Obama's Aunt Still Living in US and Defended by Democratic Donor Attorney

Obama's Aunt Still Living in US and Defended by Democratic Donor Attorney From the "what ever happened to" file is this update on Zeituni Onyango (more commonly known by President of the United States Obama as Aunt Zeituni). You might remember her- I wrote about her in this post.

Onyango arrived from Kenya on a valid visa in 2000 and later applied for political asylum. Asylum seekers must show they face persecution at home. She did not, and so her request was rejected, and in 2004 she was ordered to leave the country. She defied this court order, and decided to break the law and live in this country illegally.

Somehow she was given a place to live in Boston (paid for by taxpayers) and lived there in poverty for several years in spite of having very wealthy relatives who were too greedy go give her any money (Barack Obama). Not much is known about her during this time period.

Several days before the election, the Times of London did research that American media outlets are unwilling to do and discovered her and broke the story. Afterwards, there was an intense investigation by the government into why this story was revealed, and she fled to Cleveland to avoid the spotlight.

After the election of her nephew, we next see Aunt Zeituni in Washington DC, partying it up and living the high life at Obama's inauguration bash. No expense was spared to give her the time of her life and let her enjoy the luxurious Renaissance Mayflower Hotel. Not sure who paid for this.

So what is Auti Zeituni up to now? Zeituni Onyango recently said goodbye to her Cleveland cousins and went back to Boston, where she has been winning court battles that could allow her to stay in America. She is being represented by Cleveland lawyer Margaret Wong and now says that the attention she has received will cause her harm if she were to be deported now, and so she should be allowed asylum. I am willing to bet a million dollars she gets it eventually.

One thing that is not mentioned by either the Cleveland Times or Michelle Malkin is that Margaret Wong is politically connected and has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates over the years. She was likely picked because of her political connections to the Obama's aunt's lawyer, and is using her connections within the Democrat party to circumvent the normal course of law and win special corrupt favors from our government. If you would like to see the amount that Wong has given to the Democrats, click on this link to OpenSecrets.org and see for yourself. Search all cycles, Wong, Ohio, and you'll see a lengthy list of donations by Margaret Wong to Democrat candidates.

Interestingly enough, according to the Cleveland Times Obama's aunt came to see Margaret Wong "one day in early November." Could this have been on November 1, 5, 8, or 13? On those days, Ms. Wong made donations to Democrat candidates of significant amounts. Perhaps Ms. Wong was invited to the inauguration after her generous donation to the Democratic Party in December? Interesting. Don't believe me that there are connections between donating to the Democratic Party and winning favors from the Obama government? Sort the data by date and you'll see a highly coincidental timeline. Or talk to Chrysler dealerships about the importance of making donations to the thugs running our government now.

My Thoughts on Sotomayor

Although picking Supreme Court judges based on their race, sex, and life story is a route to go, I don't think it is the best way to choose those people who sit at the top of our judicial branch. The Supreme Court is the unit of government that specializes in interpretation of the law and the Constitution, trying to discover if the laws and actions of our government conform to the accepted and legitimate supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

I myself dislike the idea of thinking of the Constitution as a 'living document'- what makes it legitimate is that it was voted on and accepted as it was by our ancestors, not as it was going to be- but even if you are partial to that mode of thinking, you should still be picking judges who can best investigate the growth and changes in the Constitution, not race, sex, or compelling life story. Those by no means disqualify you, but there are other factors to consider.

One is how frequently your decisions, which you have reached after careful consideration and deep thought, are upheld. If your best decisions and your best actions are frequently judged by others to be incorrect, poorly thought out, and bad decisions and actions, then that reflects poorly on you. Your best is being rejected as not good enough, and only the best should be on the Supreme Court, because there is no court higher than that one to correct your mistakes and bad calls.

On this issue Democrat President Obama's nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been reversed 60% of the time by the Supreme Court. 5 of her decisions were worded poorly and decided poorly enough that the Supreme Court was forced to spend their precious time going over her work, and after review, the Supreme Court was forced to sigh in annoyance and overrule her decisions 3 times. From what I have read, that is a high ratio of reconsideration and a high ratio of overturns for a circuit court judge, and that ratio is about to get worse as yet another high profile decision that Sotomayor wrote is about to be taken up by the High Court and overturned in the next month or so.

Another problem that I see with Sotomayor is what lawyers who argue in front of her write about her. Democrats freaked out and were hysterically upset about Justice Alito when he was nominated, and many Democrats voted against him after careful consideration of his record. Although pointing out that Democrats and liberals are total hypocrites is too easy, I think we need to compare what lawyers said about one in order to evaluate the other.

The "lawyers' evaluation" of Judge Alito that appeared in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Lawyers interviewed praised Alito's legal acumen. "He is exceptional." "He has brilliant ability." Alito is measured and judicial on the bench, according to lawyers. "He has a fine, nice demeanor--he couldn't have keener demeanor." "He is extremely polite and genteel." Alito is normally a moderately ctive panelist during oral argument, said attorneys. "He is fairly active and asks penetrating questions. Questions can be factual or hypothetical in nature." "He is active. He asks intricate questions, both factual and legal. His legal questions often grasp upon the intricacies of the law that you haven't grasped; it's often in your favor." Attorneys remarked that Alito has exceptional writing ability and uthors succinct, but thorough opinions. "His opinions are very detailed, analytical and thorough. His judgment is quite considered." "He is pretty good in terms of his writing."

For comparison, here is the "lawyers' evaluation" of Judge Sotomayor that appears in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability. "She is very good. She is bright." "She is a good judge." "She is very smart." "She is a good judge, but not quite as smart as she thinks she is." Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." Lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well-prepared at oral argument. "She is engaged in oral argument. She is well-prepared." "She participates actively in oral argument. She is extremely hard working and always prepared." "She dominates oral argument. She will cut you off and cross examine you." Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. "Her opinions are O.K, by and large." "She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions." "Her writing is good." "Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent."

So, after comparing those two evaluations, I have to come to the conclusion that as a whole, Sotomayor is a competent judge who is okay to good. Is that really the best judge that Obama could come up with? Why would he decide to change the court by nominating an okay judge with a poor track record of being overturned?

Here is my theory. She is Hispanic, and Obama likes to play games with race and try to increase his political power by twisting and capitalizing on racist views. She is a women, and Obama feels that by nominating a women because she is a women he will be demonstrating that he does not discriminate. From the evaluations above, I think that Sotomayor is an angry women who has a bone to pick with the world- just like I think that Obama and his wife are angry people who have a bone to pick with the world (they sat in a church for most of their lives where they ate up this message).

Finally, Sotomayor has racist views- she feels that because of her race that she has certain advantages that others do not, that her race has made her different from other people, and Obama likes this, since he himself thinks the same way (for example, his pastor frequently said that blacks were inherently better at rap because of the color of their skin).

