Oakland County Republican Convention

Tonight was the Oakland County (MI) Republican Convention, and as an elected official from northern Oakland County, it was my duty to show up, and I thought I'd pass along some of my thoughts and observations about it to you.

One of the great aspects of going to these events and actually participating in partisan politics is that you come in contact with people who believe in and talk about such things as freedom, liberty, and choices- the first conversation that I overheard on coming in the room was a conversation about how we can work to better protect individuals life, liberty, and property in this great Republic. While the Democratic Party might sound like a Marx convention, talking about the People, welfare, and increasing taxing and spending, the Republican Party sounds like the Founding Fathers, discussing the Declaration of Independence.

Like most Republican gatherings, it began with the Pledge of Allegiance, and as usual, I wonder if the Democrats begin meetings in a similar manner- I would guess that they don't. Some of the aspects of the Pledge really don't fit with the modern liberal Democratic Party- promising to do something, believing in God, and believing in liberty.

Next, the new chair, David Law, made some remarks to the delegates there. He talked about fighting through the Democratic wave, overcoming the wave of popular opinion, and focusing on creating good policy and talking about how to make government better. The Democrats will overreach- in fact, the Bankrupt America Pork Bill they passed yesterday shows how much and how often they will overreach- and when they do, they will be held accountable. Mike Cox, the Attorney-General of Michigan, followed him, and looked and sounded better than in the past, spreading a message of mostly hope and change- hope that as a country we are merely in the darkest of night before the Republican sunrise, and speaking about how we can work to change our nation into a prosperous and moral one again.

The only real objection I had came next at the meeting- the likely new state chairman, Ron Weiser, gave a speech that focused on stamping out dissent and enforcing unity in the party, something I wrote about earlier this week. I reject that philosophy- now is not the time to build a unified voice, but to re-discover our conservative voice and learn new ways to voice it. I aim to cause chaos, and got the impression that Weiser looks down on people like me.

After that speech, former-Congressman Joe Knollenberg spoke, and conversationally mentioned that he was proud of the House Republicans, who all stuck together to vote no yesterday, and was also proud of the Democrats who joined with them. He said that the reason why more Democrats didn't vote no is because Pelosi ordered them to toe the line, or else there would be consequences. Say what you want about President Bush or the Republicans when they controlled Congress, but they at least said 'vote your conscience' or 'serve your constituents'- only Democrats believe in tyranny and oppression, and Pelosi is a great example of someone who wants power in order to control others, not to make the country more free and prosperous.

Before I left I had a nice conversation with a friend of mine, who is from East Germany, and still remembers from her childhood living under the communists. She is increasingly dismayed by the direction our nation is heading- instead of moving farther from communism, farther from corruption, farther from poverty, farther from the ills of living under a tyrannical government, she thinks that we are moving closer to these things, especially with the latest elections and legislation passed in Congress. Hearing this from someone who has been there made an impression on me.

Not bad for a couple hours on a weekday night- if you aren't involved with the Republican Party yet, I advise you to do so- it is a rewarding experience.

One Week of Obama

Is America better than it was last week- in other words, after having Obama as President for one week, and having him make decisions and executive orders, is our country a better place?


First, your tax dollars will now go to support abortion clinics and doctors who perform abortions. Now only does this mean that it will now be easier and more welcoming for women who want to have an abortion, but it means that even if you are against abortions, you are still forced by your government to support something that you oppose. This is a very controversial issue- tax money shouldn't be going to support or oppose abortions- and by having the President step in and enforce his view of the world, it makes the decision illegimate and tyrannical, whether you are for or against abortions. This did not make America a better country.


Second, the national government has given up the power to regulate the flow of air between states, and will now let states control their own air and what goes into this air. Look, if the commerce clause has been tortured to give the federal government the ability to control virtually every aspect of business, then it clearly gives the federal government the ability to regulate emissions into the air, because air flows pretty easily between state boundries. It is only logical that the ability to control emissions resides in the federal government, not the states, and what is going to happen is a mess of conflicting state laws- again, not making America a better country, and likely leading to increased tyranny and lowered economic growth.


As a side note, I get a little angry when I am 'ordered' to do anything by the government- this isn't a monarchy or a tyranny yet, and hearing that Obama thinks my choice of a car isn't a good one and that he demands I switch to another car, one even he doesn't drive- well, to be honest, it makes me want to grab a gun and start the revolution right now.


Third, Obama choose as his first national broadcast and his first TV interview to endorse a terrorist media network. His hope is that by recognizing and legitimiszing this media outlet, that people will be nicer to us- his hope is that by going in front of the world and agreeing with thier claims that the Untied States sucks, that the United States is bad, that everyone will like us better. Not only will this not work, it will actually encourage and embolden our enemies abroad, thereby huring the United States.

I would say that one week on the job, and we are not better as a nation.

Let 1,000 Republican Flowers Bloom

This week is the Oakland County (Michigan) Republican Convention, and to be honest, I'm still a little annoyed about the last one. At the last convention- which I wrote about here- each precinct choose leaders for the county executive board, which plays a large role in shaping the direction of the party at the county and state level.

I stood up and volunteered my services, and spoke about my youth, enthusiasm, and new conservative take on politics- and lost to a group of old same-old moderates. Many people liked me, but were unwilling to support me for any sort of leadership, fearing change and lacking hope.

If there is one thing that I took from Obama's rise to victory, it is that as Republicans, we need to embrace change and speak once more of the hope for the future- and both change and hope are indeed deeply conservative ideals.

Let me quote a bit from William Kristol's article:

Republicans, newly liberated, need to resist calls to shackle themselves to prematurely announced agendas and already anointed leaders. This is the time for a thousand Republicans to bloom. Congressmen used to looking to the White House for guidance or approval--or fearing disapprobation--should show some healthy ambition and unleash their inner policy entrepreneur. Backbenchers need to come forward with heterodox ideas. There should be vigorous debate. Disharmonious disarray is in the short term much less of a danger than a false and stultifying unity.

