emissions. In my opinion, that time and money could be spent providing jobs, services, healthcare, and profits to our good state instead of satisfying this Obama-administration requirement.

These Obama policies make local companies spend their money and time calculating their greenhouse emissions and then reporting that data to the EPA. That process is complicated, and as much as I appreciate readers from Bodmann LLP, I don't want companies in Michigan spending all their time and money hiring lawyers and filing paperwork- I'd much prefer they be doing something profitable instead.

But yet, this is what happens when Democrats run Congress and the Presidency. They pass regulations and laws that direct resources away from efficient private businesses that provide jobs and goods into inefficient areas that produce paperwork and reports. Rather than having a company here in Michigan determine whether they are covered by this new EPA rule and, if so, developing the information needed to comply with extensive government regulations, I'd much rather these companies were productive and efficient with their resources.

Poor Foolish Libertarian Voters Now Realize the Error of Thier Ways

Once, I was a libertarian. I even voted Libertarian. And then I grew up and realized that we have a two party system, and by voting Libertarian, I was only helping make sure that people who were far from libertarian were elected into office. After that, I became a reliable Republican vote, realizing that they were indeed the lesser of two evils, and that I'd rather have a libertarian-leaning Republican than an anti-libertarian Democrat.

Many libertarians though still vote Democrat or for a Libertarian minor party candidate, and so when I read an article like "For This Libertarian, Obama's First Year Looks Grim," by David Boaz, I am filled with an sense of anger and frustration. Libertarians, especially those who vote Libertarian, are idiots and fools and through their voting have made our country less libertarian than it once was, and the sad part is, they don't realize that they are part of the problem.

Many libertarians supported Obama last election, claiming that he was an independent and a moderate, and that he would be much preferred over the invading and free-speech breaking George Bush. Idiots. Now they lament:

As a libertarian, I'm sorry that Obama has not moved to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, to ratchet down the drug war, or to actually end the war in Iraq, the issue on which he rose to prominence. I think it's fair to say that his real ambition was to dramatically expand the size, scope and power of the federal government and that he saw these other issues as distractions.

Foolish libertarians. Why did you support Obama? Why did you fail to support McCain, which is in function the same thing as supporting Obama? Why did you vote third-party in Minnesota, thereby putting in office that joker Al Franken? Libertarians, by not voting for a conservative Republican, installed a super-liberal Franken, who has been the crucial vote on a range of anti-libertarian issues.

Liberals and Democrats can't help how they vote- they don't know any better. But conservatives, libertarians, and 'independents' should know better by now- we have a two party system, and if you aren't part of the solution and voting Republican, you are part of the problem. Save your sad stories and articles about dashed dreams, because they just remind me that you are stupid and foolish. Vote Republican next time.

As I wrote in Libertarians Screwed Themselves By Not Voting or Voting Libertarian:

No, as evidence of how stupid it is to vote for libertarian candidates, I point to Republicans up and down the ballot that are libertarians running as Republicans, and were screwed over when libertarians didn't vote, supported Democrats, or supported Libertarians.

Peters Hasn't Done Any Indpendent Thinking- Congressman Gary Peters Votes 96% of Time with Liberal Democrats

Gary Peters is one of the least independent Congressman in Congress, and votes with his party 96% of the time. He does not work with Republicans, he isn't a voice of moderation, and he is not independent. According to his voting record, he is a liberal Democrat who votes the party line almost every time- a reliable vote for the Pelosi/Waxman wing of the Democratic Party.

Recently, The Oakland Press, the local newspaper in the area, wrote the following editorial called "Peters has done some independent thinking", and this prompted me to do some research:

Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, is not in a very enviable position as a Congressmen. He’s a Democrat from a district that has historically voted Republican. The exact Democrat-Republican split is not known, but it is safe to say that he was elected because of strong support from independent voters. As his first Congressional year ends, we are not going to judge or rate him on his work.

However, The Oakland Press believes you should give credit where credit is due.At times during his very critical and harsh first year in office, Peters has shown that he can break away from the “party-line” and thus think and act independently. Let’s give him credit and kudos for some independent thinking.

This is garbage. According to OpenCongress.org, a non-partisan website set up to track the votes and news about US Congressman, Gary Peters has voted the Democratic Party line 96% of the time, including important votes in favor of the Democratic party line on healthcare, cap-and-tax, stimulus, government-takeovers, and national security. That means that 96 times out of a 100, he has voted Democrat, and only voted with the Republicans 4 times.

The facts- a 96% party line votes- demonstrate that this editorial is pure garbage and that Peters is not an independent voice in Congress or someone who breaks the party line, and I question who wrote it or approved it without doing a little research first.

An 'independent thinker' who 'breaks the party line' votes with the party line 96% of the time? I wonder if The Oakland Press is going to start writing glowing editorials of how independent of a voter Thaddeus McCotter (R, MI-11, 92% party line) is? Or Candice Miller (R, MI-10, 87% party line)? Or Vern Ehlers (R, MI-3, 85% party line)? The only Congressman from Michigan who are less independent and who vote less with the party line are fellow Democrats Sandar Levin (99% party line) and John Dingell (98% party line).

Congressman Peters has sponsored 8 pieces of legislation while in office. They are not 'independent' pieces of legislation that demonstrate his willingness 'to break from the party'. One is to increase taxes (HR 1527). The rest are minor bills requesting tax breaks for favored constituencies or resolutions recognizing various things. Is this what The Oakland Press was raving about? Crossing the aisle to express a sense of Congress for a civil rights activist? Wow.

The Oakland Press ignored his 96% party line vote and his vote on major issues, which is a reliable liberal Democratic vote in favor of bills that even harm his district, and wrote a garbage of an editorial.

Congressman Gary Peters is a solid left-wing liberal, and come 2010, you remember that and vote accordingly.

