Book Review: The Man Who Was Thursday

Recently I read The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare (Penguin Classics), by G.K. Chesterton. I've heard a lot about Chesterton, and have always wanted to read some of his stuff, and I would still suggest reading something he has written, but probably not this book to start. Although it is good, the longer the book goes, the less good it gets, and the ending to me felt like I had to read it 10 times just to say 'oh, I get it now, clever'- not the kind of ending that will stand out in your mind. That being said, it was a good book, and had some good parts to it.

The book takes place in 1900 London, and focuses on a policeman who is fighting anarchists. He manages to get himself elected to the anarchists council, where each person is called by a day of the week. Our hero is called Thursday, and he schemes to stop and expose the other anarchists, including the man bad guy, Saturday. Through this surreal plot and the nutty characters, Chesterton comments on moral relativism and nihilism, and this is the best stuff in the book.

The main character, Gabriel Syme, is a guy who I sort of understand. He grew up in a home where 'change' was the mantra of the day, where his parents were beholden to progressive ideas, and where the whole family attempted to portray sophistication and rebellion. And as time went on Syme began to see how revolting this behavior was, how demented and sad these people were, and so he himself revolted to sanity. He ran from change and progressivism to common sense, to law, to gentle and courteous behavior.

I understand Syme- as our society embraces 'change' and values are lost, MTV grows more lewd, Micheal Jackson is a 'hero', not eating meat and smoking drugs is embraced, and our culture becomes more progressive, I personally am increasingly revolted. When I was younger, I was less conservative, I was more moderate- but this revolting behavior of our society is causing me to revolt against it, and to embrace traditional values, to have more common sense, and to be a better person, much like Syme was.

Chesterton, like other great authors like Orwell, understood the way the world works and understood how tyranny and oppression develops. Remember 1984 and Animal Farm- the dangerous characters, those that were bad and evil, were not the uneducated country boys who believed in private ownership and conservative values. The dangerous, evil, and bad characters were the educated, sophisticated, moral relativistic, and value free ones.

So it goes with Chesterton. As Syme talks with a policeman in Chapter 4, the policeman says:

(The anti-anarchist police) deny the snobbish English assumption that the uneducated are the dangerous criminals. We remember the Roman Emperors. We remember the great poisoning princes of the Renaissance. We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher.

Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men. They accept the essential idea of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fullness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's.

The common criminal is a bad man, but at least he is, as it were, a conditional good man. He says that if only a certain obstacle be removed- say a wealthy uncle- he is then prepared to accept the universe and praise God. He is a reformer, but not an anarchist. He wishes to cleanse the edifice, but not to destroy it. But the evil philosopher is not trying to alter things, but to annihilate them.

Yes, the modern world has retained all of those parts of police work which are really oppressive and ignominious, the harrying of the poor, the spying upon the unfortunate. It has given up its more dignified work, the punishment of powerful traitors in the State and powerful heresiarchs in the Church.

This is a vast philosophic movement, consisting of an outer and inner ring. The outer ring- the main mass of their supporters- are merely anarchists; that is, men who believe that rules and formulas have destroyed human happiness. They believe that all the evil results of human crime are the results of the system that has called it a punishment. They do not believe that the crime creates the punishment. They believe that the punishment has created the crime. These people talk about 'a happy time coming,' 'the paradise of the future,' 'mankind freed from the bondage of vice and the bondage of virtue,' and so on.

And so also the men of the inner circle speak. But in their mouths these happy phrases have a horrible meaning. They are under no illusions; they are too intellectual to think that man upon this earth can ever be quite free of original sin and the struggle. And they mean death. When they say that mankind shall be free at last, they mean that mankind shall commit suicide. When they talk of a paradise without right or wrong, they mean the grave. They have but two objects, to destroy first humanity and then themselves.

I realize that is a long passage, but it was one of the most meaningful in the book, because it conveys that the enemy is indeed a terrible thing, and not because they wear a black mask or have a golden gun, but because of what they themselves believe. As you read that passage, perhaps you understand why Chesterton is so highly regarded- did you get a sense that he was describing someone in our political system?

Chesterton might have called them anarchists or philosophers, and later they might go by other names like fascist or communist, but to me, their ideas about economic suicide for no reason, their dislike of labeling things right and wrong, and their views on life and mark them as the modern Democratic Party. And at the center of the inner circle there is a man who speaks to applauding crowds and says pleasing phrases, but he is under no illusions, and his actions have terrible consequences for our great nation.

Buy the book here and learn more about the left-wing movements...

Contact Michigan Senators on the Tax and Limit Energy Bill

According to my sources (Rick Santorum on Frank Beckman show), the Senate is very close to not passing the Cap and Trade bill (or Limit and Tax bill, or global warming bill, or energy independence bill, or whatever they call it). This is a good thing- the Senate may just not take it up and instead try to go about socializing our healthcare industry instead.

Let's defeat these bills one at at time. In the battle to pass the Limit and Tax Bill, Michigan's Senators are going to play a pi vital role since they are members of the majority party in the Senate (Democrats) and they are wavering. Please contact them to let them know that you want them to vote against the Climate Change bill. Emails are good, mail letters are better, but phone calls are the best.

Click here to contact Carl Levin, click here to contact Debbie Stabenow. I think Levin's office will be receptive- he is a hard-working Senator who cares about our state and isn't corrupt. Good luck with Stabenow's office- she is a lazy Senator who is bought off by special interests in California and doesn't really care about Michigan voters.

It is important when you communicate with these Senators that you mention that you are a registered voter from Michigan. I would start out by stating your stance on the issue, and then you are free to bring up anything that bothers you about the global warming bill. These Democrats are likely Believers, so it probably isn't going to do much good to bring up the fact that man-made global warming is a myth, and they are Democrats, so it probably isn't going to do much good to talk about how this bill is just a plot to increase taxes and transfer power to the government. Don't threaten either- from personal experience, this doesn't go over well.

The best line of attack is to discuss how this bill will affect the citizens of Michigan. This bill will transfer wealth from Midwestern states like Michigan to states on the coasts by taxing coal producers and subsidizing wind and solar power. As a Michigan Senator, they should be concerned about how this bill will affect Michigan more so than protecting the globe. This bill will raise taxes on manufacturing companies that are in Michigan and transfer that wealth to government bureaucrats and regulators in Washington DC.

Obama has been talking about how this bill will create green jobs, and perhaps it might. But the cost to create those green jobs in the south and coasts will be paid for by the residents of Michigan. And according to studies in Spain, each job created by subsided renewable energy will cost the jobs of at least 2.2 jobs in other industries and will cost over $774,000 per job created. Those job losses will be in Michigan, and that money will come from Michigan. Michigan Senators should oppose this because it hurts Michigan.

Don't do nothing with this. Don't take this sitting down. Make a phone call. Be able to say "I did something" or "I at least called." We can stop this thing. Yes we can! Hope! Change! Power to the people!

Obama on Honduras: More Evidence of a Bad President

Although I am no expert on foreign policy, I do have an undergraduate degree focusing on it, and so I'm always interested in events like those going on in Honduras. The situation is really quite simple, and summed up nicely by the WSJ via Powerlineblog. I'm going to copy the whole story down here, because it is complete and does a great job at showing just how clear the situation is:

Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."

Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.

Again, I'm no expert, and I don't want to oversimplify things here, but the bad buy is the former President and the good guys are whoever is getting rid of the brutal communist who is trying to illegally stay in power. If I were the President of the United States, I would be supporting those people on the side of good- those who want law, freedom, and prosperity. Perhaps I would wait a bit just to make sure my initial take on events was correct, but probably my statement would be supportive of what is going on, or at least as neutral as Obama's statements were on the overthrow of evil dictators by forces of good in Iran.