If party leaders and ideological guides had succeeded in buttoning everything down, if there had been harmonious unity and a coordinated strategy and an agreed-upon message in early 1977, there would have been no Reagan Revolution. And if politicians--or for that matter pundits--had been deterred from changing their minds, worried over charges of inconsistency, there would have been less progress during those years. When you're out of power after having been in power for a long time and when there are new realities requiring fresh thinking, a foolish consistency really is the hobgoblin of little minds. Or at least politically unsuccessful ones. So a little chaos, lots of debate, tons of political entrepreneurship--that's what we need.

I'm all about chaos, debate, and testing new methods of politics- what I am running up against as a conservative Republican are those people who lost us the last election, those people who want to play it safe, stifle debate, and do things the old way- those people who want to play not to lose rather than play to win- I'm running up against the Republican Party that wants to lose again.

At this next convention, if I can find a way to, if I can find the means to, I will speak about liberty and freedom, I will speak about founding principles and the bright future of our country, and I will fire up our party and try to spark debate and new ideas- if I can figure out a way around the safe, staid, confining rules that bind the Republican Party convention itself.

Say 'No' To Gold Pillows on Your Inflated Bed

So my wife wants a new super king size bed, with a vintage wooden frame, top of the line bedsheets, and solid gold pillows, and I tell her "no, we have to save our money." But then I see this graph, and I it makes me say "who the heck cares anyways."

This graph, from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, is stunning. What it shows is the nation's "adjusted monetary base," which is a good measure of the money supply, from the end of the First World War to the present. As you can see in the graph, over the last year, we have increased our money supply the same amount as we did over the last 30 years, and the line keeps pointing upwards, and Obama is only going to expand the money supply more. What I am saying is that over the last year and the next year, we will expand the money supply more than we have in the entire history of our country up to this point. What does that mean, especially with relation to my wife wanting a new bed?

It means inflation. Money works on supply and demand, just along with everything else- if the supply of goods remains the same, and the amount of money increases, you will need more money to buy those goods- ie, inflation. Food, gas, heat, electricity, consumer goods, and cars will all become more expensive. If your paycheck doesn't go up too, the end result is that you will be poorer.

The result of this type of government policy is to destroy savers and reward debtors. People who have large mortgages, massive credit card bills, car loans they can't afford, etc- they will win out with this policy. People who have investments, save their money, own their house, etc- they will lose with this policy. The amount of money that they have earned, saving and sacrificing over their entire lives, will be worth less as money is worth less. People who have been irresponsible, who have been selfish- the amount of money they owe will be worth less, and so they will owe less. This government policy represents yet another way to transfer wealth from the productive and responsible members of society to the unproductive and irresponsible members- and the worth and wealth of our society will be less because of this.

Even so- I'm still going to do the right thing, and live within my means. In spite of the fact that the government is attempting to corrupt my morals, is attempting to bribe me into being irresponsible- in spite of the fact that government policy is working counter to the aims of a good and decent society- I will defy government, I will stand up to government, and I will use my diminishing liberty and freedom to save my money and do the responsible thing and say no to the gold pillows.

Observing Another Teacher Lecture about the Presidents- Democrats good, Republicans bad

One way that our administration feels that teachers could improve their teaching is by having them observe other teachers. Today I was lucky enough to watch a civics teacher teach a lesson on the Presidency. One of the ways that this teacher taught the Presidency was to spend a day or two reviewing each President and some notable features to their Presidency, and it is in doing these types of lessons that the strong liberal bias comes out of most teachers.

The first thing that I noticed as the teacher went through these lessons is that instead of focusing on all the highlights of our ancestors in an attempt to strengthen some of the myths about them and give students something to revere and emulate, she mostly ran them down and spewed forth the revisionist crap that goes for education in today's Education Schools. After the lesson, students could tell you that Madison was short, Washington owned slaves, and Jefferson had an affair, but could tell you who was the Father of our Country or wrote the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Next getting into the more modern Presidents, I increasingly noticed the disparity of time that this teacher spent on each President. It was subtle, and if I wasn't tuned into the bias in schools, I may have missed it, but after a while I began to time her based on the clock at the front of the room, and noticed that the Democratic Presidents, most notably FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and even Clinton, had ten to fifteen minutes spent on each, while the Republicans only had a couple minutes spent on each. If a parent asked or a student noticed, the teacher would say "I taught the students about both Republicans and Democrats"- but in honesty, the lesson was slanted, with more time given to Democratic Presidents.

The other thing that jumped out at me about this teacher's lesson was the type of issues that she focused on with each President. Her discussion on Nixon focused on Watergate, on Reagan it was the national debt and Contra affair, and Bush was Iraq. Now, those are notable features of each Presidency, and it is okay to teach those- but when she mentioned FDR, it was 'saving us from Great Depression and winning WWII,' Kennedy was 'taking us to the moon,' and Clinton was 'booming economy and peace around the world.' Those might be true, but this disparity of the content of the discussion was not lost on me- it was a clear attempt to portray Democrats in a positive light and Republicans in a negative light, and these impressions will stick forever in these students minds (or else they won't, which isn't good either, because that means the students learned nothing about any President).

The next day, students would be quizzed about this material, and would have a reading out of the textbook that would also build on these ideas. I only saw the lecture- just one day out of many- from one teacher out of many, but as I demonstrated, the liberal bias in education is clearly evident.

Popular opinion and science turns on Global Warming; Scientists turned on about start of Obama era

From the International Herald Tribune: The era of Obama is here, and many scientists in bureaucratic agencies around the country are exuberant- staff members throughout the government's scientific agencies held inaugural parties on Tuesday, and many reported being teary-eyed with joy. Frank Press, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and former science adviser to President Jimmy Carter said "It's not just getting money- it's (Obama's) recognition of what science can do..." Carter's former advisor probably commented off the record that money and results don't' even matter- the only thing that matters is Obama recognition that scientists can do anything that God did, and giving them the power to do so.

The article goes on to accuse the two-time democratically elected President of the United States of interfering in the work and policies of government bureaucrats. 20 Nobel laureates issued a statement claiming that the Bush administration had treasonously attempted to achieve its policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, and they are outraged that they didn't get to set those goals and control our society using their obviously superior intellect.