Students Refuse to State Race on Forms

Around the nation, young students' are refusing to profile themselves and categorize themselves according to race. In a growing trend, students are refusing to state their race on official government forms. As said senior Jessica Mae Belcher- "We shouldn't be judged by our race."

According to McClatchy Newspapers:

From 2006 to 2009, the number of Elk Grove Unified School District students whose parents listed their race as "multiple/no response" went from 500 to 6,200 — a twelve-fold jump in just three years, the California Department of Education says. About one of every 10 of the district's students now list race as "multiple/no response."

There's also been a dramatic rise statewide. Data show the number of K-12 students listing their race as "multiple/no response" has jumped 70 percent, from 124,000 in 2006 to 210,000 last year.

But this isn't sitting well with government officials, who want to judge people based on race. Although the government can't force someone to fill out a form, the US Department of Education is asking school officials to fill out students forms for them by eyeballing students, judging them, profiling them, and then filling in the appropriate box.

The failure for students to go along with the systematic racism the US government is promoting has led to the federal government trying to outfox the clever young students- according to the Federal Register, there will now no longer be a "no race and/or ethnicity unknown" category and schools will use "observer identification" when a parent or guardian refuses to identify race.

A dozen classmates at Elk Grove Unified School District said they'd rather identify as "American" on tests, but the government does not offer that option- only white and a dozen other non-white categories.

The US Department of Education was founded to improve education in our nation, but like most government agencies its mission has now changed, and now it is in the business of profiling students and dividing our nation up into various minority and majority groups. Students will fight this, but the game is rigged against them, and eventually the full power of the fully operational federal government will crush their little rebellion, and all their little friends too.

Senator Paul Kirk's Last Day

Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.” Democrat Senator Paul Kirk was appointed to fill the vacent seat. Tuesdy is the 'election', and if Republican Scott Brown wins, he will meet the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to 'qualify' for the Senate. In other words, Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts.

Oh, Democrats are going to howl about this- Kirk has vowed to vote for the Democratic bill even if Republican Scott Brown is elected but not yet certified by state officials and officially seated in the Senate, and the Secretary of State for Massachusetts has vowed to delay certification for as long as is illegally possible. Without Kirk’s vote, the Democrats don't have the 60 votes needed to stop a Republican filibuster of Obamacare, and they'd have to seek other options. But 'election' does not mean 'seated,' and 'qualification' does not mean 'certified,' and so like it or not, today is Senator Paul Kirk's last day as a United States Senator.

According to the Weekly Standard:

When Republican John Tower of Texas was elected to the Senate in 1961, he wasn’t certified until April 17. But his pay as a senator began on April 2, the day after his election. Strom Thurmond was elected senator from South Carolina in 1956, succeeding an appointed senator. A resolution introduced by then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson established his Senate term to have begun the day after his election, weeks before his certification.

Thanks for your service to our country Paul Kirk- be sure the door doesn't hit you on the way out.

President Bows to King?

Breaking news update: Obama was recently seen in Massachusetts, surprisingly doing some campaigning in that close Senate race. He went from back room to back room in that state, making deals and trading horses, but still had time for some dinner at Burger King. Here is a picture of the President, bowing to the king:

Congress Drives Toymakers Out of Business

In 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Democrats passed this law in response to the 2007 lead-toy scare, and its intended aim was to scrub the lead from toys, bikes, and clothes that little children played with, and that is a good intention. But like most legislation the Democrats advocate full of good intention, the devil in the details creates unwelcome side effects- in this case, the Democrats effort to make toys safer has led to many toymakers laying off employees, cutting back on investments, lowering quality of their toys, and even being driven out of business.

That's the problem with Democrats legislation- the unintended consequences of it. In this case, the law bans products that contain led concentrations of 300 parts per million or more in places or areas that can be touched or accessed easily by children. In order to prove that a toy is lead-free, toymakers must spend anywhere from $300 to $4000 per produce in tests. This cost is not a big hurdle for the big toy companies, but is a big problem for small-batch, independent toymakers. Once again we see the effect of higher fees and regulations- small businesses, the engine of economic growth in our nation, are driven out of business, while the big business, donating large amounts of funding to the Democrats, gain in market share, all in the name of 'the children'.

Oh, I care about about the kids- that's why I trust good old-fashioned small businesses that are local and use quality methods- just the kind that are driven out of business by laws such as the one that the Democrats passed in Congress last year.

The law could also cause makers of essentially harmless products to move overseas to avoid the regulations. Let's say you make a bike, and the brake levers contain higher concentrations of lead in them- a company may decide to move their operations to another country rather than deal with the prohibitive regulations that Congress passes in the name of safety.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission gave small toymakers an extension until 2010 before complying with these safety regulations, but that's now, and so expect over the coming year for a lot of domestic small toymakers to be driven out of business by government regulations, and their market share to go to Chinese companies that were the ones that were caught putting the lead in the toys in the first place.

Legislation has consequences, and although good intentions matter, those consequences matter more. Elections have consequences too- in the future, vote Republican.

Concealed Pistol Licenses Doubled

Via The Shekel comes this story from The Detroit Free Press: Gun permits doubled in Michigan in 2009

Applications and approvals for concealed weapons permits in Michigan doubled last year, as more than 73,000 people sought to obtain or renew licenses in the 12 months ending June 30, and 66,446 were approved, according to a recently released state police report.

That compared to 33,411 applications and 26,578 approvals in the preceding 12-month period.

A department spokeswoman had no immediate explanation for the increase this morning. There have been widespread reports of increased firearm and ammunition sales in 2009, stemming from fears in some quarters that President Obama and a Democratic Party control of Congress might lead to new gun controls.

In addition to "fears of new gun controls" I would also add to the potential list of reasons why people are getting more gun permits "increased fears of a tyrannical government that will increasingly violate God-given rights to life, liberty, and property" and "increased arming for the revolution to restore the American Republic."