But Democrat President Obama sees things differently. He quickly sided with the bad guy, and stood shoulder to shoulder with other bad guys (Castro, Chavez, Ortega) in being "deeply concerned" about the ouster of the tyrannical president. Again, he quickly sided with the bad guy- Obama's first impulses, those that show his qualities and character the most, are to side with bad guys. He further makes a call to restore the tyrannical president to his place, and appears to be 100% supportive of the bad guy in this situation.

I've hammered Obama about his domestic policy, where it appears as if he is trying to destroy the United States for no reason at all. Let's not forget Obama's foreign policy though, where he is attempting to hurt our best friends (British, Israel, Georgia) while attempting to give everything to our worst enemies. Not to make this oversimplify or black and white, but Obama appears to be helping the bad guys. That's why he is a bad President.

Marx and Soil Studies- Modern Democrats Playbook

In a couple posts, I have mentioned that Democrat President Obama and the Democrats who control Congress seem to be promoting energy policies that are closer in vision and direction to those of the 1800's than the 2000's. While Republicans push for oil to fuel the internal combustion engine and points towards splitting that atom as a source of fuel for electrical generators, the Democrats push for windmills and solar heaters. Republicans talk about faster, safer, better automobiles- a product of the 1900's. Democrats talk about faster, safer, better trains- a product of the 1800's. It's almost as if the Democrats are looking at an old playbook, one from the late 1800's.

With this thought in my head, I pondered. Perhaps the Democrats are using a playbook from the late 1800's. But whose playbook would they use? Obama uses ideas of radicalism that were invented by Saul Alinsky- but this 'railroads, wind, and solar' junk predates his adventure in government. These ideas must have come from farther back. They must have come from someone who really influences the Democrat party, even today. So I did some research, and think I know where the Democrats got their energy policy from: Karl Marx.

Marx was influenced heavily in his communist theories by his amateur and uneducated studies in soil nutrients. He read a report once from a German chemist, Justus von Liebig, who claimed that British agriculture, with its intensive methods of cultivation to increase yields for the market, operated as a system of robbery, destroying the vitality of the soil. Marx thought that this worked fine- instead of farmers making society better by watering more, putting down fertilizer, and employing better farming methods, Marx thought that the poor soil was being tortured and that as the British farmers grew more and more crops, the soil was losing nutrients.

Marx said that in earlier societies, where they didn't use such environmentally unfriendly methods, everything was better- there was some cycle of life that went on. But capitalism and private property destroyed this utopia, and the land was sad. Now, farmers grew crops who took happy nutrients from the soil, and then those crops were exchanged for money (the horror!), and the nutrients went to cities, were they were wasted by people. Marx thought this was all very bad, and the solution that he implies is that all people must die.

Democrats today like these ideas, and react with horror when oil is traded for money and produces things- they are upset that the Earth is being raped for money. Pelosi and others talk about how the globe has been protected by cap and trade, about how we are going back to responsible stewardship of the planet, and how the energy that is produced can now be better controlled by government so that it isn't wasted.

Democrats are using Marx's ideas today.

Stop Global Cooling

With the passage of the Tax and Limit bill in the House, it now looks like the US government will indeed take steps to limit its energy growth and move our nation backwards to the stone age. The bill includes subsidies which will transfer wealth from businesses and taxpayers to projects which were the dream of visionaries in the 1800's- railroads, bike paths, windmills, and hydroelectric. It is as if Obama and the Democrats want to make America poorer, less prosperous, and less advanced, all in the name of appeasing Mother Earth.

Because of the progress of this bill, I am now forced to confront a fear which I had hoped humankind had finally solved- global cooling. Growing up, I looked with fear on pictures of freezing hunter-gathers trying to kill mammoths during the ice ages. That could be me, I thought with alarm. Then I sighed happily, gazed at my air conditioner and SUV, and realized that it would not be me- that because of my actions, I would not have to suffer through another ice age and the ravages that it brings.

But now, I may. The dreaded ice age that strikes every several hundred years will once again come, now that massive amounts of money will be transferred from productive people and businesses to useless government tinker toy projects. All of that energy and warmth and power will be gone- sucked out of the United States by the brutal and cold hand of government. At a massive cost, the United States will possibly lower the Earth's temperature now .000000001 degrees over the next hundred years, thereby encouraging the deadly glaciers of the upper north.

I fear these glaciers and this ice age. If only global warming was caused by the sun! But, it may not be- it may indeed be related to me driving my SUV, setting my air at a chilly 64, and mowing my lawn on ozone action days. I only hope so, because now I am going to have to do those things more and more to stave off global cooling.

Today I announce it my intention to drive a bigger and bigger car, at faster speeds, and not inflate me tires- I will make it my goal to fight global cooling by turning my air condition lower and my heating higher- I will do my best to defy the glaciers of the north, ever on the horizon, by starting and stopping my lawn mower whenever I feel like and running it on ozone action days- and I swear that I will someday buy a cow and feed it whatever makes him fart the most. This I do to fight global cooling.

And if all of this sounds silly to you, actually read the bill the House passed and do some research on man-made global warming, and you'll see that that is a lot sillier than anything I could ever write. The difference is my thoughts aren't dangerous to our nation.

Limit and Tax Bill Likely to Pass

Over at Powerline blog, they note that the House is likely to pass the Limit and Tax bill, which will put a limit on energy production in the United States and tax all other energy producers. This is supposedly in the name of fighting the increasingly-disgraced theory of global warming. In reality what it does is give more power to government officials who can then funnel money to their political supporters, creating a more corrupt and tyrannical government.

If you haven't already done so, take a minute to write your Congressman and Senator to note your opposition to this bill. I'm sure it will do no good- if your Congressman or Senator is a Democrat they only care about people who give them and their family money and power- but at least you can rest knowing that you took 5 minutes to do your job as a citizen. Search your public official, go to his homepage, click contact, and hammer out an email- it takes less than 2 minutes per official. Keep it short- one paragraph- and make it clear that you vote and donate money and oppose this bill.

What has been holding up this bill is that some Democrats want to get more taxpayer money for favored constituencies, and the other Democrats hadn't thought of that yet and so had to figure out a way to get it into the bill. The Democrats from farming states wanted more money for ethanol boondoggles, and so Democrat tyrant Pelosi had to redo the bill to put that in. Other Democrats never even bothered to read it and smile as they ignore every argument against it- this bill isn't about saving the globe, the bill isn't about making America better- the bill is about power and money, and they know it and don't care how bad it is.

Powerline charts its likely progress in the Senate:

Of course, tomorrow's vote in the House won't actually decide anything. The Senate is likely to pass a bill (if it passes one at all) that is even more loaded with special interest favors than the House version. If a "climate change" bill eventually does become law, it will probably consist of little but a gift bag for favored Democratic Party constituencies, funded by what may be the biggest tax increase in American history. Still, that's better than the alternative--the all-out attack on American industry that was originally envisioned by environmentalists. Waxman-Markey is a reminder that what is now happening in Washington isn't politics as usual. It's worse.

Our way of life is under attack, and regrettably, it is about to be lost. Any one of you who voted for a single Democrat anywhere is part of this disaster. In one stupid move, the American people gave liberal Democrats like Obama and Pelosi total control over our nation- and just like that hundreds of years of careful hard work is going to be wiped away by taxpayer-give-aways, socialized medicine, tax and limit, deficits, and mismanagement.