For these reasons, as a Senator, I would submit her fully to questioning to decide if she really does believe those statements of hers and if she is indeed a competent judge. Her race, sex, and compelling life story would play no role in my considerations.

Random Pieces of Unwisdom

Survey says- Raise taxes on wealthy! Yep, according to the Detroit News, the wise voters of Michigan, who have correctly decided to change the good times into bad ones by choosing Granholm and Obama, think that the best way to make the economy more prosperous is to hold a gun to rich people's head and demand money from them. After shaking down rich people for more change, voters will wonder why no one is investing any money or buying products, proving that sometimes, it is unwise to let liberals have political power.

Next piece of unwisdom- what do you do if you are a Democrat and restaurants and bars in Michigan are hurting, losing customers and going out of business? The same thing you do when car companies are in trouble- you hammer them even more with more regulations and fees! The Michigan House today voted to make it illegal to smoke in privately owned eating establishments, feeling that it is better to pay hundreds of government workers to walk around fining and arresting people for choosing to allow patrons in their business to choose whether or not to smoke than to have to smell smoke in a restaurant they choose to go to. Yep, that'll make things better- good call Democrats in Michigan House.

Not sure if you heard this next bit of news- it is being kept pretty quite and is getting lost in all the conversation about Sotomayor's judicial history and decisions- but Sotomayor would be Supreme Court's first Hispanic! I think she is a women too, although I haven't heard anything about that yet. For some reason I thought Alito was a Hispanic, but it turns out he was of Italian ancestry, which isn't even close. What ancestry was Roberts? Looking back, no one mentioned the racial/ethnic views of these candidates, and yet that is all liberals/Democrats talk about. Weird how obsessed they are about race- it is almost as if they judge people not based on the quality of their character, but by the color of their skin. Not wise.

Lastly, I have it from good authority (the Uncyclopedia) that Ted Kennedy once tried to invent the alcohol-fueled amphibious car with then-lover Mary Jo Kopechne, resulting in the drowning of Kopechne and the intoxication of Ted Kennedy. See the picture to the right? Not wise. He'll probably vote to confirm Sotomayor, supports outlawing smoking, and also supports raising taxes on the rich, thereby tying together this entire random post.

Chicago Tribune Political Cartoon

This political cartoon is from the Chicago Tribune... in 1934. It is interesting that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Here we see a bunch of liberal Democrats intent on depleting the resources of the soundest government in the world- the only difference is that after many years of liberal Democrat (and moderate Republican) policies, now we are depleting the resources of an unsound government. Look at the plan of action the communist at the bottom left is spelling out- spend (Obama says we need to spend more), blame the capitalists (Obama has been going after greedy businessmen a lot), and junk the Constitution (nationalize auto companies and appoint liberal judges). They knew it back then and I know it now- the choice that voters were faced with last election was between freedom (or at least less destruction under moderate Republican McCain) and the planned destruction of America. Now we know what Obama meant by change- he intends to force American companies into bankruptcy and destroy our nation.

Why Do Some Bear the Burdens?

Listening to President Barack Hussein Obama talk on Memorial Day, I was moved.

"Why in an age when so many have acted only in pursuit of narrowest self-interest have the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of this generation volunteered all that they have on behalf of others?" he said. "Why have they been willing to bear the heaviest burden?"

"Whatever it is, they felt some tug. They answered a call. They said, 'I'll go.' That is why they are the best of America," Obama said. "That is what separates them from those who have not served in uniform, their extraordinary willingness to risk their lives for people they never met."

Of course, some of the power of the message is lost because Obama never served in the military, fought his hardest to resist any call to bear heavy burdens, and (before becoming President and acting this part) he generally spoke ill of the military and those who serve. Oh, and not to quibble, but many in the military I know are not fighting for someone they never met, but are fighting to keep our country of American values free for their parents, friends, and other people they have met- frequently soldiers talk about how it's more of a family value thing than a lawyer-lobbyist thing. And I also wonder why is 'this age' so different than those in the past- maybe Obama is once again showing that he feels he is the Messiah, the ender of ages and the beginning of a new age for man?

Even so, I was moved. Why do some choose to bear burdens? Why do some people feel a call to serve, to hold fast to unpopular ideas, and to make the hard and tough decisions in life? Why do some continue to bear the burden of holding to morals and values, when this world and the Democratic Party push for a nihilistic approach of doing whatever you feel like is okay? Why do some feel the need to talk about our Founding values, to hold firm to life, liberty, and freedom, and to push for good responsible government?

It is a lot easier to just throw money at our problems, especially when that money is was earned by someone else. It is a lot easier to preach 'compassion' for criminals, especially when it isn't your son or daughter that was raped or murdered. It is a lot easier to 'relate' than it is to make a tough decision and say 'someone broke the law and needs to be punished.' It is a lot easier to say 'give up your values and agree with us and be a moderate' than it is to stick to your values or to say abortion is wrong and gay marriage is wrong and gun ownership is good. Is is easy to get on a soapbox and say 'don't label people all you mean conservatives and evil Republicans', but much harder to say 'don't label people.' It is a hard burden that some choose to bear, and I too wonder why some feel the calling to do so.

Case in point. When asked "Would Jennifer Granholm make a good Supreme Court justice?", according to a Detroit News/WXYZ poll most Michigan residents say "yes!". Why would they say that? She has zero qualifications, and compared with Supreme Court judges now (both liberal and conservative) and in the past, her qualifications to be judge are severely lacking. Why would anyone even think she would qualified for judge, much less 'make a good one'?

Poll participant Sue Barber, an unemployed non-taxpayer sucking down social security, gives us some insight into how easy it is to say 'sure, whoever wants to be Supreme Court judge can if they want.' "She's very bright, well-educated, and an attorney" she said- why not make her a judge- it's really tough to tell a child 'no', and a lot easier to just go with the flow. Sue went on to add that she is impressed by the fact that Granholm pretends to be an impartial decision-maker ("a genuine capacity to look at all sides of an issue") but likes the fact that after all this charade, she always goes with a pure liberal philosophy ("evaluate fairly"). "She's not just a doctrinaire like some of the other justices on the court"- as if having no moral and ethical base were something to admire- and it's not true anyways, because she is liberal to the core (although perhaps liberal is the same as no moral or ethical base).

Another case in point. Look at the lack of discipline in this newspaper editorial written by a Democratic hack pretending to be a news story:

The Grand Old Party is on wobbly legs these days in Michigan as voters drift away and those left behind are locked in an ideological debate about the path to reverse its sagging fortunes. Increasingly, the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is pitting social and religious conservatives who unflinchingly tout an anti-abortion, anti-gay, family platform at the expense of most everything else, against the traditional fiscal conservatives and moderates who would rather focus on a smaller, less intrusive government that takes less from taxpayer wallets and finds ways to create jobs.