Sometimes in my class we talk about John Locke, and whenever I do, my students minds are blown by the power and strength and clarity of his thoughts- that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and that whenever government no longer serves this purpose, people have the right to replace that government with one that does. For most of our history, we've done that at the ballot box. But if the mechanisms of democracy are corrupted- if Democratic Secretaries of State break the laws like we saw in Minnesota and around the nation, if the census is inaccurate and biased, and if voter intimidation like that in Pennsylvania is allowed- then the ballot box option will disappear, and good patriotic Americans will have to find another option to replace their government.

Tymoshenko for President of Ukraine

For years, I have been mildly interested in Ukrainian politics, and follow stories out of that nation with interest. Soon there is going to be a Presidential election in Ukraine. It is a three-way race- current President Viktor Yushchenko, former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, and current Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Yushchenko is an interesting guy- Western looking but considered to be a weak leader. Yanukovych is running on a law and order platform and gets the support of the former communists. It is Tymoshenko that interests me the most- a young, energetic former businesswomen, she seems the best choice for Ukraine because of her knowledge, energy, and experience. She is also a good looking lady- as they say in Ukraine, Yulia is hot- kind of has a little Sarah Palin thing going on- so take a look at some of the pictures of her here and here.

This stuff is fasinating when you really start reading about it. I highly suggest you all check out the article in Spiegel Online called The Sad End of the Orange Revolution- it is very good.

A Record December to Remember for Obama Deficit

The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of $91.8 billion alone in the month of December 2009. That is a record- for comparison, even during the last year of Bush's Presidency as he spent money like water to deal with the banking crisis, the federal deficit for December 2008 was $51.7 billion- $40.1 billion less than Obama's deficit.

This deficit marked the 15th straight month in which the U.S. government added to the federal debt by having outlays exceeded receipts, the Treasury Department reported. President Obama has been President for 12 of those 15 months.

The December figures bring to $388.5 billion the deficit for the first three months of Washington's 2010 fiscal year. That's on top of a staggering $1.4 trillion budget shortfall for fiscal 2009, more than three times the size of the deficit that the government ran in 2008. At this current pace with no further major spending initiatives, the federal deficit is on a pace to hit $1.554 trillion in fiscal year 2010. That would mean that in Obama's first two years as President he would have added almost $3 trillion dollars to the federal debt, and this does not include further spending initiatives like the healthcare bill (another trillion in debt), more 'stimulus bills' (billions more in debt), or increases in military spending (billions more).

A very small part of the reason for this stunning deficit is the slight drop in revenue due to the destroyed economy under the Democrats control- year ago in December, receipts were $238 billion but receipts were just $219 billion in December. That is a loss of $19 billion in revenue, on top of an increase in spending of $21 billion.

President Obama and the Democrats are hoping that their policies of spending even more money, raising taxes and fees, putting in place more regulations, increasing the unions power in our nation, and giving great speeches about fighting the deficit will lead to a reversal of this utter destruction of the United States of America.

Data for this story was pulled from this Wall Street Journal article.

Kos 'Brown is Nuts'

Over at the Daily Kos, this is how they are treating the special election in Massachusetts to fill the vacant US Senate seat there-

The bizarre rumors were already circulating about the possibility that there could be a delay in seating Naked Scotty Brown should he manage a win in Massachusetts, I hinged that 'You can already hear wingnuts warming up the pipes and getting ready to howl'- Well, the candidate himself is already howling. Brown is barking at the moon, spinning out his theory, and of course, calling on Martha Coakley to reject the non-existent conspiracy. Brown is nuts.

One of the main features of the left in this country is that they are totally unconnected with reality. The Democrat Secretary of State for Massachusetts is on record saying several times that if Brown is elected, it will take weeks for them to certify the election, and that until the election is certified, they are not going to sit him in the Senate. The delay will give the Democrats more time to jam through their healthcare bill, so it is a big deal. It makes perfect sense, it is a reasonable (although dirty) tactic to try, and the only rub is that he tipped his hand early. This was reported in the news yesterday, and one day later Brown picked up on it and mentioned it.

But you can see on Daily Kos that they reject the logic of the ploy and the statements of the SoS and subscribe instead to the politics of personal destruction, calling him a 'nut' 'spinning out his theory' and 'barking at the moon.' The people who run Daily Kos, who President Obama relies on for advice and talking points, are either ill informed or liars, and it shows in the quality of their website and their analysis.

Oppose Gary Peters

Democrat Representative Gary Peters (9th Michigan) is not a bad person- but he has voted wrong on every single key issue of importance to his district.

He voted in favor of cap-and-trade, a bill that would increase taxes and fees on manufacturing in his district and transfer that money to windfarms in California, resulting in the loss of jobs in his district.

He voted in favor of the stimulus bill, a bill that spent over a trillion dollars that our government does not have, money that our children will have to pay back someday, and the result was unemployment above 10% and few jobs created.

He voted in favor of Obamacare, a bill that would add another trillion dollars to the debt and tax trillions more out of our economy in order to expand healthcare coverage to those people who aren't poor (they are already covered) and put in place thousands of new regulations and government bureaucrats to run the system.

On the major issues of the day, Gary Peters has voted the wrong way. He should not remain in Congress, and someone should throw him out of office in 2010.

Most Influential Conservatives

Telegraph.co.uk is presenting its second list of the 100 most influential conservatives. Conservatives are people identifiably – though not always self-described – as right of centre. The lists go by intervals of 20: 100-81 80-61 60-41. I'm going to just point out one or two people that I have been influenced by, but I suggest you look over the entire list and see who inspired you:

84. THOMAS SOWELL (64 on 2007 list)
Economist and commentator. Currently the Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and one of America’s most prominent black intellectuals, Sowell, 77, writes mainly about economics, history, race and social policy. A prolific columnist, he criticised Obama from almost his first day in office, accusing the president on his Townhall.com blog of “dismantling America”. Strongly free-market, against abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action and in favour of racial profiling to tackle terrorism, he has a pronounced libertarian streak and favours de-criminalising narcotics.