Darn watermelons- green on the outside, red on the inside, and their only goal is to take away your life, liberty, and property using the power of the state. Our founding fathers died fighting less tyranny than this.

Michael Jackson, RIP

Michael Jackson died today. Not to date myself, but the first cassette tape that I ever bought was Thriller. I loved that tape, and thought that whatever Michael Jackson was, he was a great entertainer. His songs rocked, his dance moved dazzled, and he is the only singer whose music videos were always a sight to see. Remember back when MTV showed music videos? The coolest ones were always Jackson's. Anyways, here is my favorite Michael Jackson video of all time- Thriller. Reflect on his work and remember him as you enjoy the video.

Obama Says 'Just Die Already'

Democrat President Obama is well-known for his positions on life issues, such as abortion, but be prepared for seeing more of his lack of compassion once he is in charge of running your healthcare. I imagine there will be a lot more of this:

President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

So, let's imagine that you are about to die, but you had not tried everything yet. A reasonable person, if they had quality insurance that they paid for their whole lives, would expect the doctors to try everything to save their lives, if it was possible. If they paid for the insurance, and the insurance covered it, then it is expected that the doctors try expensive procedures, get additional tests, and try additional drugs. If these things are ultimately unsuccessful and you die, at least you did all you could to to save your life, and so did the doctors who took an oath to save your life.

Even if one person is saved using these expensive procedures (that they paid for their whole lives with insurance), then it is worth it. You can not measure the cost of one life, it is that precious. In our society, you can indeed hope that medical science can save you, and it is possible to change your condition to dead to alive by getting an expensive surgery.

Under Obama's plan, a government bureaucrats full time job would be to say 'no' to saving your life. Obama wants people in our government to take your tax money and then evaluate whether your life is worth saving or not, and if that bureaucrat doesn't think your life is worth saving (based partly on your race, condition, age, sex, political affiliation, etc), the you die.

Obama wants to kill you- although he wants you to die quietly by being drugged up on painkillers first. He said "maybe you are better off not getting the surgery" when he was talking about people on death's door- he is saying he wants you to die rather than cost the healthcare 'system' any more money. To 'shave medical costs' Obama wants you to die, as cheaply as possible, rather than cost the 'system' any more money. He does not value human life, he does not value liberty, and he does not value property.

Perhaps though Obama is right- really, all this healthcare plan needs is more cowbell. I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!

Obama Dismisses Ethics

"To advance human good and avoid harm, biotechnology must be used within ethical constraints. It is the task of bioethics to help society develop those constraints and bioethics, therefore, must be of concern to all of us."

This was the message and mission of The President’s Council on Bioethics. This Council of advisers was created by Republican President George W. Bush to examine the ethics behind such issues as enhancement therapy, cloning, brain death, genetics, drugs, organ transplants, sex selection, and stem cells, and attempt to put in place policies and guidelines so that these issues would be dealt with in a civilized and humane way.

Sadly, this council published a report that criticized new Democrat President Barack Obama, and so he shut down this council. With a one-day notice, the members of the council were told in a letter from the President that their services were no longer required- pack up and get out. The descent into barbarianism is encouraged by our current President, who puts ethnic concerns ahead of ethical concerns, who cares more about how to advance humans that advance humanity, and who cares more about political issues than the issues involved in politics.

Peter Lawler, member of the now-defunct Council, notes that the letter from Obama dismissing the Council says that the President cares a lot about the value of having a commission like this. I guess he didn't care enough, or more likely, he wants a council like this but one that he puts together that agrees with everything he says- he likely wants a commission to rubber-stamp his decisions, whether they are ethical or humane or not.

I imagine the webpage of this group will be shut down soon and the work they did will be wiped out of existence by Obama's thugs, but in the meantime, you can check out some of the work they did here.

As theblogprof says, "There's your hope and change America! Chicago brass-knuckles politics at work right in front of America's eyes, and very few to report on it." I agree- with no reporting, the President shut down in one day a council focused on ethics, and replaced it with nothing (unless you count more czars and deficits).

Democrat President Obama every day works to take away life, liberty, and property and lower the human condition. He must be opposed.

Cigarette Smoking Obama Set to Ban Cigarettes

According to Yahoo News, Democrat President Barack Obama is about to sign a law that was sent to him by the Democrat-controlled Congress that will give the bureaucratic national Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate the ingredients that a private company puts into its products, regulate advertising of these companies, and put in place rules that make these products less flavorful. The legislation is called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Whatever your views on smoking are, and I happen to find it a disgusting habit, this legislation is wrong. It gives the national government to decide that it doesn't like a particular product and can use its power to attack any company that produces this product and drive it out of business. It gives unelected bureaucrats the power to control a major industry in our nation, controlling the products themselves and their advertising, controlling free speech and getting the government further involved with private businesses. It will lead to more corruption, more pay-offs, and more tyranny.

If you feel smoking is a threat to life because of second-hand smoke, than ban it outright. But if it isn't, then it is not the government's business to suppress liberty and seize property. As the yahoo article points out, anti-smoking advocates have been pushing for years for this bill so that they can control an industry fundamental to the U.S. These groups who personally oppose smoking know that once this bill is signed, they can lobby and pay off politicians to drive something underground that they personally oppose. It is using the power and force of government to punish politically-unfavored groups.

Opponents of the bill have argued that the federal government does not have this power, that the national government shouldn't pass legislation that attacks particular areas of the country, that the FDA is a corrupt and inefficient mechanism for the forces of good, that this bill will be unsuccessful and counter-productive, and that tobacco companies are already doing more on their own to reduce second-hand smoke by producing smokeless tobacco.

These arguments have fallen on gleefully deaf ears, as anti-smoking forces recognize that hope and change are in the air and now is the time to institute rules that tyrannize opponents. The Obama administration recently issued a royal decree declaring strong support for the measure. President Obama himself frequently enjoys cigarettes and likely will find a loophole in any laws that take away his cigarettes or lower their quality.

Stonehenge and the Descent into Barbarianism

For the last hundred years, pagans have come to Stonehenge each year to celebrate the midsummer sunrise. At first, they were just a few eccentric people who were snickered at and frowned on. Later, when it was no longer politically acceptable to snicker and frown on those who had crazy ideas, these pagans were merely tolerated. But, change is the the air and there is hope now to many who once were not tolerated in western culture, and this week the midsummer sunrise at Stonehenge was attended by a record number 36,500 people.

This may be just a small sign, but to me, what caught my interest is that this is a record number of people- being a hippy pagan and dancing around when the sun comes up is more popular than ever before. As government becomes increasingly powerful in Europe and America and we move father away from our Founder's conservative views, more and more often we are seeing evidence of Western societies slide back to barbarianism, and this celebration by hippies, leftists, liberals, and pagans at Stonehenge is yet another example.

Pagan religion is becoming increasingly popular and accepted in our society. I see it most in the numbers of people who openly and proudly proclaim that they are not Christian, and also are the most fervent and devout believers in man-made-caused-one-way-global-warming-solved-by-government-power. They now worship the Green God. Other people, in an effort to be fair and politically correct to everyone, have decided to worship every god, embracing a polytheistic view of the world, whereby they pray to whatever god they think will help them the most. Animal rights activists worship animals and many people worship men (like Obama)- paganism is on the rise, not decline, in our society.