Last month the inspector general of the Interior Department, a cabinet department under the control of President Bush, determined that Bush's policies often interfered with his personal agenda of massively expanding the power of government over our society in order to protect 'species in danger of extinction.'

Obama transition officials said that the new administration would also loosen the oversight that the Bush administration imposed over federal scientific agencies, letting them play God with science without any elected officials meddling in their taxpayer funded business. Scientists are most excited about the prospect of expanding stem cell research now that they don't have to deal with foolish notions such as religion and morality.

William Hubbard, an associate FDA commissioner who retired in 2005, said that top Bush administration officials were so opposed to taking away our freedom and liberties that they callously ignored the attempts by lawyers, lobbyists, politically-connected businesses, scientists, and bureaucrats to put in place new rules to govern us serfs and control our behavior.

Meanwhile, there is a new poll out that says that the majority of people in the United States are no longer buying the myth of man-made global warming. Most scientists' have all reached consensus on this issue, deciding that the world is warming, that the warming is continual and exponential, that it is man-made, and that the only way to prevent a catastrophe is for the government to control every aspect of our society. In spite of this, the idiots of the United States, by that I mean thousands and thousands of real people with brains, no longer buy this load of bull, and feel that the Earth must warm and cool periodically, regardless of human behavior, and government action is not needed on this issue.

The breakdown is 41% are Believers, 44% are smart, and 16% are other- it's surprising that 2/3 people in this nation don't buy into Global Warming, and yet we just anointed a Head Shaman who is going to radically change our nations policies to confront it. I'll never understand voters, or whoever put Obama in charge of our once great nation.

Chief justice, Obama mix up words of Constitutional Oath- is do-over needed?

In the Detroit News today is this fun story- there is nothing serious about this, it's just a neat quirk of the American political system:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., swearing in a new president for the first time, flubbed the opening words of the oath of office. President Barack Obama, paused, then repeated the right words slightly out of order.

That is what makes the oath Obama took Tuesday before nearly 2 million spectators so interesting. It might be that they didn't witness Obama being sworn in. The Constitution is clear that the oath's 35 words must be spoken exactly.

The presidential oath says, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When Roberts administered the oath, he misplaced the word "faithfully." Obama said, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear ... " Roberts continued, "that I will execute the office of the president to the United States faithfully..." Obama paused and then said, "that I will execute ... " Roberts interjected, "faithfully the office of the president of the United States ... " Then, Obama said, "the office of president of the United States faithfully."

Constitutional law experts agree the flub is insignificant. Yet two previous presidents -- Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur -- repeated the oath privately because of similar issues.

Lawyers said Obama and his supporters need not be worried about the legitimacy of his presidency: technically, Obama was already president anyway -- the Constitution says the term of the incoming president begins at noon Jan. 20.

Just to emphasize, there is nothing serious in this, but if I were him, I would put any controversy to rest and follow the precedents of Coolidge and Arther and just say it again privately.

Fascinated, I decided to google Coolidge and try to find out about his mess-up with regards to the oath of office. What I found was this, which I think is from his autobiography:

On the night of August 2, 1923, I was awakened by my father coming up the stairs calling my name. I noticed that his voice trembled. As the only times I had ever observed that before were when death had visited our family, I knew that something of the gravest nature had occurred...He placed in my hands an official report and told me that President Harding had just passed away. My wife and I at once dressed.

Meantime, I had been examining the Constitution to determine what might be necessary for qualifying by taking the oath of office. It is not clear that any additional oath is required beyond what is taken by the Vice-President when he is sworn into office. It is the same form as that taken by the President.

Having found this form in the Constitution I had it set up on the typewriter and the oath was administered by my father in his capacity as a notary public, an office he had held for a great many years.

It seemed a simple and natural thing to do at the time, but I can now realize something of the dramatic force of the event.

Pretty interesting, but I don't know if that qualifies as the error similar to that of Obama. Perhaps it wasn't done with the right people, and that's why it was an error? I did find this line at several sources "Coolidge was resworn by a federal official upon his return to Washington," but wasn't about to come up with more information in my modest researching. I did find this site though- it makes some good points about how those of us of a certain age tend to point to Ronald Reagan as "the great conservative of our time"--we forget that Reagan often claimed as his "model President" Calvin Coolidge.

How about Chester A. Arthur?

On September 20, 1881, upon the death of President Garfield, Vice President Arthur received a group at his home in New York City to take the oath of office, administered by New York Supreme court Judge John R. Brady. the next day he again took the oath of office, administered by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in the Vice President's Office in the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

It looks like to me that the reason he took the oath twice was not because he 'flubbed' it the first time, but because it wasn't official enough, although my research on this was limited.

Now I am bothered by this event, and not the fact that Obama didn't say the words in the right order- I'm bothered by the sloppy and poor job the media did writing about this. Every newspaper is carrying this story, and all are implying the same thing- that past Presidents didn't say the words in the right order and so it's no big deal. But my research indicates that that didn't happen. Again, it doesn't really matter, but if I turned up this in 5 minutes of research, it shows what a bad job our media does, and how easy it is to introduce a false premise into the media, who will then repeat it over and over.

UPDATE: Just to be safe, Obama did take the Oath again. The story is here. I agree with the logic- it isn't really that hard to just re-do it correctly, and would put to rest any weak controversy. I'm still bothered by the weak reporting though, as this story again says that "Two other previous presidents have repeated the oath because of similar issues, Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur"- but the 'similar issues' are only similar in that they were about repeating the Oath of Office, not about getting the words right. It might be over-analyzing, but I'm pretty sure no one did any research on this line, and it shows.

Today is a Bad Day

My wife woke up this morning and said "Today is a bad day in history," and it made me think- is today really going to be a bad day for history? When it really comes down to it, historically-speaking, I judge 'days in history' based on whether they move us forward or backward- closer to our god-given rights to life, liberty, and property, or farther away from our god-given rights. So let's judge today based on that- does having Barack Obama begin his Presidency move us closer to life, liberty, and property?