71. DICK ARMEY (- on 2007 list)
Chairman, FreedomWorks. An author of the 1994 Contract with America and former House Majority Leader, Armey now leads FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy organisation.

A Texan libertarian and former economics professor well versed in Washington’s rougher political arts, he was forced to give up an lucrative consultancy with DLA Piper when FreedomWork’s links to populist opposition to health care reform created difficulties with the law firm’s clients. The 69-year-old chain-smoker is a major influence on the tea party movement, which could become the conservative powerhouse in 2010.

66. VICTOR DAVID HANSON (58 on 2007 list)
Military historian and columnist. Although registered as a Democrat, Hanson strongly supported the Bush administration, particularly on foreign policy, and reluctantly accepts the label (though he acknowledges it is also a slur) of “neo-conservative”, arguing that the Democrats do not have a morally responsible foreign policy. He rejects, however, the jibe from paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan that he was the “neocon court historian”, arguing he had hardly ever visited the Bush White House and had never been in the pay of a government.

“I came to support neocon approaches first in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, largely because I saw little alternative,” he wrote in 2008. Three years earlier, he had argued that that Democrats were like Republicans in the mid-1960s – “impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen".

His verdict on the current president, when much of the country was in the grip of Obamamania a year ago, could turn out to be prescient: “If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.”

44. CLARENCE THOMAS (85 on the 2007 list)
Supreme Court Justice. Thomas has been on the Supreme Court for nearly two decades, making him one of the longest serving justices in history as well as a reliable conservative vote on virtually every issue. Only just in his 60s, he could be on the court for at least two decades more. Adored by the Republican party establishment, a candidate is guaranteed a round of applause when he cites Thomas or Antonin Scalia as model jurists. Thomas shrinks from the limelight and is renowned for hardly ever asking a question during hearings. But his judgements are lucid and often tart.

He endured contentious confirmation hearings that threatened to stop him becoming the second black Supreme Court justice, running the gauntlet of accusations of sexual harassment. The indignity of this still burns and in his autobiography he described the experience as being “pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony". An originalist, he believes in strict interpretation of the constitution and also describes himself as having “libertarian leanings”.

Poetry After Lifting

Although not a competitive bodybuilder like theblogprof, I do enjoy weight lifting. I practice High Intensity Training (HIT), finding that it challenges both the body and the mind to be stronger, more powerful, and more disciplined. Yesterday, after lifting, I was struck by a bit of poetry, and because I want to, I thought I'd write it down here:

I won. The weakness tried to rise up and consume me, but with mind, body, and spirit, I fought it. The weakness receded, wailing in fury at being unable to claim me, but my fury roared back, triumphantly, and rejoiced in the fierceness of my victory over weakness.

English Classes Turn Into Diversity Training Class

As an avid reader, someone who tries to read most of the well-known classics, I should love to visit English classes. Imagine a class where students read and discuss the great literature of the ages- Plato, Cicero, Mark Twain. Imagine students reading the great books and classic novels of the past, discussing the wisdom of our ancestors, analyzing timeless dilemmas and conflicts, being inspired by beautifully written literature, and passing on stories from age to age. What a great class that would be!

Sadly my recent visits to neighboring school districts showed me a different type of English class. In these English classes, students do not read and discuss the great literature of the ages- teachers feel that these books are racist or out-dated or un-PC or are simply too hard to read. In these modern English classes, the literature that is read and discussed is more modern day literature dominated by stories of discrimination, racism, and diversity. Students read the latest story of a black who experiences racism or something, and then discuss racism. Or they read the latest book about a woman who faces discrimination, and talk about that. Or they read about a poor person, or someone who loves trees, or some other leftist or liberal book.

The goal of English class is no longer to transmit the knowledge of the past, but now the goal of English class is to absorb the narrative of the liberal left. Students don't need to know who Tom Sawyer is or who Romeo is, but do need to know the cast of characters of the oppressed of the world and absorb the language and dialogue of the left. English class should now be called diversity training class.

A classic novel, deep in importance and history and forming the basis for many generations of America, is now thrown aside in favor of highly descriptive tales of the down-trodden of society. These choices are not meaningless. Think about the kinds of words that are read, the images that are formed in students mind, the discussions that are inspired. Are they motivated and inspired by Socrates, or by some depressing leftist jumbles of poorly written words dominated by messages prized by the liberal left?

English classes have indeed become a sad place.

Obamacare Raises Taxes, Hurts Employers, and Costs Government Money it Doesn't Have

There are many reasons other than philosophical (see my post Fascism Healthcare) for me opposing the Obamacare legislation that is still moving through Congress. It is not yet a forgone conclusion that it will pass, and it is the most important piece of legislation moving through Congress right now, so indulge me a bit more while I lay out more reasons why you and I need to oppose this legislation.

President Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright opposes this legislation due to what it doesn't do, but I oppose this legislation for what it does do- it raises taxes, hurts employers who provide healthcare coverage right now for their employees, and will cost national and state governments a lot of money that they don't have.

In the Senate version (and probably in the final version) is a new tax on employers. Called by some the "Cadillac tax", it is a tax increase of 40 percent annually on employer-sponsored insurance policies that many businesses provide. According to the White House, it is a tax increase of over $150 billion that families and employers would have to pay for in order to provide for Obamacare- which is to limit competition, increase regulation, raise costs, employ more bureaucrats, and provide more welfare. Raising taxes on families and employers will not help our nation and led our nation forward.

Obamacare will also hurt employers who provide healthcare coverage right now to their employees. Obama and Pelosi attempted to play off one class against another and tax the rich to distribute that money to the poor, but their legislation is so bad that it ended up taxing the middle class and labor unions too. According to the AFL-CIO, 31 million insured employees are going to be hit by increased taxes by Obamacare, including members of labor unions like the UAW or MEA. As the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, says "This (healthcare bill) is a policy designed to benefit the elites."