The field of Stonehenge may have been littered with trash on that midsummer day when thousands of pagans, reveling in drink, drugs, and free love (see the pictures) worshipped the rising of the sun, but in reality what their record numbers were worshipping is the fall of western civilization, the loss of the morality of our society, and the descent into barbarianism of Europe and America.

55 Taxes on the Wall, Add 2 More, Spread the Wealth Around, 57 Taxes on the Wall...

Jack McHugh put together a stunning list. Maybe you are old enough to remember back when every aspect of your life or business wasn't taxed. Or maybe you remember starting your own business, without getting a license from the government. Maybe, but I don't remember those days. I have grown up in tyranny and seen it only increase as I have gotten older. This is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. Our Founding Fathers fought and died for less than this.

Here is a list of 55 Taxes On You and 116 Licensure Mandates for those who want to start a business in Michigan. First, here are all the taxes that government has slapped on us to steal our money: Accounts Receivable Tax, Business income tax, Business Gross Receipts Tax, Business Tool and Equipment Property Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax. Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Excise Taxes, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties, Liquor Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Service Charge Tax....

Seriously, are you still reading this list of taxes? Do you think the government taxes all these for the money, or is it just to control us and do a little social engineering? You know, pick winners and losers like government is God or something?

Here are more taxes: Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax, Sales Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal/State/Local Surcharge Taxes, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Use Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, and Workers Compensation Tax...

As if those aren't enough taxes, the Democrats and Obama are proposing two new giant taxes- Cap and Trade and taxing employer provided health care benefits.

I'm not going to go through all the license requirements here- you get the picture. Check them all out though if you want, and email me and let me know which license requirement you think is the most insulting. Personally, I'm a little surprised that you can't clean out a sewage tank without paying the government money for a license (Sewer Pipe Cleaners License). Oh well.

Kind of makes you look longingly at the days of a Stamp Tax, doesn't it?

Retailers Head for Exits in Detroit

Yahoo Finance carried an article from the Wall Street Journal called "Retailers Head for Exits in Detroit.' The story details how there are no more big box stores or major retailers left inside the city limits of Detroit- not a single major car dealership, no Borders, no Starbucks, no chain grocery stores, no outlets to sell fresh produce and meat, and no Home Depots or Lowes.

The city of Detroit has been hammered by years of liberal Democrat rule (it is getting increasingly tough to blame all this on Bush in Detroit), and now there are very very people buying goods- the city's has a 22.8% unemployment rate among the highest in the U.S. and 30% of residents are on food stamps- and there are fewer people selling goods now. High taxes, high regulation, easy access to welfare, poor crime fighting, government handouts, and government directed building projects- the very platform of Obama- have destroyed capitalism in the city of Detroit, and now its residents have to travel to the suburbs (which are still run by Republicans) to buy goods and services.

How did Detroit get in this mess? Buried in the middle of this article, we discover the real reason why residents of Detroit are unable to buy food and consumer goods- GOVERNMENT. The barrier to a better life is government. The thing that stands in the way of eating good food for cheap prices is government. The people of Detroit can only blame themselves, because they elected liberal Democrats on a message of hope and change, and now live poor and solitary and brutal lives as a result.

After the usual 'it's the white people in the suburbs fault' line, the real reason why Detroit is suffering comes out- the reason why there are no stores in Detroit is because the city is inept and negligent in keeping track of who ones what property and now there are hundreds of buildings were left vacant with unclear property ownership. The other reason that residents of Detroit have to travel twice as far to get food is because zoning rules and other red tape to develop land for big-box stores that might cater to a low-income clientele is daunting.

What is the solution? One approach is to go green, and start village gardens and markets and revert back to the middle ages. Another approach is to tax the pants off any rich person the government can get its hands on, and squeeze more blood out of rocks. Another approach is to spend tax money trying to talk people into relocating their businesses to Detroit. These are all bad ideas though.

The solution is for residents of Detroit, Wayne County, Oakland County, the State of Michigan, and the United States of America to vote straight ticket Republican next election. That is the easiest way to affect positive change and restore hope for Detroit. Do it.

UPDATE: I want to respond to some of you who emailed me because you don't like my solution (vote Republican). First, government is power, and it is very important who is in power, and the best way to affect government is by voting. Voting is the easiest way. Voting is the most direct way. Voting is the quickest way. So voting is the best solution. As to voting Republican, Republican politicians usually are closer to the advocating the correct policy decisions than Democrats, and if you vote Republican you have a much better chance of voting for conservatives than if you vote Democrat. And voting independent or third party is an utter waste of a vote because we have a two party system.

So that's why I just suggest voting straight-ticket Republican. That is the easiest, quickest, and most direct way to change our nation for the better. Keep that in mind next election when there are Congressman and State Senators up for election- it is because of people like you who didn't vote straight ticket Republican that our country is in this mess.

Book Review: Sharpe's Triumph

Sharpe's Triumph, by Bernard Cornwell, is one of the many books from the Sharpe series, which is a New York Times bestselling series. This one is a 'prequel' since it is one of the more recent books in the series and yet takes place earlier in the timeline. It is set in 1803 in India, and is about the adventures of a young British infantryman named Richard Sharpe.

In this campaign, the main action takes place as Sharpe tracks down a turncoat who defected from the British East India company to join the mercenary forces of the Mahratta confederation. As Sharpe tracks this man across India, he gets involved in the Second Anglo-Maratha War, which includes the Battle of Ahmednuggur and more notable Battle of Assaye. The action is fierce in the battle scenes, and the plot is moved along at an able pace throughout the whole book.

One of the great things about Cornwell's writings is that even though the book is fictional (there was no Sharpe), the setting and the events have been meticulously researched and are described in such great detail that you really do feel like you have been there and in your mind you can picture the great battle of Assaye. When the Scottish Highlanders of the 78th are advancing through hails of grapeshot and canon fire wearing their kilts and tall bearskin hats, and in right in the face of the enemy they put on their bayonets and charge, you feel like you are there. When the city of Ahmednuggur is captured by a brazen escalade assault (ladders at the walls), and a Scottish major scales the walls and wins the top by slashing with his claymore, it is a fantastic image that makes you feel as if you were part of the action too.

One thing that stood out in the book is the difference between professional soldiers and mercenary or irregular forces. In the Battle of Assaye, the British had about 10K professional soldiers, and the Mahratta forces had about 100K- but only 15K of those were trained soldiers, and when faced with true pressure, they cracked. A professional soldier is a powerful thing- trained, efficient, disciplined, and able to win a battle. The other day I was reading (can't remember where) about how this US army detachment of 10 soldiers was ambushed by over 100 Taliban, and the result was over 20 Taliban dead to 1 injured US soldier. The Taliban were shooting their AK-47's everywhere, but the US soldiers fired and killed, fired and killed, fired and killed, all while keeping track of their position and comrades. Trained professional soldiers such as we employ and the British employed are deadly instruments of war.

This was a highly entertaining read, and I am excited to find out that they actually made this book into a television series too, starring Sean Bean. I'll have to watch that. If you haven't read any of the Sharpe series before, you may want to start with the one before this, which is called Sharpe's Tiger and is about the Siege of Seringapatam, or just jump ahead to some of the better ones, such as Sharpe's Eagle or Sharpe's Company. They are historical fictions, and remind me of Horatio Hornblower, and likely are the inspiration for other such great series like Honor Harrington. Enjoy!