This author likes the fact that 'voters drift away'- drifting in the currents of liberalism is a freeing experience- you can be a child again and indulge in your every want and desire. Sadly, those voters that 'drift away' and vote Democrat are now seeing the results of that- a country and society that is getting less and less every day. It is much harder to stand up in the water and say 'I am not going to drown, I am going to fight, I am going to bear whatever burden to make this nation better.'

It is really tough to be unflinching in the face of evil. History has shown this to be the case- most of times, when faced with difficult decisions and a hostile and aggressive foe, the natural impulse of man is to run. That is what the Democrats do- they run and hide and pretend that it is okay to poke a hole in a 8 month old baby's brain and call it 'choice.' They flinch back from making a tough decision and saying 'get a job and work.' Rather than saying 'you committed a crime and must go to jail,' they jerk back, fearful and afraid, and cower to the criminal and say 'compassion'.

This author tries to pretend the battle is within the Republican party- but reveals that what the battle really is is between the Republican party and the Democratic party- the author says moderates want a "less intrusive government that takes less from taxpayer wallets and finds ways to create jobs"- in other words, according to him moderate Republicans are willing to pay 40% in taxes, give up most of their freedoms, and support a government that spends taxpayer money on government boondoggles. Those aren't moderate Republicans- those are Democrats.

Don't give in to this garbage. Don't drift away. Be strong. Get a backbone. Stand up. Bear the burden. Our Founding Fathers were not the most popular bunch, especially with the established interests and the international community. Take heart in that. Others out there show us the way- show us that burdens can be born, that courage can fight down the impulse to flinch back from evil, and that if you truly want to change the world and have hope for the future, you need to unflinchingly vote conservative Republican in every election.

A Shocking Look Inside the NEA

As a teacher in a public school in Michigan, I naturally belong to the Michigan Education Association (MEA) and National Education Association (NEA). I have a radical idea that since I pay my dues to these groups, I am part of them, and since I vote in all the elections, I am a constituent of these groups, and thus these groups should be responsive and open to my views. You're probably thinking that's a rather naive view, but I choose to look at the world in a more positive and less cynical way, and work my hardest to make the world the way it supposed to be. Because of this, I have become more and more active in the MEA and NEA.

So it was with great interest that I read this secret report that was written by a conservative Republican teacher who was at the National NEA Conference in 2005. Here are some excerpts from this report:

“Intrigue, New-Age philosophy, adventure, conflict, deception, cunning craftiness, courage, heroism, and victory in the face of defeat” Never did I dream that I would be using such words to describe my weeks experience attending the 2005 national NEA conference held in Los Angeles, July 1-6. Such words fit the description of an action-packed movie like Star Wars not spending six days in a convention center surrounded by 9,000 liberal delegates. However, I soon discovered that the wheeling and dealings that go on behind the scenes at the NEA are very much like a Star-Wars episode with the plot centered around a small group of Conservative teacher- “rebel warriors” trying to penetrate and influence for good the gigantic, powerful, out-of-control, spinning in space, ultra-liberal battle-star NEA.

The NEA conference began with an ecumenical, Pluralistic, New-Age sounding prayer. I was quite shocked to even see a prayer listed on the program. I thought the NEA was opposed to schools having prayers because of “separation of Church and State.” But then I listened to the prayer. It was definitely different than any prayer I had ever heard before. It was given by David Sanchez, the Vice President of the California Teacher’s Association. Sanchez invoked the blessings over the conference of just about every god in the universe. He mentioned “Buddha, Allah, the Great Spirit, Gaia,” and, in all fairness, he even included the God of the Christians and Jews.

In the song that the 9,000 delegates were asked to join in singing to show patriotism on the 4th of July, “I’m Proud to be an American,” the last stanza was changed. Instead of singing, “God Bless the USA,” the delegates saw that the words had been changed on the big screens overhead and now read, “We love the USA!” Christian teachers who were part of the Conservative Educators Caucus were very upset that God was removed from one of their favorite songs. No one else seemed to make any mention of it.

The Academic and Professional Freedom Amendment. This amendment was asking for the academic freedom of students, that teachers would “welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas by providing an unprejudiced learning environment. The Association does not condone the indoctrination of students through intimidation, unfair grading practices, withholding of information, or by any other means.” One would think that most teachers and the NEA would agree with these words. But, that was not the case. Before any speeches could be given in support of it, a lady from the Higher Education group called for it to be referred to committee. The vote was quickly taken and passed, and the amendment was gone, never to be heard from again.

The other CEC (Conservative Education Caucus) (sponsored) amendments were all lumped together to be heard late in the afternoon of the last day. Those presenting their resolutions were at the mikes ready to go. Suddenly we heard NEA President Reg Weaver’s voice come on the mike instead, stating that he had a huge stack of slips asking for the next three amendments to be referred to committee. He then called for the vote. It passed, and all the conservative amendments were sent off to committee. And that was that! No other proposals presented by any caucus at the convention were treated like that.

Last year at the 2004 NEA convention, a new member of the Republican Caucus, Shawna Adams, got her self nominated to run for president against the conservative incumbent President, Diane Lenning. (Adams) has never been seen at any Republican meeting, nor can her name be found on any Republican rolls. On the day of the voting, Adams showed up with many friends who signed up to be new members, paid their dues, and then voted, all for Adams. She won, of course. She has now brought into the Republican caucus many liberal ideas that they would never have gone along with before.

As long as it did not smack of conservatism then every strange resolution, amendment, and proposals were allowed to be heard and over 80 were passed. Here are just a few of the amazing liberal topics that were allowed to go before the delegation and are now on record as having been approved by the majority of those present: Boycott Wal-Mart, Re-educate and re-program poor misinformed Republican members, Support Affirmative Action, and Anti-war efforts to get our troops out of Iraq.

This report, if true, and to be fair I have not yet had a chance to personally be silenced and hated by the NEA, is troubling. There are 2.7 million members of the NEA- all teachers, all in the classroom every day educating your children. They belong to, and most support, an organization that is shockingly and radically liberal.

That might not surprise you, but just saying "all teachers are liberal" glosses over the fact that when teachers stand up to speak about the right to life, they are shouted at and screamed at by spittle-spewing liberals at NEA conferences. It glosses over the fact that when a conservative teacher stands up to ask that students not be brainwashed and intimidated, they are the bad guys, they are the ones shunned and marginalized, and they are the ones to be silenced. It is bizzaro world in the NEA- good is bad, bad is good, and the goal of teachers and their teacher organization is not to educate your child in math, English, and science, but to re-educate them in liberal values and beliefs.

Just saying "yeah, I know teachers are liberal" is not enough. You need to know each one of these examples above, you need to really see the liberalness of the NEA for each individual crime against the morality and decency of our society. And you need to pass on this information to others. Anyone who has a child in education, anyone who pays their taxes for education, should know- must know- what they are supporting. Please pass this post along to others or link to it on your pages- as I become more active in the NEA, I'd like to think that someone will be there beside me, that more will gather behind me, and we can re-make the NEA so that it is no longer a radical promoter of all the worst liberal views.