Finally, Obamacare will cost government a lot of money. Most people are focusing on the cost to the national government (which will be 1 trillion dollars after taxing for 10 years and providing service for 6), but I am again (see my earlier post Healthcare Bill Makes States Fund Expanded Medicaid and Destroys Michigan's State Budget) going to point out that states are going to be paying a lot of money as well- money that they don't have. According to top state economists, next year's budget for the government of the State of Michigan will likely fall about $1.6 billion short. Last year Michigan made significant cuts to college grants, Medicaid reimbursements, Corrections and local municipalities, and is looking at serious cuts across the board- before Obamacare passes. After Obamacare passes, Medicaid rolls will expand, the state will have to match those grants, and it will cost a lot more money. These policies are not made in a vacuum folks- if Obamacare passes, hundreds of teachers around the state will be let go as a result- their is only so much money to go around.

Obamacare raises taxes, hurts employers who provide healthcare coverage right now for their employees, and will cost national and state governments a lot of money that they don't have- and that is why I oppose it.

Passion Builders and Passion Stealers

As our nation and our party moves forward, we are going to need to identify those kinds of people who have vision and passion and those kinds of people who steal that vision and passion, and back the first kind, even if they don't have the right name, the money, the pedigree, or the backing of the national party. Here are four types of leaders to keep an eye on:

1. People who fuel our passion. These are the role models and leaders whose writing, thinking, and speaking expands and deepens our passion and purpose in life. Someone has observed that what we are tomorrow will be a result of the people we meet and the books that we read today.
2. People who catch our passion. These people are the teachable and the moldable; they are the people who are hungry and their hungry to make their lives count. They want to grow and to learn. They will take what we give and pass it along to others, multiplying our investment many times over.
3. People who enjoy our passion. Most people we know fall into this category. On the one hand, they don’t take a great deal from us, but then neither do they add a great deal. It’s easy to spend a lot of time with these “nice people.” They are fun and easy to be with.
4. People who drain our passion. This is where the major energy leaks can occur. These are the needy people, the people that struggle, or the people who demand hours and hours of our energy, but don’t often seem to profit from it. Yet, they keep returning with the same problems and want more of us. They are often the squeaky wheels that get the most, if not all, of the oil of our passion.

As our nation and party moves forward, we need more leaders who fuel our passion. There are a lot of leaders out there who catch the passion of others and run with it, and they aren't bad candidates, but our party needs to encourage and support those people out there who inspire us and fill us with passion for liberty, rule of law, and conservative principles.

Fascism Healthcare

Under fascism, the government does not overtly take over an industry ("seizing the means of production," in Marxist terms). Rather it leaves ostensibly private institutions in place, at least for the time being, and then subjects those "private" institutions to top-down regulation that turns them into agents of state power. No meaningful competition will be permitted. The federal government runs the system, but will do so behind a facade of private enterprise.

This is exactly what the Democrats plan is for health care.

Rally against “Government Motors” in Detroit

There will be a rally against Government Motors on Monday, January 11th, to make a peaceful yet clear statement against Government takeover of America. Sorry about the late notice on this, but if you live in the Detroit area and would like to make your views known about all of the endless and unaccountable government bailouts, you have a chance to by showing up on Monday and peacefully protesting.

Since December of 2008, the private company General Motors has so far taken $52.9 billion in taxpayer dollars. The intended purpose of this funding was “to prevent a significant disruption of the American automotive industry,” according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). GM used this money to go bankrupt and shed billions in debt- by that, I mean that banks and investors were forced to take a bath and thousands of people were laid off and hundreds of dealers were forced out of business. This unprecedented distribution of wealth also has resulted in the government owning 61% of GM equity and the labor unions owning a good chunk more.

Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat leaders (possible even President Obama) are coming to Detroit to check on their investment on Monday, and this is a chance for us to tell them what we think of the US government nationalizing private businesses.

The rally is Monday, January 11, 2010, from 9:30am - 12:00pm, at the Marriott Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan. Meet in the lobby of the Marriott at the Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit and look for the Michigan Tea Party Banner. Someone will be there to greet you. From there we will head over to Cobo hall for a Tea Party Rally. You can park in one of the many lots downtown or at the Cobo Hall lot which is close to the Renaissance Center. Dress warm!

Healthcare Bill Punishes Institution of Marriage

Under the health insurance overhaul plan being pushed by the Democrats in Congress, married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together.

For many middle-class and lower-income couples, the plan proposed by Obama and Pelosi will mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they are married.

From the Wall Street Journal:

For an unmarried couple with income of $25,000 each, combined premiums would be capped at $3,076 per year, under the House bill. If the couple gets married, with a combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap jumps to $5,160 -- a "penalty" of $2,084. Under the Senate bill, a couple with $50,000 combined income would pay $3,450 in annual premiums if unmarried, and $5,100 if married -- a difference of $1,650.

The marriage penalty in the health bill has not been a major focus of attack by Republican opponents of the bill, who are focusing on larger themes such as new taxes in the bill and growth in government spending. But it has caught the attention of some conservative groups, who claim that the prospect of reduced subsidies will dissuade people from tying the knot.

One of the reasons that I oppose the Democrats and their liberal agenda so strongly is because I believe that its unintended conquences will be to create a society that is less moral, less law-abiding, and less prosperous than a society that is built around conservative ideas. With legislation such as this and other acts Democrats appear to be encouraging people not to get married. They are using the power of the federal government to create disincentives for marriage, and encouraging people instead to live together without marriage.

This is wrong. Being married is a great thing. But increasingly the government is penalizing me and my wife for being married, instead encouraging through law after law for us to instead live together in an unmarried state. Democrats are wrong to do that, and they are wrong to advance this healthcare bill.