The answer is no. Based on his past voting record and statements as to his plans for the future, today marks the beginning of a steady attack on your life, liberty, and property, and thus today is not a day to be happy and proud, but instead a day to be upset. Today is a day, just like any other day, and is not holy just because of the election of a man to the office of Presidency in our Republic. And in spite of what the media wants you to believe, we do have a very good idea as to what Obama will do to our country- his history and voting record are becoming more clear by the day.

So, my wife is correct- today is a bad day in history- it is a day where our right to life is respected and protected a little bit less, it is a day when we start to lose a little bit more our freedoms and liberty and ability to make free choices, and this inauguration of Obama is a day that will make it official that there is a large segment of this population that doesn't respect your right to property. Today is a day when we move a little bit farther away from the vision of our founding fathers, and it is a bad day when that happens.

The Bank of Obama

So I'm listening to the radio on the way home today, and hear that Pelosi implied that she is going to criminalize some of the political differences she has had with Bush, and after he leaves office, attempt to prosecute some of his advisers and allies for various offenses. I imagine she'll demand that anyone who was nice to Bush show up to testify in front of an angry committee, where they'll be accused of lying under oath for not remembering an offense they didn't commit. Welcome to fascism folks. But this isn't what got me all fired up. I flipped over to the other station.

On the other station, the thug (Ed Schultz) was talking with some intellectual about Obama's new proposal to establish the Bank of Obama, through which he would personally invest taxpayers money in projects that he thinks would benefit his friends. At least that's my read on his proposed "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank."

For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we’ll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.

Yes, he said that... last week (January 19th, 2009). Lose the war in Iraq, invest billions we don't have in environmentally friendly 'infrastructure' projects, built by union labor, and that will improve our country.

Kick me if I'm wrong, but didn't we learn from experience that having the national government run banks is bad? First Bank of the United States led to corruption and a collapse of our economy. Second Bank of the United States led to more corruption and a massive economic recession. The Federal Reserve... the jury is still out, but after these 'partially-run' government banks were established we had a Great Depression, followed by massive inflation and debt, and a now an investment and banking industry rotten to the core. And the solution is more government involvement? I don't think so.

So what's the next step? Give in to the coming fascism of our country? Buy guns and ammo and prepare to clean the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots? At this point, no to both of those. The next step is for you to get involved. Join the Republican Party. Join the Democratic Party. Be active in the party. Vote for the right candidates. And know your history and be smart with your arguments. Good patriots defeated these attempts to nationalize banks and make America more like Europe in the past- surely we can emulate our ancestors and rise up to meet the challenge today.

Obama's Cabinet of Knaves

The thought crossed my mind that Barack Obama's cabinet might be the worst collection of knaves ever assembled. Right now people are talking about how his choice for Treasury, a department that overseas the IRS, owes thousands in back taxes. Last week the conversation was about his choice for State, a department who is supposed to represent us overseas, is one of the louder proponents of the "United States sucks and is the root of all problems" theory. His choice for Energy is a guy who is going to focus on making less energy to combat so-called 'global warming.' Obama's nominee for Attorney General thinks the US is guilty of torture- thanks for that- and heck, there was even a rumor that he was considering Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm for Commerce Secretary (for those who don't get the irony of that, Michigan has had the worst commerce in the country for years, and it's getting worse). Talk about hiring the wolves to watch the hen house!

Then I did a little bit of research into Obama's nomination on his Labor Secretary, Representative Hilda L. Solis, a Democrat from the Union of Soviet California Republics. Apparently- surprise surprise- she's a communist!

An article this past weekend in the Communist Party USA's People's Weekly World Newspaper welcomed Solis and quoted known socialist leaders calling her a "great choice" and an "outstanding" selection with "a life-long commitment to working people."

This past June, Solis sent Elana Henry, a caseworker from Solis's East Los Angeles office, to represent her at a forum on worker's rights organized by Socialists International. Solis also reportedly sent a representative to a major event of the Communist Party USA.

The Communist Party's newspaper documents that on June 20, 1996, Solis sent Antonio Aguilar on her behalf to present an honoree at the Party's Southern California Friends of the People's Weekly World tribute.

So, the new labor secretary is going to pursue the communist agenda for our workers. If you still retain the capacity to be scared to your very bones for the future of our nation, that should do it (I'm numb with shock myself). Get ready for policies that encourage less production, government induced disasters, inhuman policies, and a generally suckier world to live in- that's change you can believe in, although I hope it doesn't happen.

Oh yeah, and Obama's personal pick for climate czar has socialist ties. I'm just going to quote the article from the Washington Times that I found, just to scare you-

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Okay, how many things are just wrong about this? Socialist. Cover-up. Policies. No confirmation. Look, if she was a proud socialist that would be a different matter- but like Obama, she tries to hide her background so she can achieve her agenda through stealth. And why in the world would you appoint someone who wants the US to lower production, reduce consumption, and give power to world organizations to your cabinet? Is anyone taking bets on if the Constitution burns his hand when he swears in on it at inauguration?

By the way, since when did our nation need more czar's- doesn't someone who takes his name after imperial Russia run directly at odds with our tradition of a free country? I wrote about this before, when Obama said he was ready to rule us from day one, and it scared me then and scares me now. The irony is that Obama appoints a bunch of czars to rule us plebs, but on the other hand, hires a bunch of communists and socialists to do so, who worked to overthrow the czars, and then became the very people who replaced him. In Animal Farm, what did the pigs turn into again? I wrote about it once before. But I digress- my point is, Obama is going to be bad for our country not so much because of what he does, since his track record shows he does nothing, but because of who he chooses to associate himself with.

The Cost of Obama's Inauguration

The AP and mainstream comedians are outraged at the rumored cost of the Obama inauguration bash that is coming up. Over at The Guardian, one author writes "Police State Inauguration for King Obama: Unprecedented Security & Cost for Obama's First Inauguration," and goes on to describe how "central Washington will be transformed into an armed camp next week." Opps, never mind, I got that wrong- that's how the media described Bush's 2nd inauguration. Sorry.