Obama the Ninja Soon to Be Embroiled in Animal Rights Controversy

President Obama is going to be coming under fire soon for his vicious attack recently against a poor and defenseless animal. On camera in front of a national audience, Obama killed one of gods creatures, and then laughed about it as if it was funny. Animal Rights activists, who are rabid about their attempts to defend cows, chickens, and dogs, are sure to immediately release a press statement in opposition to Obama.

To be perfectly honest though, it is not Obama's fault that that animal was killed. He once watched a Kung-Fun movie, so that makes him an expert in Kung-Fun and Ninja tactics, and so it was just instinct that took over and not any malicious will.

Also, the news is not mentioning it, but wikipedia is sure to be updated soon recording that Obama is now the first black President to kill a fly on national TV. That is yet another first in this historic Presidency!

Here is the clip, with the sound redubbed by Barely Political to expose the deeper meaning behind Obama's ninja swat of the fly. If you want to watch the original clip, it's here. To quote Obama- "I got the sucka."

UPDATE: Okay, I was just kidding about Obama being embroiled in an animal rights controversy when I wrote this post, but life imitates art sometimes, and right on cue, here comes PETA. Via theblogprof, from HotAir: Inevitable: PETA miffed at Obama for swatting fly.

UPDATE II: With all due respect to RightMichigan, Obama is a Ninja. It says so on his birth certificate. If you doubt me, find it and prove me wrong.

Teachers and Parents Should Run Their Own Schools

Government officials actually had a decent idea in Lansing. Instead of working on raising taxes, letting go dangerous prisoners, or outlawing behaviors they don't like, some senators actually got to work trying to improve a real problem in our state- education. Senators in Michigan introduced a plan today to allow teachers and parents to convert their local schools into independently run schools with more flexible rules.

These new 'neighborhood schools' would still have to comply with strict state standards and would have to be sponsored by a mayor, city, county or township, although they could not be affiliated with a church or religious organization in any way, because apparently that would be bad.

Neighborhood schools could hire non-state certified teachers (like lawyers, businessmen, or doctors) and could offer merit pay to their teachers (like raising MME scores or having a slew of 5's on an AP test). The schools would be funded in the same way current charter schools are funded, with an annual state grant that’s based on enrollment.

As I understand it, these schools would be governed locally and would cut out the many layers of middle-management that make schools so inefficient, and could employ any other innovative practices that they think would help their students out.

This is a good idea- but it won't go anywhere. Other Senators are working on another plan for school improvement that will involve dumping more money into the system and put in place more restrictions on the free-market and parents, and this is a bad plan, and that system is closer to being passed than the 'neighborhood schools' idea.

The good plan is sponsored by Republicans, the bad plan by Democrats. Vote appropriately in future elections.

UPDATE: Some people have emailed me and accused me of selling out to the teachers union with this one- they want to know how this squares away with my usually free-market bent. Well, these types of schools create yet more competition, and they will be run by local companies (composed of teachers and parents), so as I see it, this is a very free-market based approach to education.

UPDATE II: Okay, did a little bit more research on this idea, and I like it more and more. Turns out there is a book out on this very premise: Can Teachers Own Their Own Schools- New Strategies for Educational Excellence, By Richard K. Vedder. Here is a review of it online:

Vedder presents a bold plan in which teachers, administrators and others involved in the educational process would become the owners of schools, acquiring an attractive financial stake in the process. Such privatization reforms could empower those directly involved and affected by school performance and end interest group barriers, paving the way for new, cost-effective means of improving educational outcomes. As a result, schools in which teachers, administrators, and parents have a significant financial stake would foster vibrant school communities with increased parental involvement and the innovation and efficiency essential to produce educational excellence.

Look, there is no way teachers would ever go for any sort of privatization scheme- to them, this is code for job layoffs and lower pay. I don't agree with that mentality- I think privatization can be a useful means of protecting jobs and even increasing teachers pay- but that is the way it is. The key is to put in place free-market schemes that are teacher-friendly.

Selling teachers on competition and privatization by letting them run their own schools and have an ownership stake in them is a great idea. This is not like GM or Chrysler where we are giving unions an ownership stake in a private company to encourage them to work harder and be more efficient- this is giving unions an ownership stake in a government-run enterprise to make them work harder and be more efficient. And that is a great idea.

A Proper Reaction to David Letterman

The beauty of the internet is open and instant communications with anyone in the world. It enables you to contact people you would not have been able to do in the past, and enables you to bring issues to light that in the past would have been left in the dark. Most importantly, it lets you register your disgust as a consumer and responsible citizen with inappropriate activities. There are many good and decent people in this country, and if we enable them, good things can and do occur.

With that being said, I am sure many of you were upset about David Letterman's jokes the other night which ranged from sexist to disgusting. He followed that up by a non-apology, and then when the issue didn't go away, he laughed it off with another non-apology. His behavior should not be endorsed or supported. I'm not saying he should be fired, but when a dog poops in the house, we shouldn't ignore him or give him a treat- there should be repercussions.

There are a lot of good companies run by decent people that advertise on his show. Through the magic of the internet, you can now email them and let them know you are upset by Letterman's actions. Look on the left hand side of the website. It is pretty easy- just copy and paste the sample letter (or create your own), sign your name, copy an advertiser's email address (pick one at random if you like), and hit send. It takes under a minute to do something about this.

Here is the website to go to- David Letterman.

The End of the Rule of Law

This nation now follows the rule of men, not the rule of law. The conservative history of our nation, that preserved the traditions of the Greeks and Romans, has been abandoned to the liberal ideals of the barbarians beyond the frontiers of civilization. The new animating principle of the great American experiment is a return to the world that was governed by the whims of kings and dukes.

The new rule is arbitrary government power. The rules are now changed and are no longer clear, and empathy is now more important that equality between the powerful and the weak. In our nation we need to fleece lenders to pay off politically powerful interests and use the power of the government to threaten businesses if they don't toe the political line.

Now our nation puts in place laws to favor those who borrow money that they have no intention of ever replaying. Bankruptcy is merely a means to shed promises and abandon the trust of lending. Secured creditors, those entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" are browbeaten by a sitting American president in order for him to reward those who he favors more.

The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. You better be careful- we are entering a world where if you don't jump high enough when the government says so, you may be in trouble. Don't believe me? Just go ask Chrysler.

Thank you to the Wall Street Journal for inspiring this.

My Reply to Students When Asked What I Believe

Throughout the year, students often ask me which candidates I support, where I stand on issues, and what political party I support. My response to students is "I'm not telling you." Not only do I not tell students where I stand on issues and what political party I support, I consciously work throughout the year to keep them guessing on this by being a critical thinker and modeling critical thought, ripping into all parties and voicing arguments from all sides. Oh, I'm not perfect- my smart and astute students notice that my liberal and Democrat arguments are a tad sarcastic and that my ripping on Obama is harsher than my ripping on Bush was, but at the end of the year I always ask students what they thought I was, who they think I support, and what political party I am active in, and the results are encouraging to me- the students don't really know, even to the end.

There are a couple of reasons I refuse to tell my students where I stand on issues and what party I support. One is time- I have a very well-defined curriculum that must be taught, and there isn't any free time in my teaching for anything personal. Another important reason is that I want the students receptive to my methods and teaching, and if they pigeonhole me into a political position, they might become less receptive. I want them listening to me and learning, not dismissing me just because I'm a conservative. Too many students tune out of social studies classes and ignore everything teachers say because they reject the teacher's personal views on things, and that's not good either because they are rejecting real knowledge too.