Representative Paul Ryan

There are a lot of rising stars in the Republican Party- true conservatives who grew up in the Reagan years of freedom and liberty and got a taste of it in their mouths and want more of it. One of these rising stars is Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin. From the Wall Street Journal:

The 39-year-old from Wisconsin, who is the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, cruised to re-election last year in a district that voted for Barack Obama for president. The 6-foot-2, blue-eyed lawmaker was recently named one of the "50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill" by the Hill newspaper, and his shock of black hair stands out in Congress's sea of gray.

But Mr. Ryan also personifies the GOP's difficulty in finding a broadly appealing message. Colleagues praise him as an articulate spokesman for a conservative economic philosophy, but some of his ideas -- like injecting more competition and market forces into Social Security and Medicare -- have shown limited appeal in polls. And as Mr. Obama's robust agenda has thrown Republicans on the defensive, even conservatives acknowledge the public seems open to strong government action.

In a budget he recently released as an alternative to Mr. Obama's, Mr. Ryan proposes freezing all basic spending for five years except for defense and veterans' health care. He would allow Medicare participants, starting in 2021, to choose a private insurance plan with a federal payment going to that plan. He would cut the corporate-income-tax rate to 25%.

As Republicans search for a path to power, Mr. Ryan says the GOP must re-establish itself as the party of economic common sense, rather than a group seen as overly focused on rewarding its supporters and contributors.

"We had a lot of old bulls who were more machine-minded politicians," Mr. Ryan said in an interview in his office, adorned with a large Green Bay Packers helmet and a duck he bagged on a hunting trip. "We need the reformers to take over the party."

Mr. Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future," introduced in May 2008 as a plan for addressing the swelling budget deficit, proposed changing the tax system so people could file either under current law or a highly simplified code. He also wants to shake up entitlement programs, suggesting, for example, that Social Security beneficiaries be allowed to establish personal retirement accounts.

"We don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock," Mr. Ryan said. "We don't want to turn the safety net into a system that ultimately drains people of their potential, that ultimately lulls people into lives of complacency and dependency on the federal government for their well-being."

As a Republican, I'm glad to see that people like Paul Ryan in the party, fighting for liberty, the rule of law, and conservative economic principles.

Government Regulations Cost Michigan Millions

The unelected bureaucrats of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have decided in their infinite wisdom that they will put in place new federal laws regulating acceptable levels of ground-level ozone. This move will put 21 Michigan counties in noncompliance and cost businesses and residents millions of dollars to improve air quality.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackass in a press release Thursday said that "smog dirties our air, clouds our cities and drives up our health care costs across the country." Dirty air, clouds, and an occasional cough are indeed bad things, but so is being unemployed, sucking down welfare, and having nothing to do every day but agonize why no one will give you a job. Think about it- in a perfect world, you could have everything, but in this world, if you had to trade having a job, a paycheck, a house, cars, and a secure future for your children in a cloudy world with an occasional cough because of bad air, or you could be unemployed, losing your house, have no security, but be breathing nice clean air, which would you choose?

Choices matter. And it is wrong that it is unelected bureaucrats who are making these choices for our lives. Our elected officials should be making these decisions, and then we could hold them accountable for the resulting loss of jobs and income. But we are not living in a republic any more, or even a democracy, but increasingly a tyranny of unelected czars and bureaucrats headed by one person intent on gaining state control over every aspect of our lives.

The EPA estimates that implementing the changes would cost between $19 billion and $90 billion. The health benefits could save between $13 billion and $100 billion, it said. There are no other analysis done, no auditing by any other agency, and little data to back up those claims. I bet it'll cost more like $90 billion, and save more like $13 billion in health care costs, meaning it better be worth it to suck another $77 billion out of taxpayers pockets.

If a county is not in compliance with these arbitrary standards established by unelected bureaucrats, the government will grow angry and punish its puny subjects by reducing their road funding and putting in place additional regulations in retribution. For Michigan, already struggling under years Democratic rule marked by high taxes and regulation, any added burden on development will be crushing.

Information for this story was pulled from this article from the Detroit News.

Democratic Nominee for Governor of Michigan- Rumors and Latest News

In the wake of Lt. Governor John Cherry withdrawing from the race for Governor in Michigan, there are many rumors flying around. Cherry was running for the Democratic nomination, and likely would have won it easily, so his withdrawal has led to an explosion of rumors, and for those of you who don't follow the news that closely, let me help you out by covering a couple of the major rumors.

One of the big rumors is that Cherry withdrew due to pressure from the White House. The basis of this is that Obama interfered in the off-year Governor elections and lately his advisers have been visiting Michigan and meeting with people. It was rumored that Obama did not like Cherry and feared that voters would soundly reject Cherry's policies and platforms, which are exactly the same as Obama's, and that might look bad. So Obama through Cherry under the bus. Obama, Cherry, and Governor Granholm (D) all deny this, saying that even though there is a lot of smoke here, there is no fire. Sure.

Cherry's withdrawal means that the Democratic nomination for Governor is now wide open. The best of the bunch is Michigan Speaker of the House Andy Dillon. Even though I campaigned for his (unsuccessful) recall several years ago due to his role in raising taxes on Michigan residents by over 30% in the midst of a brutal recession caused by rising tax rates, I think he got the message, and since that time has been a voice of moderation and sensibility. I still don't trust him completely- when push comes to shove will he really cut the pay and benefits of government employees or will he do the usual Democrat thing and raise taxes on everyone else- but at least he makes noise about balancing the budget and appears to be a moderate. His healthcare plan was a better attempt than what the national Democrats did and last budget cycle he cut spending rather than raise taxes, so there is some good in what he does.