At least this CNN article rips Obama for the massive expense of his inauguration "Some critics have questioned spending millions on inauguration festivities in a time of war and after the collapse of the nations economy recently." Oh wait, never mind, again that's the media ripping into Bush. CNN's coverage of Obama's inauguration makes no mention of those who criticize the cost.

At least comedians, who never hold back from ripping politicians, are involved. I found a list of potential jokes they will be rolling out here. "President Obama is being criticized because his inaugural celebration cost $40 million. When asked about it, the president-elect said, 'Sorry, but my daughters insisted on free rap CD's'" Conan O'Brien joked. Just kidding- he would never make fun of Obama- the joke was about Bush and alcoholism, funny subjects both to O'Brien. Here is a good one Jay Leno- "There were a total of ten balls last night and President Obama went to all ten. He even went to the ball hosted by William Ayers, but no one recalls seeing him there"- just kidding, that was Leno ripping into Bush.

One more good one- "They say that the security arrangements for the up coming presidential inauguration will be the most extensive in history. And that's just to keep the Obama twins away from the crack" from Craig Ferguson. Again, just kidding, the real joke was about Bush and drinking, but for some reason joking about Bush's underage daughters drinking is funny, and implying that Obama's underage daughters might do drugs is just wrong. Must be due to the difference in age? It couldn't be due to race- Obama's election has saved us from that sin, and soon will save us from the sins of torture and global warming too.

Yeah, if my post today shocked you, here is the kicker- Obama's inauguration cost is estimated to reach $160 million. That is more than Bush's second inauguration. That is more than Bush's first one... more than Clinton's 2nd... more than Clinton's 1st... and more than H.W. Bush's... combined.

UN Supporting Palestinians in Conflict?

Via the AP comes this shocking announcement- that the UN is actively supporting Hamas by letting these troops have access to its buildings and supplies. Apparently Hamas troops have been operating from UN buildings under the belief that they will be targeted less than civilians, whom Hamas usually hides behind.

According to the report, UN officials are healing and repairing Hamas fighters so that they can re-enter the fight against Israel, were running a series of warehouses and workshops from which they could distribute aid to terrorists, and even had stockpiles of fuel that they were distributing to terrorist agents.

It is unclear how or why the UN, an international organization dedicated to world peace and law, is supporting terrorists or the aims of terrorist groups, is supporting Hamas, but that it is is clear. What else could explain how people wearing black masks armed with machine guns could enter a building that the UN owns and operates, and no protests were made? How does the UN allow terrorist groups to assume defensive positions in these buildings without lodging protests and condemning the terrorist groups for violating world peace and order? The only explanation is that it must support these groups, either openly or implicitly.

Upon hearing about this incident, it was reported that the UN had "grave concerns"- but, in another indication of the bizzaro world that we live in, the concern that the UN had was because Israel returned fire and destroyed the compound that terrorists had seized, and the UN, instead of being angry and upset at the bad guys in this conflict, apparently are upset and angry at the good guys.

"We are calling all parties to respect international humanitarian law and especially to ensure the protection of civilians" said a spokesman for the UN, even as it supports terrorist groups operating outside international law and that have a policy of killing civilians with indiscriminate rocket attacks and using civilians as human shields.

The article that I am loosely quoting from in the AP also takes the bizzaro slant on it, clearly biased towards the bad guys. It isn't surprising though- the AP has a policy of subsidizing Hamas in this conflict by employing and supporting hundreds of 'reporters' and 'stringers' to 'gather news' about events in this area.

In addition to the attack on the U.N. office, Israel shells landed next to a U.N. school in another Gaza City neighborhood, wounding 14 people who had 'sought sanctuary' there", Hamas 'medics' and 'firefighters' said. One wonders what curriculum is being taught at this UN school- it wouldn't be shocking to me if the UN was using international money provided by liberals like Ted Turner to teach classes on How to Launch Rocket Attacks at Jews 101.

When the Cure is the Disease

Listening to the radio today, I realized that Obama is the savior, and I know how he will be the savior. Victor Davis Hanson has a good article about how everything will suddenly change, but the change in perceptions is only half of it.

All the campaign talk of the Great Depression, a Vietnam-like war, and our shredded Constitution will now thankfully subside as the Obama administration assumes office and solves problems with conciliation, dialogue, and multilateral wisdom, rather than shrillness, unilateralism, preemption, and my-way-or-the-highway dogmatism. We will hear that, by historical levels, unemployment is still not that bad, that GDP growth is not historically all that low, and that deficits, inflation, interest rates, and housing starts are all within manageable parameters. "Depression" will transmogrify into "recession" which in turn by July will be a "downturn". Indeed, almost supernaturally crises will be solved with the departure of the hated Bush.

But this will only be half of it. The country will revive, in a fake way that will be very bad in the long run for our country, as Obama burns through the rest of 350 billion dollars 'stimulating' the economy, and then spends another trillion dollars on top of that. The amount of money boggles the mind, and the expenditures of the Obama administration will dwarf any amount of money ever spent by any government ever in the history of the world. This will revive America.

But at what cost? America can not afford annual deficits of a trillion dollars. Inflation will set in. Savings will be eaten away. Obama is the perfect President for our day, because he represents the recent failures- over leveraging of resources, fake gains, using politics to disguise unprofitably, and turning our economy from a capitalist one to a fascist one. Those are the problems that led to the recent crisis, and the man we elected President is not the cure of these- he is these. He promises more of what got us into our current situation.

America will be worse off after his administration, mark my words. There will be reasons, and blame, and all that- I've been living in Michigan where we have been sucking ever since we put Democrats in power, but it's somehow not their fault- but America will be worse off. I only hope he will not destroy our great nation in 'saving' it.

Environmentalists are pressing Michigan Governor to Ban Coal Power Plants

According to the Detroit News, priests of Mother Earth are pressing Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm to halt the construction of coal-fired power plants, hopefully for good. Even though eight coal-fired plants around the state are in various stages of development, almost the only development in liberal-run Michigan, they wish to use the power of the executive office to make laws that would halt the development.