Teachers Have Below Average Intelligence

WND has done some interesting math that demonstrates that teachers have below average intelligence:

In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower.

But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

I would have to agree with this assessment. Don't misunderstand me- I'm not saying that all teachers are idiots and lack below average IQ's. I'm just saying that most teachers I have met would not have been successful in construction, plumbing, high finance, law, or most other endevors. Myself, I only missed a single question on the MTTC tests (the teacher certification tests), but I know many teachers had to take them several times before they could get a passing score.

You all do realize that in order to teach a subject in school, you need 30 credits for a teaching major and 20 credits for a teaching minor. Some teachers teach in their minors- that means they took maybe 5 classes in the subject matter they are teaching, or less than one year of training. Can you imagine doing your job- nah, being an expert in your job and training others in it- with less than one year of training?

Schools really are the blind leading the blind, churning out masses of uneducated voters every day, who fall for Democrat memes easily because of their ignorance and stupidity.

Some Thoughts to Those Graduating

Graduation speeches and notes written in yearbooks have become shockingly boring and tedious. A lot of politicians and famous people think that a good graduation speech is to give a speech that encourages people to 'give back,' 'hope,' respect others,' and other empty meaningless thoughtless pointless advice. Students, staff, and faculty write such empty stuff in yearbooks like 'good luck,' 'work hard,' 'be safe,' and other ideas that could be offered by a random person on the street. These are not the thoughts from those who would guide us correctly- these are not the writings of those who know us and wish to steer us correctly.

What do I write in yearbooks or speak about at graduation? I've chosen to go the route of giving shockingly radical messages about fighting for liberty, being a true patriot, and always holding true to life, liberty, and property.

"Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains- liberty and freedom are the exceptions that defy the rule of human existence, and it is up to you to fight for them," I write to one student.

To another student I write "Do not forget that your views on government, on the policies of government, on the role of government on society, are Revolutionary- they shock the established order who wish you to be in bondage, and they speak to the deeper truths about man- that all men are equal, that all are endowed with certain rights, that these rights are life, liberty, and property, and that government exists only to protect these rights. Keep being a true patriot."

A couple students of mine, who would have failed out of the class and school if I had not forged a personal relationship with them that encouraged them to find something of interest about government and go from there, wanted me to sign their yearbooks. They are very interested in 2nd amendment rights. I wrote "The tree of liberty might need to be cleaned by the work of patriots in the future- keep learning, keep becoming educated, work hard, and remember that when the time comes, we'll need good men to step up and fight for freedom."

I wonder sometimes if students will look back on my words and be inspired. I hope so.

The Gamble: Petraeus and the Military in Iraq

From centrality to banality: perhaps no other event in modern American history has gone from being contentious to being forgotten as quickly as the war in Iraq. Remember the war? It consumed a trillion American dollars, devoured a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, squandered a country's reputation, and destroyed an American presidency. Given the retreat of the American press--the first American withdrawal from Iraq, you might say--one could almost be excused, in the spring of 2009, for forgetting that 140,000 American troops are still fighting and dying there.

That's the beginning of this excellent book review/article by Dexter Filkins of The New Republic. Many people have forgotten about the Iraq War, a war that our nation was close to losing, that an entire political party (Democrats) were determined to lose, and yet, now a fragile victory has been secured by Bush, Cheney, and other brave Republicans. Obama has not pulled us out of Iraq, in spite of the many who voted for him based on that reason above all, and he is not going to pull us out of Iraq, in spite of change and hope, because he knows that because of the actions of George Bush, victory is now possible in Iraq.

It no longer really matters whether Bush was brilliant or stupid, a man who listened to reason or an idiot savant struck, Forrest Gump-like, by a fleeting insight. Whatever one's view of the war, it is impossible to deny that in the eleventh hour Bush was right.

That's the message that this article conveys, as it is a review of a book called The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008, by Thomas E. Ricks. In 2006, the Democrats surged to political power by arguing that we need to surrender and pull out of Iraq. The generals on the ground were in the news every day talking about our loss in Iraq, the Democratic Party was working their hardest to assure our defeat there, and a good chunk of the American people were slapping stickers on their cars that said "Run away and hide" (or "coexist"- same thing) and chanting in crowds "Lose the War" (or "end the war"- same thing).

And Bush defied them. This article does a good job though of not giving Bush all the credit- in reality, Bush was desperate for anyone who could save him, could rescue our nation from his previous bad decisions, and into that void appeared the typical savior of America- everyday American hero's. A couple generals, chief among those David Petraeus, stepped forward to say that they could win. In every war that America has ever been in, someone always steps forward past liberals and Democrats and says that they can do it- they can win the unwinnable war. And they do. That's the greatness, the exceptionalism, of America.

I highly recommend you read this review, and even pick up the book. It is a great look back on the last couple years, defying the rhetoric of the left and shedding light into areas the main stream media keeps dark. Enjoy!

Not Being Safe Enough is Crime Enough for Canadian Police

Via theglobeandmail:

Anyone who has ridden an escalator and bothered to pay attention has seen and likely ignored little signs suggesting riders hold the grimy handrail. But in Montreal's subway system, the friendly advice has taken on the force of law, backed by a $100 fine.

Bela Kosoian, a 38-year-old mother of two, says when she didn't hold the handrail Wednesday she was cuffed, dragged into a small holding cell, and then fined. She was riding an escalator down to catch a 5:30 p.m. subway when an officer instructed her to hold on to the rail. She replied, “I don't have three hands.” (she was holding other items). That's when the officer demanded identification so he could write her ticket.

Ms. Kosoian started arguing. The officers handcuffed her and threw her into a small holding cell. The officers searched her bag and gave her a $100 ticket for failing to hold the banister and another $320 ticket for obstruction of justice. The handcuffs bruised Ms. Kosoian's wrists and an officer's boot scraped skin off the top of her foot.

Sometimes when we are talking in my class about how bad America has gotten, my kids say that they'll just go somewhere else. "Where?" I ask, and they always say Canada. No offense to our northern neighbors, but your country is worse than ours is, even though ours has been getting totalitarianism too. Freedom, liberty, and justice are fragile flowers struggling against the forces of tyranny and injustice, and most of the times they lose. Here, in Canada, we have a great example of how Canada is worse than the USA.

A law abiding citizen is harassed, injured, insulted, and fined for not holding a safety rail. What crime did she commit? If she had indeed injured herself, so what? It is a far greater crime to give the police the kind of power they displayed here than it is for a person or two to be injured riding the escalator. Remember that, next time there is a vote to give more power to our government for 'our safety'- the greatest threat to your safety is the Frankenstein monster of a government that you yourself created.