Could Dillon get the nomination? Dillon, who is a 48-year-old attorney and is in his final term in the House, will most likely be opposed by organized labor, the teachers union, government employees, and other traditional Democratic groups because of his support of reforming the healthcare system in Michigan and because he cuts spending instead of raising taxes last budget cycle. As a moderate, he probably won't make it through the liberal primaries of the Democratic party. Robert Kolt, a Democratic-leaning public relations consultant based in Okemos, said "I'd say it's 10-1 against him winning the nomination."

There is a rumor that US Rep. Gary Peters (D) could run or that US Senator Debbie Stabmenow could run, but both of them deny those rumors, and that's too bad. I wish they'd run, and then lose in a landslide. They are very bad Congressmen, passing legislation that damages their constituents and hurts their districts- Peters even voted for the cap-and-tax bill that would destroy manufacturing even though his district's biggest employers are auto companies! They won't run though- they know they got a good scam going working in the US Congress, where you can destroy a nation and yet be re-elected (although I have high hopes that Peters can be taken down by recently-returned military veteran and former state representative Rocky Raczkowski).

The name of Detroit Pistons general manager Joe Dumars has also been advanced as a possible outside-the-box nominee. Dumars would never win the nomination for Governor, mainly because he drafted Darko Milicic with the 2nd pick overall in 2003 draft. Darko ended up being a bust and Dumars passed on other great talents like Carmelo Anthony or Chris Bosh, and because of that pick, Dumars can't be Governor of Michigan.

Detroit businesswoman and University of Michigan regent Denise Ilitch's name has also been thrown out as a possible outside-the-box nominee. The wife of Detroit Tigers and Detroit Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch, who also is the owner of Little Caesar's Pizza, she probably couldn't win the election for Governor either in Michigan. Michigan elected the first female Governor in the history of our state with Granholm, and voters will now (unfairly) think twice about electing another female to that high office. That is too bad because there are a lot of great women candidates out there (Teri Lynn Land and Candice Miller come to mind), but I bet that enough voters will be sexist and want a guy for office that a woman couldn't win the position.

Other names in the mix Wednesday included U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak of Menominee and former Genesee County Treasurer Dan Kildee, who said he's considering a run. Kildee heads a national land-use nonprofit organization and is the nephew of U.S. Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Flint.

Obama is Not a Rorschach Test- He is a Liberal

David Paul Kuhn in his RealClearPolitics article The Whirlwind of Obama's Ambiguity compares President Barack Obama to a Rorschach test:

Liberals saw a progressive savior. Moderates saw a practical change agent. Americans saw promise of a post-partisan, post-racially divisive era. The projection was notably always considered positive. But Rorschach tests were meant to measure a negative condition. And after nearly one year in office, the Rorschach politician is, as president, facing the whirlwind of his ambiguity....

So the inkblot remains formless. The longer this is the case, the more difficult it will be to reconcile opposing views. Where liberal leaders saw hope, some now convey a degree of disillusion. Where conservatives once spoke of Obama in quasi-bipartisan tones, today they see their political bête noire...

The American mind cannot escape the gap between expectations and reality. And because of Obama's Rorschach persona, neither has he.

David Kuhn with this article imagines an Obama who is an empty form in which we project our own ideas, but I disagree with this 100%. Obama is not an empty form- he is a left wing liberal communist bent on advancing his agenda and enriching his supporters, and he has never been anything other than that, and he has been quite successful in that operation.

Kuhn, I think, is one of the many moderates and independents who stupidly got caught up in the hope and change rhetoric and saw something in Obama that was not there. That doesn't mean that Obama 'fooled them', it means that they were fools for voting for Obama. His voting record was clear, his statements about what he was going to do when he became President were clear, and even fools like me could see his agenda- the whole point about moderates and independents projecting their hopes onto this guy just means that moderates and independents were dumb voters last election.

Kuhn says that even conservatives feel for the Obama trick- I don't know what election he was following in 2008, but very few conservatives I knew thought that Obama was anything other than what we see he is now- very partisan and willing to do whatever (legal or not) to get his agenda in place. Obama won because Republicans nominated an ancient RINO, and that didn't motivate us, and independents and moderates got caught up in the wave of celebrity and guilt that led to Obama's victory.

For the record, I submit the following posts from before the election in which I did not project my views on to Obama, but correctly saw what he really is:
Obama is Conscious
Obama is Not Kennedy
Communists Join Terrorists in Endorsing Obama
Majority of Allegheny prostitutes Vote Democratic
Wikipedia Description of Fascist Sounds Like Someone I Know

The New Two Party System

Dick Morris in his article The New Two-Party System on RealClearPolitics says:

The Democratic game of electing moderates in conservative districts who then vote to keep liberals in power is over. It overreached. By collapsing so completely and so publicly, it has become self-evident to even the most gullible of voters that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. You are either an Obama, Pelosi or Reid clone or you are a Republican. That's the new two-party system. In Bill Clinton's day, there were such things as moderate Democrats. Voters were not deceived when they cast their ballots for center-right Democrats.

This is a great point, because it really does illustrate what is happening politically in our nation- one party- the Democratic Party- has been hijacked by left wing progressive communists, and anyone who votes Democrat today is supporting their agenda.

Oh, you can pretend that your Congressman is a moderate or a Blue Dog, that your guy isn't that way, but then look at the voting record- did they vote to nationalize auto companies, drop a trillion dollars in deficit spending for corrupt 'stimulus' spending, vote to combat 'global warming' by setting up national energy cartels controlled by the mob, vote to nationalize healthcare, and vote to put on the bench people who don't believe in the Constitution and think that judges should be making policy and rules in our nation? Did your "Blue Dog" or moderate really vote that way, or did they endorse the most extreme left agenda in the history our nation?

The Democratic Party has purified itself, and only the far left remains in power.