What is the end goal of these so-called environmentalists? According to Jean Veselenak, a retired Rogers City teacher, coal plants are "a very big risk for our area," and carbon dioxide emissions pose serious health threats. Many environmentalists are critical that Michigan does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. They want the state to use its power to stop anything that emits carbon dioxide. Right now, these people advocating increased state control say it is just to stop coal plants... but someday in the future, they'll realize that you emit carbon dioxide. And then they'll want to eliminate you.

Yes, this story about coal plants is less about health dangers and making the world a better place. It is more about controlling property. But it won't stop there. Once someone realizes that they have power over your property rights, the next step is to take away your liberty- your freedom to choose. After that, it isn't a big step to take away your life. All in the name of 'protecting the environment.'

But what will be the result on society for the actions of these silly people, and those like Granholm and Obama who indulge their anti-social behavior? Higher electricity prices, which will make it harder for the poor and elderly to heat their homes. Higher prices will cause inflation to erode the savings of the retired and those on fixed incomes. Higher prices will drive businesses out of our state.

Whatever your opinion is on coal plants, and the environment, you have to recognize that the best way to make the world a better place for humans is to allow them to be developed, and not to block them. This is a fiery issue- it speaks to the basic rights of man- life, liberty, and property.

Global Warming and Lake Superior

In 2007, Global Warming was the reason behind the lowering lake levels on Lake Superior. Clearly, researchers at the Lake Superior Conference in 2007 agreed, there's a huge threat from global warming- a warmer climate means a warmer Lake Superior. In fact, apparently global warming was so bad back in the hot summer of 2007, that researchers at the University of Minnesota and elsewhere were forced to study whether Lake Superior's low water levels were the result of global warming, and question whether Lake Superior might even disappear unless government took drastic action and controlled every major industry in the United States.

In fact, back in 2007, a United Nations study predicted that Global warming would lower water levels in by 5 feet over the next century. Poor Lake Superior was already called an 'early victim of climate change' by scientists in Duluth, adding that the time to radically change our society away from a free and prosperous one is now. Good thing we have such great politicians such as U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, who seized on this alarmist and populist issue to announce that he will demand swift action to address the reported dramatic drop in water levels in the Great Lakes, including the strengthening of federal power over businesses and individuals, in the hope that by controlling everyone's behavior, the water levels could be raised.

Well, through his actions and the fact that man-made global warming is made-up by stupid watermellons (people who are green on the outside, but red inside) out there, I am happy to say that Lake Superior has been rising ever since Feingold's announcement. It appears the the water levels also go up and down throughout the year, based on seasons incredibly, to the surprise of many scientists who assumed that they were God and controlled the whole world with their new super-modeling computers. The Detroit News story says that "Rising Great Lakes levels may give Michigan a lift", and document the rise in water levels over the last 3 years.

If only data existed that might show that taking a single snapshot on water levels, based on a single time point in a single year, was not the way to radically change our country and give more power to the government. If only, for example, there was a graph showing the average water levels of Lake Superior since 1860, and then we could mock all those who freaked out in 2007 and called for change based on global warming. I personally am eagerly awaiting the correction the UN is sure to issue based on this new data, that will call for radical changes back to the way America used to be, when we were free and prosperous.

Soldiers Deprived of Right to Vote

The day before the election in November, I choose to highlight the fact that I felt that members of our Military are Being Disenfranchised. Several personal cases were documented in my posts, and I became more uneasy about the disenfranchise of military voters are looking further and who the military usually votes for (Republicans) and who the people who deliver the mail for these voters endorses (Democrats). No accusations were made, but I did feel important questions were raised.

This week the Detroit News had a story about military voters in it. The story is "Study: Mich. soldiers deprived of vote: State is 1 of 16 that doesn't allow enough time to submit ballots." According to a Pew study, Michigan doesn't allow soldiers fighting bad buys overseas enough time to get their votes in, thereby disenfranchising them. Buried at the end of the article was this phrase:

But in 2006, about two-thirds of the estimated 1 million ballots distributed to military and other overseas voters were not counted because they weren't returned, came back too late or had other problems, according to the federal Election Assistance Commission. Estimates are not available on how many in this group were deprived voting rights last year.

This to me is a BIG DEAL- something that should really bother important people- that members of our armed services serving in harms way are being disenfranchised is not trivial. Especially when we consider that in this last election, for some office every vote mattered (see my post Libertarians Screwed Themselves Again by Not-Voting or Voting Libertarian). Is there anything that can be done? If so, it's worth emailing your Congressman about, that I can assure you.

Libertarians Screwed Themselves Again by Not-Voting or Voting Libertarian

This post could also read that Constitution Party members screwed themselves by not-voting or voting Constitution Party, and continues the attack on idiots who don't vote or vote third party that I started with my post Libertarians Screwed Themselves By Not Voting or Voting Libertarian. In that post, I pointed out that conservatives who didn't vote or voted for a third party candidate screwed themselves over when, by a narrow margin, they didn't help a strict constitutionalist judge (Cliff Taylor) get elected to the Michigan Supreme Court and instead helped up a loose liberal activist judge there (Hathaway).

I continually fail to see the logic behind libertarians, constitution party, or other conservative leaning people not voting for conservative candidates just because they have the word "Republican" in front of their name. Are you people voting third party morons, or just so devoted to the myth of third parties that you'd be willing to let Hitler win while you vote for Kurt von Schleicher (see my post von Schleicher).

Why this new attack on third party voters? I'm still fuming over What a Joke of a Nation we live in, where a person like Al Franken could be a Senator, especially in the manner that he might win. What really pisses me off is that today I heard on the radio the official vote count as of today, where Democrat Al "crack-smoking" Franken and Republican Norm Coleman are virtually tied at around 1,211,500 votes... and the Independence Party candidate has 437,000 votes, and the Libertarian Party candidate has 13,900 votes, and the Constitution Party candidate has 8,900 votes. If you were one of the 460,000 people who voted for one of these conservative or libertarian third party candidates in Minnesota Senate election instead of the moderately conservative or libertarian Coleman, you're a moron, because your vote helped put a hate filled socialist in office.