Granholm Boarded a Flight from Detroit to Washington, DC Last Night- SCOTUS Next?

Via Committee for Justice Blog :

CFJ has learned from a reliable source that Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, reportedly on President Obama’s Supreme Court short list, boarded a flight from Detroit to Washington, DC last night. If Granholm is coming to DC for an announcement of her nomination to the Court, we’ll know as soon as this morning. If she’s coming to DC to interview for the job, it serves as confirmation that she is on the short list. In either case, it’s worth taking a look at her record, including the scandals that have plagued her.

CFJ says that for SCOTUS, Granholm's role in the economic disaster that is Michigan really is not going to be that important. Although she has been incompetent and mismanaged the state into the worst in the nation every year of her administration, that kind of resume is actually something the Obama team looks favorably on. And her opposition to traditional marriage and support of abortion are just policy differences- the kind that Obama says don't really matter, and that we should all just be nice about and agree with him since they aren't worth much (that's the point of his Notre Dame speech, right?). And her lack of experience in anything judicial isn't going to hurt her either- the Obama team favors putting people with no experience over those with experience- then Obama doesn't feel bad being so inexperienced at his job.

The real scandals that CFJ points to that might knock her off the list (allowing someone with a cleaner record of no experience and empathy to become an activist liberal Supreme Court judge)are her tax problems (Obama doesn't want to look bad by appointing yet another tax cheat) and her record while acting as Corporation Counsel for Wayne County. As CFJ mentions, after Granholm's time in that office, the FBI and state auditors have been busy for years, cleaning up the corruption of her administration, including the awarding of no-bid and grossly-expensive contracts to her husband's businesses by Wayne County.

Check out the full post here.

Cap and Trade- Taxes and Tyranny

Today the Detroit News glows over an article that says that the auto industry is happy to be getting 3 percent of the money that will be raised over the next 6 years by the government's new 'cap and trade' scheme. It is projected to raise $15 billion dollars for the auto industry.

I'm no expert in math, but if 15 billion is only 3 percent of the money that our government means to suck out of economy, that means the House is passing a tax scheme that will levy $500 billion in new taxes over the next 6 years. That means that this 'cap and trade' scheme is in effect a half trillion dollar tax increase on US citizens.

This $500 billion is a lot of money (enough money to put in place a 'revenue-neutral' national healthcare scheme). Where will it come from? The money will come from auctions for permits to produce more energy and grow America, and will come from fines of those companies that meet the demand of our vibrant industry and citizens and increase energy and growth beyond what the government arbitrarily sets as the cap. The energy companies will suffer only in that their profits might be lowered- but times are tough for all companies, and there is pressure to increase profits for every firm, so soon those costs of doing business that the government is imposing with little reasoning or logic will be passed on to consumers.

The people who will suffer from this scheme are the auto companies, who will find that the $15 billion does little to stem the hundreds of billions they bleed when consumers are no longer allowed to purchase the cars they want to purchase or are forced into buying expensive hybrids. The auto companies will lose jobs, investors will lose money, and society will suffer.

The people who will suffer the most from this cap and trade tax scheme are anyone who uses power in their lives, to power their dishwashers and microwaves and computers and businesses. They will have to pay the increased costs, lowering their cost-competitiveness and efficiency, and putting them at a further disadvantage vs firms in other nations that do no have to bear these government imposed burdens. The poor and those on fixed incomes will be hit especially hard by this scheme, as they will find it difficult to pay electric and gas bills.

And the benefits of this scheme are inconclusive at best. Perhaps less pollutants will be emitted, and a tiny little bit of harmful waste will be emitted into the atmosphere. This perhaps will stop the Earth from warming.

Government Aid vs Prosperity

Not that I'm telling you anything you don't know, but I always love it when statistics generally bear out my crazy theories that the way to create a prosperous free economy is to have low government regulation and low taxes. For my unit on state and local government, I found this article on Variations in Government Aid Across the Nation that was put together by the New York Times. This report looks at welfare, unemployment, housing assistance, food stamps, health insurance for poor adults, and health insurance for poor children, and measures them from state to state.

The top states in terms of providing generous benefits to their citizens- in other words, those that take money from taxpayers and re-distribute that wealth to those who did not earn it are (in descending order): Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, DC, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa, and Michigan.

Out of curiosity, I decided to pull up some information on GDP growth, and provided by the Department of Commerce. The results are interesting. Here are the GDP growth rates for those states, with numbers from 2006 and 2007: Vermont (2.8, 1.5) , Maine (1.9, 1.3), Massachusetts (2.9, 2.5), DC (4.1, 4.3), Pennsylvania (1.7, 1.6), West Virginia (0.6, 0.1), Iowa (2.6, 1.7), and Michigan (-0.5, -1.2).

Those states that let citizens keep their wealth and freely make their own decisions are: Colorado, Texas, Utah, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Virginia.

Here are their GDP growth rates (2006, 2007): Colorado (4.3, 2.0), Texas (4.3, 4.1), Utah (7.2, 5.3), Florida (4.2, 0.0), Nevada (4.1, 0.6), Arizona (6.8, 1.8), Oklahoma (6.7, 4.0), and Virginia (3.2, 1.9).

As you can see, the results are pretty conclusive. States that redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, divert money from taxpayers to nonworkers, subsidize poor quality housing, give people food, and provide government-paid healthcare are less prosperous, less successful, and less free.

Those states that follow these unsuccessful public polices have GDP growth rates significantly and consistently lower, and over several generations destroy the wealth and productivity of their citizens. If our whole nation were to adopt those same policies, our children and children's children- our posterity- would grow up less free, less happy, and less prosperous than we are today.

The conclusion, as demonstrated with this limited amount of research, is clear- our public policies should emphasize self-sufficiency, less public welfare, and lower unemployment benefits, and should keep the state out of building structures for people just because of their income status, and should teach a man to fish instead of giving him fish, and should not provide as a right of birth state-supported healthcare.

UPDATE: Today I saw a report from the Mercatus Center at Georgetown called Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom. Earlier I pointed out that many of the states that provided the most social welfare services to its citizens also are less prosperous. Looking over this report, I notice that those states that provide healthcare to poor, housing subsidies, and food stamps also are less free. I guessed this fact (see above), but it's nice that my guess is now backed up in numbers that show that.

According to the rankings in the report (1 is most free, 50 is least), the least free states- the states with the most tyrrany and oppression by government- compare favorably with my list of states that had the highest social welfare.

Here are the states that provide the most social services and their rankings on freedom- Vermont (40), Maine (39), Massachusetts (43), DC (NR), Pennsylvania (20), West Virginia (33), Iowa (16), and Michigan (14). Here are the states that provide the least social services and their rankings on freedom- Colorado (2), Texas (5), Utah (11), Florida (22), Nevada (24), Arizona (8), Oklahoma (18), and Virginia (9).