But most importantly is that my students look up to me and respect me, and I value that, and if I told them my values and beliefs, they would be encouraged to adopt them, and that's not my job or role in the classroom. My job or role is to teach my students about economics, government, history, psychology, and geography, not push my views on them. If I said "man made global warming is a load of poop", half of my students would reject my views, and the other half would nod and agree with whatever I said- but no one would be the smarter for it. But if I point to facts and bring up research and ideas, all without saying my view, then everyone is thinking, evaluating, and learning- and that is what education is supposed to be.

Via Protein Wisdom, I came across a blog entry by a professor named Douglas Campbell. The blog entry was called "The Classroom Without Reason", and has a lot of good stories in it. He documents what he sees is the liberal bias in education, the liberal slant to university teaching, and this fits very well with what I also have personally observed. I'm now going to relate to you one of the stories on this post:

I offer yet another true story. Just before the last presidential election, at the beginning of a course on business planning, a student asked me in front of the entire class why I had not told the students which candidate I supported. I responded, “Politics is not the subject of this class. We have enough material to cover to fill our class time. Besides, on principle, I will not use class time to impose my political opinions on you. If outside of class any of you seek my opinion of the candidates, then I will be happy to share my thoughts.”

The reaction of the class surprised me. A few students were nodding their head, others were smiling humorously at me, and a few were laughing and gossiping about my response. Somewhat peeved, I asked, “What is so funny?”

One student said, “You might as well tell us who you think we should vote for, because all the other professors already have.” Other students chimed in to support that student’s claim and mentioned specific faculty members who had turned their classes into campaigns for their presidential candidate. Undaunted, I proceeded with the subject of the class.

Let me also point out that Douglas may very well have just told his students who he was voting for, because it was quite obvious to me. Our education system is dividing, along with the rest of our country, into two different and separate camps- those who use education to push their liberal-communist-leftist-Democratic-anti-Christian views, and those who refuse to push any views on students. Douglas, by refusing to use his classroom to indoctrinate youth and brainwash them into believing in the church of global warming or the worship of Obama, was displaying his views none-the-less.

By Douglas pushing thinking, by encouraging thought and reflection, by pushing the liberty of ones mind and the freedom to choose ones own beliefs, by suggesting responsibility for ones own education and learning, by not violating students trust and faith- he was telling any student that he rejects the views of those who mean to do our nation harm. And the astute students in my classes, no matter how hard I try to not push my own views, also recognize this, and that is why at the end of the year, many indeed guess my views, but when they do, they just smile and accept and respect them, because of the way I went about my teaching.

And that's how you change the world, one student at a time.

Someone check the math- How old was Obama's Mom when he was conceived?

Okay, there is no way this is true, and I'm unable to piece the secrecy surrounding our good President's birth (I heard from some liberals that he was born of a virgin mother), but I did pick up this fun fact on Jim Treacher's blog- Barack Obama was conceived out of wedlock when his mom was barely legal!

Ann Dunham Soetoro was born on 11/29/42, she married Barack Obama, Sr. on 2/2/61, and their son was born on 8/4/61. So lil' Barry would've been conceived somewhere around his mom's 18th birthday, most likely before, with a man who was not her husband. And his parents' subsequent marriage wasn't even legal, because Barack Sr. was still married to a woman in Kenya.

Huh. It really is an interesting story that you probably didn't know. You probably heard that he was black though, right?

The Stories Over at Liberty for Kids

Have you ever checked out a website called Liberty for Kids? It's a pretty neat site that has some good posts every now and then. I especially like the attempts by this blog's author to relate concepts about liberty and freedom to kids. As a teacher, I struggle with this myself- trying to relate concepts about liberty, freedom, responsibility, and ownership to students who are raised in a society that encourages tyranny, oppression, and no responsibility or ownership. Heck, late night comedians don't even take responsibility for their own words any more!

So Liberty for Kids has two really good stories recently. I suggest that you print them out and tell them to your own little kids as a bedtime story. The first is called "Sonia the Umpire", and is a story of how little Barry was playing a game of baseball and asked his friend Sonia to umpire the game for him. It is a great story about the fairness of judging and the lessons learned when you have a liberal judge making rulings in our society.

The other great story on Liberty for kids is called "Barry, Larry, and Li’l Timmy Run a Lemonade Stand" and is about a group of kids that decide to run a lemonade stand and produce lemonade for consumers. The analogy of course is the auto companies, particularly Government Motors (GM), which Obama and the Democrats are now running even if they say they are not, and the folly that this is. A good story, a good kids story, and it has a good lesson.

Check these out and other good posts at Liberty for Kids.

Movie Review: The Hangover

The Hangover (rated R) is one of the funniest movies that I have seen in a while- it will keep you consistently laughing until the very end. It has a solid plot, it knows when to end, and although it is rated R, it really isn't potty/sex/drug jokes like some recent comedies have been. What makes this movie funny is the element of surprise. There are some scenes in this movie where you will yell out loud "no way!" or "what just happened!" as you are laughing through your tears. There are a couple scenes that are so casually funny you will want to make this a movie you see a couple times as the jokes don't get old. And this is a movie that will have you guessing until the end- just when you think you've figured it out, the tiger plot point becomes important again or a naked Asian man jumps out of the trunk.

Every character is good- the cool guy really is very cool, the fat guy is so darned odd, and the weenie guy is truly has issues. They are solid, real characters, and watching this movie reminded me of my own bachelor party, which involved playing pool with random drunk Mexicans and throwing up on cops after eating late night hot dogs. Yeah, the movie has Mike Tyson and chickens, but what makes it funny is that it could happen to you, if you drunk enough and just let go with some great friends.

I highly suggest you go see The Hangover for a good summer laugh.

Jon Voight Speech

So I actually took some time to watch Jon Voight’s speech at a recent NRSC-NRCC fundraiser. This is via No Sheeples Here! There are a couple good lines he has in it, comments and thoughts that I am glad he raised because they are good ones, and said in a manner that I think people understand.

Voight talks about how Obama has done nothing right as President- that is a good point- what exactly has Obama done that has improved anything? Did he improve the situation in Iraq by continuing Bush's policies, policies that he bitterly opposed as Senator? Did he improve the economy with his massive debt package, which increased unemployment and inflation? Did he improve the situation in the Middle East by selling out our allies and gaining nothing in return for it? Did he improve the environment by bankrupting auto companies? Obama has done nothing right as President.

Voight is saddened by America losing its strength and power and points out that Obama and the Democrats are actually encouraging this, giving away our power and weakening the moral and economic base in this nation. In Obama we have another Carter- a President who goes around the world and agrees with everyone who hates us, and seeks to put in place real policies that give away our strength. Obama seeks to make us a weaker nation- he would give up our nukes, have us stand down our armies, and hold our hands out to tyrants to put the chains on them if he could.

Obama Gives Terrorists Miranda Rights?

The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to inform terrorists overseas that they have the right to remain silent before probing them for information to save American lives. The Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to inform high value detainees captured on the battlefield in acts of terrorism that even though they are not uniformed and are carrying out actions beyond the scope of the Geneva convention, we will provide them with a liberal interpretation of the 5th amendment.

Obama has ordered that before we question any terrorist captured in the act of killing innocent civilians that we tell them that they have the US constitutional right to remain silent, they have the right to an attorney, and if they can not afford an attorney, they have the right to have one paid for by US taxpayers to defend them in a court of law.

From the World Net Daily story about this:

Rep. Mike Rogers (Republican from Michigan), former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement during his fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

"The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement," Rogers told the Weekly Standard. "Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them … and they're reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters."

Rogers told Hayes the Obama administration has never informed Congress of the Miranda policy.