Look at the platforms, positions, resumes, and characters of the third party candidates and compare them to Coleman. Not much a difference. And by voting for the slight difference that they represent, you instead helped put a socialist political hack like Franken in office. To spite your nose, you blew up your whole country. Idiots. I'm sorry if I'm being mean to you Minnesotans who didn't vote for Senate or voted third party, but you're a child and didn't treat this election the way it needs to be treated- as a vote between a solid Republican and a threat to our nation.

"But, but, I like third parties, they're so cute, and if we all voted third parties, the world would change..." you whine. Fool. If all conservatives voted Republican, the world would change a lot quicker. This might sound like a Sith talking in absolutes, but if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Vote for conservative Republicans next time instead of voting third party or staying home.

A Superintendent's Vision for Improving Education

Today at our staff meeting, our superintendent discussed his vision for the future of our school, the challenges that we face as teachers, and mapped out the route to better education for our students. You'll be happy to know that there is not a thing that any of teachers or principles needs to change to make the education vastly better at our school.

Nope, according to our superintendent, teachers can continue with their methods and curriculum without analysis or change, and principles and counselors can go on with their programs without reflection or self-criticism, because what will improve education is more government led by Democrats and Barack Obama.

You see, according to our superintendent, whose speech I am going to roughly outline here, the problems faced in education are the fact that not every district is funded equally and that not enough money is sent to education by the state. As a nation, under the leadership of Bush and the Republicans, we've just endured 8 years of depression where education funding was heavily slashed and teachers were laid off in droves, and our country lost prestige and standing in the world as we fought an immoral war.

According to our superintendent, the election of Obama, and our dramatic increase in hired lobbyists, will lead the way back to change and hope. As we lobby for more money, as we lobby for more hope and change and togetherness, education will improve, and will once again be great like it was under Clinton and Carter. Yes, the years of people voting Republican is at an end, and now they realize that voting Republican isn't a choice, and the only choice to make is Democrat, and that will lead education back to the promise land.

This is the type of drivel that teachers have to listen to coming from our highly paid superintendents. Is it any wonder that with this kind of leadership education doesn't improve?

How Democrats Govern in the House

House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sent a message today that that they will use the huge majorities that they won in November's elections to overpower Republicans any time they wish. In her famous spirit of bipartisanship, compromise, and fairness, Pelosi has signaled that the only voices that matter in our lower house are Democrats' and that they will not budge from their beliefs in the name of doing what they want. Hopefully you can see the irony with this.

The rules changes are supposed to reflect the Democratic view of how the House should be run, and thus are a good indication of what you get when you vote Democrat these days. In the spirit of fiscal responsibility, openness and transparency, Pelosi is making it easier for special projects to be added to legislation by House-Senate conferees after both houses already approved legislation. To represent the change and hope of its news members, Pelosi wants to end the Republican-imposed six-year term limits on committee chairmen and let committee chairmen serve in their personal legislative kingdoms for life.

Another rule change deals with motions to recommit- I'm no expert in parliamentary procedure, but what I gather is that motions to recommit a bill to committee are called for when someone wants to amend the bill, and send it back to committee to be re-written with the amendment, before it is re-submitted to the House floor. This is done rather than amending it while on the House floor. This would slow up legislation and make votes held on the specific amendments, which might make someone look bad. And if you're trying to sneak taxes and fees into unrelated bills, you don't want anyone making you vote on those.

Information for this post came from these stories- here and here.

UPDATE: Using a series of procedural motions, House Republicans forced Pelosi to back off from these rule changes today. It is a temporary victory, most likely- she is a weak leader, but a sneaky one, and will slip in the rule changes somehow so she can rule the House like a petty dictator that she is. Read the link for more info.

Genisis 47 and Tax Rates

As I am reading the Bible to one of my children, I read the following passage from the Book of Genesis, passages 47:23-47:26-

Then Joseph said to the people, 'See, I have bought you and your land for Pharaoh. Here is grain. Go and sow the land. And when you harvest it, a fifth of everything you get belongs to Pharaoh. Keep four parts for yourselves to be used for next year's seed, and as food for yourselves and for your households and little ones.

'You have saved our lives' they said. 'We will gladly be serfs of the Pharaoh.'

So Joseph made it a law throughout the land of Egypt- and it is still the law- that Pharaoh should have as his tax twenty percent of all the crops except those produced on the land owned by the temples.

I may be wrong in my interpretation of this, and I am not a trained Biblical scholar, but it seems to me that the deal was that the government would feed them in exchange for a 20% tax and slavery. A couple things come to mind- really, all questions that I leave unanswered here.

First, 20% taxes are very low compared to what we pay now days. Is 20% taxes, complete welfare, and slavery comparable at all to 40% taxes, no welfare, but no slavery? What is going to happen when we do have a total welfare state- how far behind is slavery after that? Wait, is the Pharaoh the good guy or the bad guy for centrally planning the economy, lording over us, and taxing us so?

Lastly, is this the vision that our Founding Fathers had for our nation? Is this the vision that our grandparents had? Our great-grandparents? Is it me, or has something gone wrong, and instead of low taxes and freedom, we now live in a state of high taxes and increasing tyranny? Is this really the best way to do things?

Liberal Teachers and how they address Bullying

This weekend I got into a conversation with a friend of a friend about politics, and throughout the course of the conversation, I was bullied. This guy I was talking to responded to my attempts to engage in intelligent and thoughtful discussion about politics by attacking my person by calling me names, mocked my arguments by refusing to discuss them and instead making fun of them, tried to name drop and awe me with knowledge, and then when none of this got me to back down from my ideas, he actually physically tried to intimidate me. And it got me thinking about liberal teachers deal with bullies in schools, whether they be intellectual or physical.