There you go- states that encourage conservative values are more prosperous and more free. The data doesn't lie.

Visiting the 'Model' High School

Last week, as part of our 'professional development', a group of teachers were given a tour of the new Model High School in our district. Model High Schools are a new movement, and are based on the philosophy that each child as a unique learner and thus should create their own educational experiences. These schools develop personalized education programs that focus on being fun and creative. They also try to surround students with nurturing adults who support and enable students in their learning. Students do not focus on learning abstract concepts or knowledge, and instead build a curriculum around whatever they are interested in. And they are assessed on standards they themselves set. Subjects that students focus on are 'Urban Culture,' 'Contemporary Art,' and 'Multicultural Literature.' These schools are supposed to be an alternative school for students who do not do well in traditional schools. Oh yes, Model High School is the vision of liberal education.

So we get to the Model High School, and are walking around the building listening to this new sounding language given by three African-American women who run the school. We were told to ask any questions if we had any, so I raised my hand.

"Why do you teach students those subjects- rather than learning about how to sell drugs, reading rap, and admiring a bunch of trash turned into 'art', wouldn't students benefit more by a deeper student of reading, math, and science?" While I was led to believe that no question was stupid (in fact, that was said with breathy belief at the beginning of the question and answer period, as if every question really is equal), you should have seen the glares that were leveled on me after asking that question. It was almost as if I had said that the emperor was wearing no clothes!

They answered with some sort of mumbo-jumbo about how all knowledge is equal and that there are no real truths in the world, instead students focus on the process of learning and discovery.

Oh yeah, my eyes rolled at this one, and even though the tour continued and we started to look at wonderful 'interpretive' art projects (random colors thrown at the paper) that students spent weeks on (rather than learning geometry or US history), I couldn't let that last answer go. So at the next pause in the tour, I asked "What do you mean when you say that students are assessed by standards that they themselves set? Do you really teach them that wrong answers are right?"

The group I was with went dead still with shock. I guess in schools that teach diversity and equality, there is only one view that is better than others, and you are not to question it. I did, and oh man, was the answer I got frosty indeed- "Good grades should come from good ideas," one of the directors told me.

I replied "even if the ideas lack any basis in science or rationality?"

Another director replied- "It is not really about science or rationality- it is about effort- the only thing that really matters in this world is effort anyways."

"Whoa," I said, "Do you mean to suggest that your school rewards effort more so than actual achievement? Do you really believe that if someone works really hard doing something that has little use, or works really hard doing something that could easily be done another way, or works really hard doing something that does not work, or works really hard doing the wrong thing, we should reward that person with a good grade just because of the effort? What about productivity? Efficiency? Correctness? Rightness? Do those things not matter" Apparently, in the liberal world of the Model High School, they don't.

The tour continued on, now with a certain edge in it, as the believes now sensed they had an unbeliever in their midst. I looked around the school with renewed interest, and was surprised by some of the work that was on the walls of the school. Whereas in my classroom, the walls are functionally decorated and convey a business-like approach to learning, the walls of this school were filled with meaningless and empty slogans. "Change," "Hope," "Togetherness," "Effort," "Equality," "Diversity," and "Save the Environment" the walls shouted to students. This Model High School looked less like a place of 'learning' and more like a 're-education camp.'

Once more, I tried to question the directors. At this point, I should have realized that I was now being watched more so than listened to- but I demonstrated the same stupidity here that I did when I questioned Earth Day last month (Earth Day: A Communist Plot?). Since I was no longer being recognized to speak, I simply voiced my question. "The students in this school are here because they were not disciplined- they failed their classes by not handing in work, they didn't study, they didn't try to understand the concepts, and many were insubordinate and disrespectful for teachers. And now your plan to help these students is to enable them, to give in to their demands, to surround them with 'nurturing' adults who put no discipline on them, and who appease them at every turn?"

"Yes, exactly," the directors replied, happy now that I understood their philosophy, that I finally got what they were doing in this school. Oh, and I did- now I understood that this school was meant to create a permanent underclass of slaves to serve the tyrants who ran it. The Model High School really was a vision of liberal education.

Obama Demands Movie Screening

Continuing the theme that that Obama is turning America into a dictatorship (see posts Who is Ed Montgomery?, What sort of a Judge do you want?, Congress Threatens College Football- Playoff System or Else Our Thugs Will Get You), I read today that POLITICO is hearing from several sources that the President has demanded that private movie company Paramount Pictures give him his own personal screening of the new "Star Trek" film in the White House. How cute. The MSM has reacted predictably to this tyrannically request by churning out such drivel as “Obama Is Spock: It’s Quite Logical” (Salon), and there’s even an Obama “Spock” action figure coming out.

Before we clap our hands together in happy glee, let's think about what is happening here in this free country. The President of the United States is a man who is elected to do a job- execute the laws of our elected Congress. He is simply a man. He is not a King, and should not be treated as such- he should wait in line like everyone else. In fact, if he was a humble man who was grateful for the chance that God gave him with, he would welcome the chance to be humble, and much like George Washington, would seek ways to limit attempts to make him more than a man.

But Obama is not like Washington, and is not a humble person, and does not think he is the same as you. Obama thinks he is better than you. He thinks that you, yes you, the reader of this blog, is a piece of scum. He thinks you are unintelligent, uninformed, and the job you do is unimportant. He thinks he is better than you, and he sneers at you from his high and mighty position as King of America. And he reveals this attitude all the time- ordering college football to change to a playoff system to confine to his wishes, supporting judges who agree with him personally instead of judges who support rule of law, and appointing roving dictators who now wander around our empire distributing favors from our god-like King. And now this.

It might be petty, it might be silly, but Obama should wait in line like everyone else to watch the new Star Trek movie. In fact, he should go to the movie theatre, wait in line, pay from his own pocket for over-priced popcorn, and sit behind some person who sits on their knees and crinkles a loud candy wrapper all movie long. He should have the same experience as everyone else in watching this movie at the theatre- the people talking on the phone, the sticky floor, the people walking in late and asking him to move- that's America. This isn't Russia, and this isn't aristocratic France- he isn't the king of this nation, when he can order private companies to build him his own palace theatre and then screen movies for him. I know I'm going overboard, but darn it- this is America!

Who is Ed Montgomery?

As our nation descends into third-world dictatorships, I am increasingly finding myself unfamiliar with the overlords who control my behavior and distribute gifts and favors. I mean, I know who is elected into office, and I understand the bureaucracy and how that works. But who the heck is Ed Montgomery, what role does he play in our political system, and how does he get to be the one making major decisions and giving away money?

As reported by the Detroit News:

President Barack Obama's auto industry recovery czar, at the start of a two-day trip to a state ravaged by the auto industry downturn, unveiled Thursday an expanded business loan program he said will aid hundreds of auto dealers, repair shops and auto suppliers in Michigan.