"I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it," he said. "We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."

Beyond the fact that Obama has unilaterally granted rights to terrorists (in defiance of the Geneva Convention), there are other issues here too. Obama put in place these policies without consulting with Congress- in fact, it appears as if he has made a deliberate attempt to hide these policies from Congress. Senator Obama and the Democrats were very passionate that the President could not put in place policy such as this without consulting Congress. I am also pretty sure that this Obama policy is illegal- I seem to remember the Supreme Court recently ruling that all policy decisions regarding detainees must come from Congress, not the President.

From the Fox News story on this:

The move is reportedly creating chaos in the field among the CIA, FBI and military personnel, according to US Congressman Mike Rogers.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent who served in the U.S. Army, just returned from Afghanistan and a visit to Bagram Air Base, where he said the rights are being read.

"I witnessed it myself... anytime that you offer confusion in that environment that's already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier's life."

Later in the story, you will read about how the Obama administration tries to play dumb about this issue, like they don't know about it, and about how the FBI claims they don't know anything about it either. That's a lie.

The Obama administration is lying and covering up a major scandal here. Giving terrorists caught in the act in a foreign country Miranda rights is a big deal. It is being done as a matter of policy. Someone ordered this decision made, and then ordered it hidden from the press and Congress. That's a scandal, and a lot worse than some of the stuff Bush was supposed to have done.

Here is Congressman Mike Rogers' page to contact him about this issue and encourage him to see this thing through. I heard about this story during an interview he did for 760 WJR this morning on the Paul W Smith show- perhaps there will be a podcast of this interview up later, so here is the link to that station.

PERSONAL NOTE: In case you are interested, here is the email that I sent my Congressman.
"This morning I heard an interview of Mike Rogers on 760WJR. As a registered and active voter, I am stunned that the administration would put in place such a policy as giving terrorists in foreign country captured on the battlefield Miranda Rights. Is this true? Is the Obama administration and the FBI reading Miranda Rights to terrorists overseas? This issue needs to be dealt with, and it is very important also to discover why the Obama administration said they know nothing about it and why the FBI said they know nothing about it- who is running things over there? This is a major policy decision- someone must have ordered it, and why did the FBI and Obama not know about it? I suspect someone is lying. Also, these policy actions are illegal- Congress is constitutionally charged with putting in place policies regarding captured enemies, and thus it is Congress and not the President who is supposed to be making these decisions. Someone broke the law and should be punished for this. This was an issue when Bush did it- a person with integrity would deal with this issue now that Obama is in the White House."

UPDATE: Best headline on this issue- "Miranjihad rights"

Obama's Brother Tried to Rape 13-Year Old Girl, Denied Visa in Britain

Since everyone thinks it is so funny to joke about family members (I'm referring to Letterman, who went on TV and made jokes about how funny it would be if Palin's 14 year old daughter was sexually assaulted by a baseball player), here is a funny one for you- Did you hear the one about how Obama's brother tried to rape a 13-year old girl?

Actually, it's not a joke, it's just a joke that you never heard about it before, because I am sure you have heard about the family of most Republican politicians (Palin, Bush, McCain, Cheney).

According to Reuters, President Obama's brother was denied a visa to come back to Britain because he is accused of attempted sexual assault on a 13-year old girl. British police arrested Samson Obama, who lives in Kenya, last November after he allegedly tried to sexually assault a young girl, but then he apparently fled the country and has not returned.

Last seen attending Barack Obama's inauguration party (probably hanging out with Obama's illegally-living-in-the-US aunt) and attending swanky functions paid for by his brother, the President, Obama gave officers a false identity at the time of his arrest, claiming to be Henry Aloo, the report said. He was fingerprinted but not charged and left Britain. It is unclear where he went, but it is believed that he is to have taken a connecting flight to the United States in January. I wonder if someone could check the visa records on this and see why we let this Obama guy into our country if he is accused of rape.

The White House was informed, but had no comment on the many crimes of the President's brother. A White House official said the president had not spoken with Samson in 20 years, which is surprising since he was at the inauguration party. The only evidence I see of them in my limited search is the attached picture, but that looks 20 years old, so I guess we'll have to take the President on his word that he shuns his family and refuses to even talk to his relatives.

Thanks to Jim Treacher for mentioning this on his blog.

UPDATE: Some people have emailed me, jabbering about how Samson Obama is "only Obama's half-brother"- but that still means they are brothers, right? And since when do 'halves' matter with Obama- I seem to remember the papers mentioned once or twice that Obama was black, but in reality he is only half-black (his mother was white), and no one seems to go around calling Obama 'half-black'.

Michigan Prisoners Lose $7 Million Undercutting Michigan Businesses

According to the Detroit News, state auditors say that the government of Michigan is losing money by having prisoners make license plates, road signs, office furniture and other products. Not only do these prisoners make products for the state using slave labor that compete with privately made products, they lose money doing so according to an audit released Tuesday by the Bureau of Correctional Industries. These prisoner labor products lost more than $7 million over four years.

Apparently though the program's mission isn't to make money, although I'm pretty sure it's mission isn't to lose $2 million a year either. In fact, state law requires these prisoner built products to be a "total self-supporting system"- but it isn't, and hasn't been for years, and there is no real urgency or desire by Democratic officials running our state to comply with the law.

The Bureau of Correctional Industries says it it employs more than 1,000 inmates on any given day. These products "save the state from having to buy the products separately." $7 million dollars probably could buy a lot of these products on the open market, supporting Michigan businesses and industries.

Although I think it is a fine sentiment to want prisoners to work while they are incarcerated, and I am all for teaching job skills to those who need them, something bothers me about my tax money going to have prisoners build products that undercut private company products in this state, hurting private enterprise, all while doing so in an inefficient and unprofitable manner.

UPDATE: Via the excellent analysis at the Mackinac Center, here are two articles you might want to read that back up my view on this whole issue- Unfair Competition from Prison Labor Requires a Congressional Fix and State Government Competes Unfairly With Private Firms.

More Stories About Earth Day

Often I get a whiny "there is no proof of your accusations" emails from liberals and leftists and communists, who want me to take on faith that our schools are not peddling their myths and propaganda. I usually offer observations and stories from my own experiences to back up my points (see this post and this post), but I like it too when I can see evidence from others.

Wandering around the internet I came across a blog called Jennerationx, and saw a post on there about Earth Day. I wrote about my own theories on Earth Day here, and I suggest you check it out. To back up what I wrote and prove how much the Green God is pushed in schools, here is the story from Jennerationx:

Last night my daughter recounted an event that happened in her classroom. Yesterday was Earth Day, a silly memorial observed by the media and people who need to feel guilt. I am only aware that it was because of the news cycle.

The teacher, a substitute, was attempting to involve the children in a discussion about what hurts and what helps our environment. She wrote two columns on the board with the headings ‘HURT’ and ‘HELP.’ The children volunteered information on the topic and the teacher wrote each suggestion under the appropriate title. The last entry in the ‘HURT’ column was “global warming” which the teacher circled to highlight it’s superior importance.

My daughter said, “But, global warming is a myth.” Immediately one child said, “No it isn’t!” Another child said, “That’s not true!” Then one child said, “I’m with you, Veronica!”

The teacher wheeled around and said, “Stop! Who said it’s a myth?” Most of the children pointed at Veronica

The teacher said, “That is one of the most wrong things I have ever heard.” To which my daughter responded, “Did you see the amount of snow we got this winter?” A different child than the one that said she ‘was with my daughter’ said, “Exactly, Veronica.”