Dick Morris claims that the same thing happened to the Republicans in the 80's and 90's- that the Republican party purified itself and all of the liberal and moderate Republicans left the party because the GOP became too conservative. I don't agree with that one bit- the Republican Party is filled with RINO's, and take a look at the load of moderate and even liberal Republicans that the GOP has nominated for President lately- there is no way you can tell me that George H.W. Bush (who conservatives then turned on in '92), Bob Dole, 'compassionate conservative' (aka Big Spending Republican) George W. Bush, or John McCain were raving right wing committed conservatives? No way. If anything, the GOP is still controlled by the moderate wing, which has been losing elections and squandering our nation's native impulse for freedom and liberty by trying to be too nice to the communists on the other side of the aisle.

This is why in the primary it is important to be active and vote for conservative Republicans- if the liberals are going to be taken over by the far left, we need to get the Republican party moving more to the right. But, once in the general election, you need to vote Republican up and down the ticket- even your moderate Democrats, when push come to shove, turn out to be far to the left of liberal Republicans.

Failed States and the Rising Threats to the Nation-State System

In 1648 the Peace of Westphalia was signed, and so began the age of the nation-state. A state is a political and sovereign entity, and a nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. Thus the term "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide, and after 1648 our world was divided up into nation-states.

Before 1648, the world was divided up into multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empires (Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc), smaller states at what would now be called sub-national level (Liechtenstein, Andorra, etc), and even smaller states (various German cities and states). After 1648, the world was divided into political, sovereign, ethnically and/or culturally unified nation-states.

Problems arise when these nation-states 'fail'- they are too ethnically diverse, too culturally diverse, unable to control their own borders, or one government is unable to control the area. In these 'failed states', problems arise. According to the Times Online article "The Gathering Storm", failed states are going to be on the rise over the next decade, and are going to present rising security and humanitarian issues.

Afghanistan and Somalia were (and probably still are) classic cases of failed states. On the edge of collapsing right now are Pakistan and Yemen.

These are the areas were are going to be focusing on the in the coming decade. If you want to see where our troops are going to be going in the next decade, here is the map.

The reasons why these states have failed and continue to fail are because they are destabilized by terrorism, communism, dictatorships, and socialism. Pan-Islamism and One World Government are the some of the bigger threats facing these states, and the United States is going to have to take a steady hand on events and focus on all of those things that make states successful in this world- democracy, rule of law, and conservative ideals.

Universal Coverage Book Promotion

One of the reasons why I am not a world-famous author is that most of my best ideas are already books, good books written by other people. For example, recently I thought to myself what the healthcare system in America is going to look like for my kid and grandkids and I was scared, and thought to myself "I should write some sort of story about this so people can see the same vision of terror that I see." Turns out, someone has already written this book.

The book is called Universal Coverage, by Daniel Putkowski.

The novel imagines what a nationalized health-care system might look like in the United States. The book has been called "the 1984 of health care" and has received rave reviews from Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, and many others. You can learn more and read the first chapter online at http://www.danielputkowski.com/

Here is the stuff on the back of the book- check it out:

Bob Smith had it all. A beautiful house, a happy family, a rewarding career, and a government concerned with his well-being. But when his young son collapses, everything begins to crumble. Suddenly thrust into the world of Universal Coverage, Smith discovers that the ideals he voted for have spiraled out of control. The U.S. nationalized health care system has quickly devolved into a nightmare of unbearable waits, inevitable fraud, and uncertain outcomes presided over by a disinterested bureaucratic class. As Smith struggles to save his son's life, he finds the only hope is Salvare, an unauthorized hospital ship providing world-class care to anyone with cash who's willing to make the journey. A miracle at sea awaits aboard Salvare if Smith is brave enough to question the dangerous path his country has taken. Time is running out, and in matters of life and death, timing is everything.

Judges 6:11-6:16

A frequent technique that atheists employ when religion is discussed is to say "Pardon me, but if the Lord is really with us, why has he let bad things happen in this world? Where are all his miraculous deeds that fictional accounts like the Bible recount?" Mockingly they ask "Did the Lord not once do magical deeds, and now where is he?"

This is a frequent, typical, and (to them) a novel argument that you might come across on such atheist blogs like Austin's Atheism Blog, Atheism: Proving The Negative, or No God Blog. They think that they are quite clever with this line of questioning, and then wait triumphantly, because to them the Lord does not exist and so there are no answers to their questions.

I feel sorrow for them because of their lack of belief in the Lord, because the Lord has heard these questions before. As he told Gideon (Judges, 6:14) "You have the strength. Have I not sent you?"

The reason why I feel sorrow for these atheists is because by rejecting the Lord, they are rejecting the strength and power that the Lord gives us. The Lord sent us, and gave us free will, and gave us power, and then gave us the rules to follow, and even sent his Son to be killed for our sins. But the reason why bad things occur, the reason why miracles don't occur, and the reason why our world is less 'magical' is because of the atheists and others who have turned from the Lord, who do not believe in him, and who doubt his existence. By rejecting the Lord, they reject good, and they don't even realize this, and for that I feel sorrow.

The Lord provides- he told Gideon (Judges, 6:16) that if Gideon would only believe in him then the Lord would give him the power to destroy an entire army of unbelievers. That is power! That is strength! Just by accepting the Lord and believing in him and following his rules, you too can be smiled on by the Lord and he will provide for you.

So next time time you confront an atheist and they reject that the Lord exists, you can do the politically correct thing and say that they may have a point and that the Lord may not exist, or you can deny the unbeliever and assert that the Lord does exist, that he has given us the strength and laws to follow to do great things, and that if you only have faith in the Lord, you too can do great things.

UPDATE: The clever atheists all are emailing me asking "If God really exists, how can there be anything bad in the world?" I think atheists are that way because they are uneducated, much like I think that liberals are that way because they are uneducated. This question has been asked and answered many times- it is called "The Problem of Pain", and I suggest if you really want an answer to that question, you read "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis, and then email me. And in the future, do your own research on stuff before bothering me about it, or else I am going to treat you like the children you are.