Ed Montgomery also announced $10.3 million will be sent to the state for the redevelopment of aging manufacturing sites.

Earlier in the day, Montgomery toured Cascade Engineering, an auto parts supplier and wind turbine maker in the Grand Rapids area that has laid off 300 workers in the past four months. He announced that the Small Business Administration will expand a loan program to aid businesses like Cascade.

Montgomery also announced $10.3 million in new funding for cleanup and reuse of old industrial sites. He said it's the largest amount for brownfields redevelopment available to any state.

The money will come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and will help communities to clean up sites known as brownfields, which may be contaminated by chemicals or pollutants.

I'm going to need to become more familiar with how things work in third world countries- how to curry favor with royal envoys, how to avoid being intimidated and bullied, and how to bow low to our new overlords, who tour around our country giving gifts to favored people.

Prime Minister Question and Answer Period

America took a lot of good ideas from the British system of government- one that we didn't take was the question-and-answer idea that is one of the coolest things about British government. In this clip, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (Labor) is simply hammered relentlessly by the Tory leader David Cameron during the Prime Minister's Question period. Can you imagine Representative McCotter (R, MI) hammering away at Obama like this- it would be so much fun to watch! Or Representative Paul (R, TX) badgering away at Pelosi? Watch this clip- there are some good lines in there and some lessons on how today conservatives can win by not backing down, by not moderating, and by not being friends- but by making their points and hammering them home at every possible opportunity. The clip is 4 minutes of fun. Enjoy.

The Preamble Does not Contain a "Moral Obligation to help the Poor in the World" Clause

In the Detroit News today, there is a story about how the Obama administration wants to spend $63 billion to fund world health.

At some point, our political leaders decided that the best way to protect my life, liberty, and property was to support the creation of a fund that would fight global diseases and help children's health. I'm looking at the Constitution right now- I can't figure out how more American taxpayer money to people in other countries for prenatal and postnatal care helps create a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, or promote the general welfare of the people of the United States.

Probably this legislation when it was passed talked about how the creation of this fund would go towards helping the common defense- that spending American taxpayer money on providing healthcare for someone in another nation would make him feel more supportive to the United States. I suppose the argument was that I would be better protected against crime and death if money were spent to create a global perception that the United States cares, and this might lessen the draw of terrorism or something. I disagree with this argument, and I feel the money could be spent better elsewhere to accomplish the goals of protecting me and keeping me free, but I can see the argument.

In fact, under the Bush administration, these very arguments were made- there was an effort to provide funding to improve health in the world's poorest places, as some argued that these efforts could improve the United States' image and security. I get it- I don't agree, but I get it.

But, what I do not agree with or get is the idea that my hard-earned and hard-worked for taxpayer money should be diverted to another nation because of "a responsibility to protect the health of people... reducing suffering, and support the health and dignity of people everywhere." That's not in the Constitution, Mr. Obama, and I do not support expanding US efforts to fund healthcare for the world by over $63 billion.

When actions like this are undertaken, purposefully separated from their legal and moral justifications, they become illegal and immoral, and thus any patriot should oppose them, and that is exactly what Obama has done- he has said that the reason why we should spend this taxpayer provided government money to compete against private healthcare around the world is not to provide for the common defense, but to "moral obligation to help the world's poorest and most threatened populations". There is no such obligation in the Constitution, Mr. President. There is however a clearly written obligation to follow our Constitution as written- you ignore that when you follow this 'moral' obligation to take my money to 'help the world.'

At what point do we find it necessary to remove this guy from office? At what point will voters realize that Obama does not see them as free and equal people, but rather slaves to his personal desires and wants? At what point will I be provided with decent respect for my views and my work, and not be mocked or threatened? Just exactly who does Obama think provides liberty and prosperity- the government or the people? Why does Obama think that government has been provided with power- to go off fixing every problem in the world, or only to protect my life, liberty, and property? I ask you, fellow patriots and readers of my blog, at what point are the evils of this man's presidency too sufferable?

Evolution of Socialist Strategies in the Face of Sociast Failures

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different result. And so I am going to say it- the left is insane. They are not logical, reasonable, and acting in a rational manner- instead, the left, the liberals, the Democrats, the Obamacons, are insane- doing the same old communist song and dance and expecting a different result. They say 'oh, maybe 1 trillion in debt spending instead of 2 will work' or 'cap and trade is moderate and not at all like nationalizing the oil industry' and 'reasonable health care is nothing like socialized health care'- I hear these Democrats on the radio every day trying to fool you into thinking that what they are doing is something new, something different, than good old fashioned communism. And not the nice kind of communism that you believe when you join high school model UN- nope, these leftists are practicing and preaching and encouraging you to support the same style of communism, the step-child or direct ancestor of, Stalin's branch of communism.

For proof, I point to this graph:

As you can see from the graph, your 'environmentalists' and 'multiculturalists' and 'political thought controllers' and even 'terrorists' all are simply more modern adjustments to the classical communists and marxists of a hundred years ago, preaching the same failed ideas and failed philosophies of the past.

UPDATE: Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19,1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. As a candidate for President of the U.S. in 1944, Norman Thomas said: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Later in the speech he said: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."

NOTE to NEW READERS: New readers, please feel free to also check out some of my recent good posts like Obama is a Caudillo, The Inside Deal: Obama's Economic Program, Employment-Population Ratio Drops to 58.5%, Earth Day: Is it just one big Communist Plot?, Gifted Programs in Schools Training Future Liberals, or Obama On Inner and Outer Circles of Leadership. Also feel free to link to aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com on your blog, and bookmark conservativeteacher.blogspot.com so you can become a regular reader of the battles of a conservative teacher's attempt to advance the principles of liberty and freedom.

What sort of a Judge do you want?

Increasingly, I think a dominant feature of Obama's Presidency is the lawlessness of it- he does whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says. Bankruptcy law is well developed, but he ignores it and instead resorts to threats and attacks using the office of power he is in. Private companies operate under business laws, but he attacks them to to force them to his will. Environmental law is lawless enough, but even the rules and guidelines there are not enough- Obama as President does whatever he wants, regardless of the law. And now, President Barack Obama is going to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Via powerlineblog:

President Obama made a short statement about the retirement of Justice Souter in which he outlined what he will be looking for in Souter's replacement. He stated, in part:

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.

I'm going to pose this very question to my students in my classroom- what kind of a Justice do they want on the Supreme Court-

A) someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, but about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives- a justice that has empathy and identifies with people's hopes and struggles (extreme liberal person who is a judge)

B) someone who understands legal theory and is deeply knowledgeable with all the footnotes and cases in our judicial history, and will focus not how how law affects people's lives but whether the law is valid and just- a justice that is learned and experienced in the law (a judge of any philosophy)

UPDATE: For a scary game, imagine that Obama appoints a justice as liberal as Souter became, who given the power and freedom of the Supreme Court becomes more liberal yet. See this fun graph via the New York Times to see the evolution of justices.