The teacher went on to prove her point by citing, “The polar ice caps are melting, that is not an accident.” She then went on with more drivel fed to her by her superior intellect and the American-engine of the world-crushing group-think of Al Gore.

When my daughter told my husband about the incident, he high-fived her and when she told me, I told her how proud of her I am.

A Nation of Hyenas

This is the title from Tom Mullen's latest blog post "A Nation of Hyenas." As he says, he was inspired by watching Wild Kingdom, in which the cheetah caught and killed some food, and then a bunch of hyena's came and took the property away. Why? Because there were more of them, and they were bigger and stronger. Later that night, while watching a heated exchange between a liberal and a conservative on TV, Mullen heard the liberal give the justification for the government having the power to take away property, possess banks and auto companies, and force me to go to their schools and hospitals:

“That’s why we have a democratically-elected government and the people want the government to do something.”

It is the horrifying reality of what any government bailout or other redistribution of wealth represents. We as Americans have forgotten that all government action is exercised under exactly these circumstances: at gunpoint. That is the purpose of government, to exercise brute force on behalf of its constituents when it becomes necessary to do so. That is why our government was originally so limited. The founders of our nation believed that brute force was only justified in self defense. Therefore, government action was limited to protecting its constituents from harm by other people, whether it was harm by a fellow citizen or a foreign army.

The first philosopher to really grapple with this issue was a guy named Thomas Hobbes. He said that humans are brutal people, who when left to their own devices will take other people's property, lives, and freedom. The only way to control such a brutal creature as man is to create an even more powerful and brutal government, one that will control him and keep him in line. The problem though is once you create a brutal and powerful government, how do you control that very government so that it doesn't take away life, liberty, and property?

Our founding fathers thought that a combination of separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, limited government, and a religious civil society would do that. Sadly, years of liberal rule has eroded these founding principles, and now we are left only with the unrestrained brutal all powerful government- a hyena who will gang up on you and steal your property.

Atheists Continue to Attack Me

The Atheists over at the About.com blog continue to attack me- it blows their mind that someone who may have conservative personal beliefs is let anywhere near children. Although they claim to be open to new thoughts and tolerant of anyone, they reveal their typical liberal leanings of intolerance and close-mindedness.

My brother in particular has a problem with something that the nutty Atheists claim. The blogger wrote: ""I find it very amusing that Conservative Teacher would condemn the redistribution of property from those who have to those who have need as "coveting neighbors property" when that's exactly one of the practices of the early Christian community — at least as described in Acts."

This is nothing more than a common lie sputtered by atheist keyboard warriors who have done little research and have spent little time looking into this issue. See here for refutation: http://www.studytoanswer.net/contemporary/christian_communism.html

In it, you will see that the testimony of Acts states that while the early Christians in Jerusalem did hold all things in common (4:32), this was a communalism based upon collective need (as a small, despised minority surrounded by a richer and more powerful religious establishment) rather than upon a sense of replacing the established social and economic orders. Further, even though these early Christians were choosing to consider their property as belonging to all, they were yet free to dispose of it entirely as they saw fit, and were still legally and even morally in control of their individual private property.

Hear that Mr. Atheist blogger- your commie dreams are not founded on solid ideas and research at all.

UPDATE: Welcome readers of Alaskan Minority Report, where the commentary stinks worse than half-baked Alaskan cod. You see, once I mentioned that I felt that schools were violating the first commandment and had become houses of worship for other false idols, like the Green God, Men, or Reason (the capital 'R' is because schools don't teach reason, they teach the worship of man created reason), I started to be attacked by one after another left-wing commie.

In this blog, I got a typical left-wing knee-jerk reaction of victimhood. While I pointed out that I felt that schools were trying to destroy God, blogs like this one started to whine about how I must be part of the grand Christian conspiracy, and in reality it is atheists and communists who are hiding in fear and not running our school system. This is followed by more 'woe as me, I don't control everyone else's thoughts and actions'.

Let me tell it to you straight from the front lines of public education- you won, I lost. Liberals, communists, progressives, environmentalists, atheists, Muslims, and hippies won- conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and upstanding tax paying citizens lost. That's the truth. Pretend you are the victim all you want- Obama will give you competition for that, since he and the liberals still claim they are victims even thought they control every lever now- but the truth is, I have to fear you breaking down my door to take more of my property and liberty, not the other way around.

Face it Alaskan Minority Report- you are a bigger threat than me to life, liberty, and property.

Reply to Attack from About.com Athiest Blogger

Several months ago, inspired by my reading of Exodus 20, I wrote a post about the importance of the First Commandment- Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me. As I wrote earlier, this is a pretty easy command by God to understand- believe in God, believe in his power, and worship him and no other gods. This means that you should also refuse to 'worship' other things- money, reason, sex, success, environment, beauty, logic, status, etc.

In my post I went on to say:

As a conservative teacher, I am surprised at how far our schools and our society has strayed from this simple commandment. Most public schools teach students to worship reason and logic, and they teach students to not worship God. Schools are increasingly becoming anti-God, and are finding new ways to prevent students and staff from worshipping him in order to follow some perverted interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

The point of this statement was to point out that schools are not observing the first amendment or even a separation of church and state. Instead, schools are actively sponsoring the worship of other gods and are using their power and influence over students to actively attack the Christian church. It usually isn't obvious, but the fact that they have classes on diversity, international relations (or even Islamic studies), the portrayal of religion and religious leaders in history books, the absence of any mention of religion in science classes, or the fervent avoidance to any religious texts in English classes- in these ways, schools have tried their hardest to evict God and anything that sounds like God from their walls.

Look at the textbooks that your children take home, ask your child what was talked about by the teacher in their lectures, and by a fly on the wall in staff lunch rooms or between hours and you will hear a lot of public school teachers openly mock and disrespect religion, especially Christian religion.

In my post I directed people to learn more about religion and God by clicking on some links that I found were helpful- they took you to about.com's site on religion. This brought my blog to the attention of the atheism and agnostic blogger for this site, and on his site he decided to attack my views.

This blogger feels that caring about students morality and values and trying to put in place a society closer to God's views "could be one of the problems in America's public schools." In his view, it is a problem to even speak of religion, and the mere thought that someone in public schools might personally care about religion terrifies him. How could he be an atheist and deny God and have people read his blog if people learn about God in schools? Oh, the terror!

Here is the real root of his concern- "I doubt that this Conservative Teacher can find a single example of a society which has enforced Christian dogma and which was just"- in other words, he has so lost his faith and is bitter and angry at the world that he strikes out at it, hoping that if he can tear down God somehow he will be less alone. He thinks that the Christian church is particular has made the world worse off, and suggests that attempting to follow Gods laws makes society bad. I'd find him sad if he wasn't running a blog that thousands of people a day read and take advice from.

In his anger at the Christian church and his hysteria over protecting the liberal interpretation of the first amendment, he misses the point entirely. Read the comment section and you'll see what I mean. According to readers of this blog, God is an "imaginary god," "this world already lacks any gods," "What god?", or mock God by calling him the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." One reader even a says "I hate Enki the incestuous Sumerian semen god and want him dead. Don’t know why, maybe I just want to worship myself, or I don’t want to be accountable to anything bigger than myself. Or I hate love and hope."

No where do I see in the post on Austin's Atheism Blog or in the comments is my original point disputed- that once you disconnect people from God, they are disconnected from reality and usually in their desperation resort to worshiping other false idols, whether it is the state or other men.