Physical bullying still happens in schools, and liberal teachers have an interesting approach to it. After separating the students, a liberal teacher will take the student who is being bullied, and talk to them about why they are being bullied. They will attempt to make the student being bullied the bad guy, because they provoked the bully by talking back to them, they stood up to the bully instead of backing down, or they weren't sensitive enough to the bully's needs. According to liberal teachers, the bully is not a bad guy, but instead a victim of circumstances such as racial or economic, and acting out at the world, and thus you need to give in to his demands and not fight back. If the student feels too threatened, they should run for help, but should never rely on themselves to solve the situation.

Liberal teachers want to teach weakness and dependency. It makes them feel more powerful. In the same manner, liberal teachers are the most frequent intellectual bullies in the classroom. Liberal teachers badger their students during discussions, using superior knowledge and learning to awe students, and in order to get the right grades, they demand that student give in to their intellectual theories and demands. They don't want students to critically reason and explore complex ideas and thoughts- they demand that students give in to their demand, and their demand is that students agree with their liberal worldview. Yes, sometimes conservative teachers do this, but for every one of them that does, there are ten liberal teachers bullying their students intellectually.

My advice, to intellectual or physical bullying, is to fight back. Armed with logic and faith, I can do anything, including physically or intellectually whooping any liberal I want, and so can anyone being bullied.

The Best Posts of A Conservative Teacher 2008

After a careful tallying of votes and considerable consideration of all bribe offers, I have ruled that The Best Posts of A Conservative Teacher 2008 are:

• Liberal Teachers: about liberal teachers and their agenda
• Working on the Standards: remembering my attempts to fight liberal bias on state tests
• Obama Calls for More Public Service: comments on Obama's call for more public service
• Happy-nicing Ourselves into a Dictatorship: Obama brings us into a brave new world
• Comparing Michelle Obama's Speech to Condoleezza Rice's Speech: this gem gives amazing insight into two women who have a lot of influence over Presidents
• Obama's Energy Plan Vision: see the pictures
• Global Warming Melted my Ice Cream Cone: shockingly, hot magma is causing ice to melt under Greenland, not my SUV
• Shays' Rebellion and the Financial Bailout- A Surprising Connection: title of post says it all
• Former Student Reports Voter Fraud on College Campus: I become more cynical about elections after hearing many of these personal stories
• Obama, Granholm, Kwame, Michigan, and Lions: The results of hope and change: written months before the disaster seasons of UM and Lions and the prison term for Kwame and the continuing destruction of Michigan's economy... only prediction not correct yet is on Obama
• Green Jobs, Jeff Daniels, the MEDC, and the myth of FDR: random connections
• Liberal Judge rules homeless voters may list air as addresses to get ballots: ah, liberal judges, making up laws as they go
• Parent protests assigned book: my call to action causes school district to pull liberal book from curriculum
• Buying the American Presidency One Criminal Act at a Time: on Obama's fundraising
• America Has Strayed from Its Founding Children's Books Ideals: what are you reading your child?
• Joe the Plumber Must Be Destroyed: also Palin
• Barack Obama was a member of the New Party: on Obama's membership in radical left organization
• My Experience Meeting Bill Ayers: my protests may have contributed to my eventual separation from that school district
• Warren Schools Blows Budget on Green Boondoggle: a sign of things to come
• Recent Evaluation of Michigan's Business Tax: sometimes I feel like a journalist, then I realize I'm doing real investigative work
• May You Live in Interesting Times: it's a curse
• Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions: anyone in MSM get this one?
• Libertarians Screwed Themselves By Not Voting or Voting Libertarian: to my libertarian readers
• Our Long Conservative Nightmare is Over: satire
• Bizarro World and the Israeli-Hamas Conflict: explore the concept
• Rezko's Lawyer Owns Obama's House?: does anything about Obama surprise
• Can you Smell what Barack is Cooking?: shady book stew
• Orwell's Children: is future 1984 or Brave New World?
• Beware of the Church of Climate Alarm: they have wooden stakes and will shove one through your heart if it will make you stop polluting the air with your stinking conservative breath

Go back and spend a minute enjoying some of these classic posts from 2008, and get ready for a new year! My blog is growing (thousands of hits), and with your continued readership, and telling your friends, and linking to it on your blog, and emailing me- we will grow it further. My battle continues- be part of it by linking to A Conservative Teacher often!

NHL Midwinter Classic

If you didn't get a chance to check out the NHL Midwinter Classic, in which the Detroit Red Wings defeated the Chicago Blackhawks 6-4, you missed one heck of a production. From the entrance of the players and their little traditions, to the national anthem which was wonderfully sung and had fireworks and a flyover by the Air Force, to the wonderful fans who filled the seats and the surrounding buildings and roared during the whole game- it was a great production. The little touches were great- throw back uniforms, Hall of Famer's dropping the puck- heck, even the coaches wore old school hockey jackets! The NHL should be very proud of what they have done.

Exercise Students for Better Academic Scores?

According to new research, exercise may have a beneficial effect on test scores. This is going to encourage more districts to re-implement their physical education programs, which were abandoned after the federal No Child Left Behind dictate. Since the school day remains the same and core academic subjects can't be touched, and research shows that foreign languages are needed and so they can't be touched, the question is, what will be cut next? School districts no longer offer extensive shop or wood-working programs. They don't offer many electives. How about music? I bet research shows that is good for test scores too. How about cutting business? It's evil anyways. I bet that is where the cut is- I'm putting my money on that right now.

The whole time, as districts re-shuffle curriculum, rebuild class schedules, move teachers around- the test scores are still the same as they were. That means a lot of effort, time, and money is going into nothing.

Okay, why am I running on like this? Once the federal government gets involved with things, life does not improve. Getting the federal government has resulted in increased costs, increased bureaucracy- but no increases in test scores. If government is not the solution to problems, perhaps it is the problem? What was the world like 100 years ago? Do any of my older readers know how schools were run then? Was it a vast bureaucracy, involving national, state, and local money? Was it funded by property taxes, sales taxes, and national income taxes?

How about 200 years ago? When our founding fathers were around, how were they schooled? Our education system is broken, and increasingly so, because the government gets more and more involved in it.