Congress Threatens College Football- Playoff System or Else Our Thugs Will Get You

This is not a story out of Onion, the fake news, but rather the bizarro world that Democrats are running (and yes, when Democrats control President, House, and Senate, they are running the show, not Republicans)- Congress is threatening the college football Bowl Championship Series. If they can utterly disregard rule of law and limited government and take over auto companies, they can do whatever they want- and they will, including telling banks who to lend to, credit card companies how much to charge in interest to whom, and who gets to go to college bowl games.

"How is this fair?” asked the subcommittee chairman, Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois, who has co-sponsored Barton’s bill. “How can we justify this system … are the big guys getting together and shutting out the little guys?”

Democrat Rush demands that college football affirmatively act to give more points and power to the smaller schools out there, and is more than ready to use the power of the US government to force college football teams to play a playoff.

John Swofford, the coordinator of the BCS was bluntly warned by Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, “If we don’t see some action in the next two months, on a voluntary switch to a playoff system, then you will see this bill move.”

Swofford better take this threat seriously- if the BCS doesn't switch over to a playoff system and give the smaller schools more more, than tanks and bombers and aircraft carriers will be deployed to employ force and smash whatever liberty and freedom the BCS now enjoys.

Oh, this is serious stuff- I warned about it before in Democrats Order Change for College Football- Must Be Fair to Everyone to Provide Hope to All. The power has gone straight to the Democrats heads, and they are now ruling by decree, utterly disregarding even trying to appear like they are acting in a constitutionally limited manner.

Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University, said the legislation could result in a court challenge. “This is a rare effort by Congress to prevent people from using what is a common description of sporting events,” he said in a telephone interview. The legislation, he said, “may run afoul of the contractual agreements between parties, wiping out benefits that have already been paid for by companies.”

Rare effort? Try increasingly common attempt. And do you think Congress and the White House cares at all about contractual agreements between parties? Nope. Not a bit. Obama laughs at that kind of old-fashioned conservative notion- contractual agreements were not his speciality at law school.

What is happening to our country? Are we seriously becoming a nation where if you don't get your way, you run to your government official, and then he uses the force and power of the US government to make someone change their behavior? Whatever happened to freedom and liberty and choice? Someone read the Declaration of Independence- am I being totally silly or is the US government increasingly sounding like King George? Sorry for all the angst in this post- really, I'm just waiting for someone to put on blue paint and yell "Freedom!"

Banana Republic Capitalism

Although I have written several times about what is going on with the auto companies (Government Motors, Obama the CEO, on SNL, Obama Forces Private Businessman Out of Job), I'm not a lawyer, and so I don't have the correct grasp on language that some real lawyers do. I mean, I know intuitively that what is going on is not right (What does a Political Economy look like? and Michigan Businesses Battle Government Regulations ...), but I can't describe what is going on in the US as well as the guys over at Power Line can. This is a great post (read it here):

The Chrysler reorganization is shaping up as another milestone in the decline of the rule of law under Barack Obama. We've said for quite a while that bankruptcy is the only viable option for Chrysler and General Motors, not--as Obama claims--because they don't know how to make the right kinds of vehicles, but because their unsustainable union contracts make it impossible for them to be profitable. That reality has now been turned on its head, as the administration has tried to bully Chrysler's secured creditors into going away, while the United Auto Workers Union, solely on the basis of political clout, would be paid at an implied rate of 50 percent and would emerge owning 55 percent of the company, with the government also holding a stake.

This is banana republic capitalism at its worst. Political influence, rather than the law, dictates the rights of the parties. When some of the secured creditors refused to be intimidated, Obama libeled them in the press, saying, outrageously, "I don't stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices." Actually, under Obama's plan the politically favored parties, principally the UAW, will benefit--will steal money, to put it crudely--from the parties who held out. Those parties call themselves the "non-TARP lenders."

This highlights the government's conflict of interest in this transaction, as in so many others now underway. Some of Chrysler's secured creditors are banks who received TARP money. As the New York Times put it, those lenders are "beholden to Washington" and "defying the administration was never a serious option."

It remains to be seen what will happen in bankruptcy court. Already one key player, Perella Weinberg Partners, "under intense pressure from the White House," has caved in and agreed to accept Obama's terms. Whatever the ultimate result, this episode will have consequences. The Wall Street Journal notes:If the current plan is pushed through, then good luck to any unionized firm trying to raise secured debt on decent terms in the future.

For Chrysler, the administration's plan spells disaster. It is inconceivable that the UAW, the principal source of Chrysler's problems, will manage the company back to profitability. More likely, Chrysler will become a vehicle through which the federal government provides uneconomic subsidies to unionized auto workers and retirees.

Barack Obama's conduct in this affair has been disgraceful. Our bankruptcy laws are well developed and are fairly implemented by experienced bankruptcy judges. Priority among creditors is established according to legal rules and precedents. The process is transparent and subject to appellate review. But in this case, the law did not favor the parties who have the most influence with the White House--notably, the United Auto Workers--so Obama substituted political threats and bullying for due process. Il Duce would have approved.

I would also suggest you check out this article in the Detroit News- here are a couple good parts:

They are being demagogued as "speculators" by President Barack Obama and as "vultures" by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Oakland County Congressman Gary Peters.

They are the smaller bondholders who have refused to bow to the pressure of the Obama administration and accept a minuscule number of pennies on the dollar as repayment for their loans to Chrysler.

This confrontation could have been avoided if the Obama administration had treated the bondholders as equitably as the United Auto Workers, which gets far more money for the dollar.

The good-faith loans from the bondholders provided the operating capital for which Chrysler pledged its assets as collateral, an important role that the Obama administration wants to ignore as part of its forced restructuring program that favors the politically connected UAW.

The heavy-handed tactics of the Obama administration represent another government intrusion into the private sector and attempt to victimize a constituency that does not have the political clout of the unions.

The noncompliant bondholders are going to take their chances on winning back a bigger share of their shareholder investments in bankruptcy court, where the independent role of the judiciary will be expected to fairly judge their claims.

One hopes the Obama administration will not try to bully the courts the way it has private businesses.

It already will be tough to raise desperately needed money in the market for Chrysler to make its future vehicles after Obama's intervention and scapegoating of investors as "speculators." Government intimidation would represent an even greater danger to the country and obstacle to Chrysler's future

A smart man would bet money that the bankruptcy process will not be impartial and free from undue influence by government- rule of law has already be disregarded by the President, who wants to run America as he personally sees fit, and so I don't doubt for a second that he will personally pressure judicial appointments to decide the way he wants them to decide. America is dying, and our President is going to stop at nothing to loot the carcass for the benefit of himself and his friends.

UPDATE: Powerlineblog follows up with another good post to read-Banana Republic, Part II