A Personal Story: Teaching Global Studies Last Year:

Last summer I decided to earn an extra few bucks by teaching a summer school class called Global Studies. Global Studies class is supposed to be a survey of the countries of the world, and touch on their geography, history, economic systems, and current political issues. It's a good class, and gives kids a nice introduction to world history, US history, comparative government, and geography. In my mind, I saw this class as an opportunity to teach kids about the history and issues facing every country in the world- oh, I know it would just be an overview, but it would still give me a real chance to teach kids. I was very excited to teach it at first. Then I met with the teacher who taught in full time during the year who showed me the way the class was supposed to be taught.

The first unit that was to be taught in the class was Africa. I'd already done some background research for this class and put together a binder of stuff that I wanted to talk about with Africa- the geography of the area, an overview of the history of the continent, talk about the types of governments found on the continent, and finally expose students to some of the modern issues facing Africa. I told the other teacher all about my ideas, the projects I'd planned, the lectures I was going to give, the articles students could read, and all the fun stuff we'd learn.

The other teacher listened to me talk about my plans for the class with a bored look on her face. At the end of my excited talk about my lessons, she looked at me and said "that’s nice work, but this is how we teach this unit.” She was around 40, and had been teaching this particular class full-time for almost 20 years- about 200 kids a year went through her class, which means that she'd had time to touch over 4000 kids so far. The way that she taught this unit was to give the students a textbook that they were to use and a worksheet packet to work on. That's how she wanted me to teach the unit.

"Okay, we'll use the book and the worksheets, but I'd also like to talk about other things too," I said, disgusted, but needing the paycheck from this job.

"Good," she said, "I also spice things up in the class. Our department has approved the following additional materials to be used in addition to the textbook." She handed me packets about racial issues, articles about the bad effects of colonialism, biographies of 'great' African leaders like Mandala and Mogube, a lecture on shamanism, a project on apartheid, and pictures of rain forests. "This is it," she said, "at the end of this unit, make sure that students understand that Africa is poor, starving, illiterate, black, and hopeless due to the oppression of white colonial powers."

Stunned by the one-sided nature of this unit, I sat in silence. Mistaking my silence for approval, she continued "If you want to do something really fun, in years past we've set up a charity in school to divert money from rich spoiled white kids to the poor people of Africa."

I found my breath again, and somehow managed to keep my anger in check as I hissed "Isn't this all just rather empty jargon? Where is the educating about the real history of Africa? Why is no time set aside to study the true nature of political and economic systems in Africa? Isn't this class just one that perpetuates stereotypes and promotes a shallow understanding of the issues that Africa faces?"

The other teacher looked at me in surprise, and then she frowned, and said "Just stick to the curriculum and don’t change it.” With that, I was dismissed.

I took whatever this teacher gave me, threw it in the garbage, and taught the class the way I wanted it taught. My 20 kids learned the history, geography, economic and political systems, and current issues facing Africa, and then Asia, and then Europe, South America, and every part of the world.

The next year, I wasn't asked back.

Gary Peters Scores a 90% On the Pelsoi Index- A Vote by Vote Analysis of Peters Liberal Record in Congress

The National Republican Trust has created something called "The Pelosi Index." It measures how closely each Democratic Representative in the House of Representatives is sticking to Pelosi's agenda by looking at where these Representatives voted on 10 key pieces of legislation. A lot of Democrat talk about being bipartisan, about being independent, about being fiscally conservative, about crossing over the aisle, or about being a 'Blue Dog', but the proof about what sort of America they support is in their votes on the House floor.

Out of the 10 Key Votes used to determine the Pelosi Index, Michigan Congressman Gary Peters, a Democrat representing Michigan's 9th District, voted in support of Pelosi on 9 of those votes. 9 out of 10 votes were for key Democrat issues. Peters voted 9 out of 10 times for left wing liberal pieces of legislation. Peters is not a moderate, he is not bipartisan, he is not independent, and he is not conservative in any way- he is a 90% reliable left wing vote for California liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Gary Peters voted for the massive $787 billion “Stimulus Bill” that has been blown on pet projects of little value to society while soaking up valuable funding. There was no money for this bill, so your children will have to pay for it someday.

Gary Peters voted for a $33 billion increase in funding for the children's health insurance program, so that it can be expanded to provide insurance to non-children, rich children, and illegal immigrants. It also included a 61-cent tax increase on tobacco products, which disproportionately impacts poor working families and is declining source of revenue.

Gary Peters voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which creates a new litigious business model of trolling for decades old employee complaints, redefined “discrimination”, opens businesses up to lawsuits beyond outright discrimination, and opens business to lawsuits from decades ago over unintentional acts of pay discrimination. Trail lawyers love it, but it will lead to higher labor costs, lower wages and loss of jobs- thanks Gary for your vote!

Gary Peters signed on to the irresponsible 2009 omnibus budget bill, which was an unrestrained government spending spree that totals $410 billion and includes more than 9,000 earmarks. This bill represents an 8.3% increase in domestic spending, dwarfing the rate of inflation, and when combined with the recently passed stimulus bill (HR-1) which Peters also voted for, it results in an 80% total increase for discretionary programs this year.

Gary Peters voted in favor of the Cap and Trade bill, which would be the largest tax increase in the history of the world. The cap and trade scheme would place a cap on carbon emissions, which would ultimately drive up the cost of production of every item produced, transported and consumed in America. The whole point of this scheme is to significantly increase the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. If implemented companies in his district would be crippled by regulation and unable to compete in the global marketplace.

Gary Peters voted against Michigan Congressman Stupak's Anti-Abortion Amendment. I'm not sure what Peters position was when he ran for office last year, but I doubt it was on supporting attempts to funnel your taxpayer money to run abortion clinics. This amendment, which bans the federal government from supporting abortion clinics with taxpayer money, passed with Democrat and Republican support- but Gary Peters was against it because he wants to take money from you to abort babies.

The Pelosi version of Obamacare represents a $1.3 trillion government takeover of the health care system that will raise insurance premiums, increase the overall cost of healthcare and raise taxes. Gary Peters supported it.

Gary Peters supported the “death tax” legislation that would permanently impose a 45 percent inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million. Small businesses and family-owned farms are often hit the hardest by this tax, and this legislation is not adjusted for inflation, which means more and more American families will be subject to this tax every year. Gary Peters want to tax you and then tax you again when you die.

After supporting raising the US debt ceiling over and over, Gary Peters finally voted against Nancy Pelosi and voted against raising it by another $1.9 trillion to a record high $14.3 trillion. I guess he doesn't support raising the debt ceiling, but yet he supported all the spending that makes that necessary. If the debt ceiling would not have been raised, the US would have defaulted on loans and been faced with higher interest rates- so what was Peters thinking with this one? He supported the spending- at least be a consistent left-wing liberal and do the responsible thing, Peters, and vote for my children to pay for your schemes.

Ron Paul is Not the Future of the GOP

Ron Paul is an evolutionary dead end for the Republican Party, conservatives, and libertarians, and I don't care if this pisses off those fools at Lew Rockwell.

That's not to say that Congressman Ron Paul doesn't play a role in the evolution of conservatism and isn't someone to be admired. He does have his good points- he is a good loyal libertarian, he brings up solid points at times and maintains good arguments about issues that others have decided are already decided, and he is an important critic of our current government. Plus, unlike most libertarians who work hard to get communists and fascists elected by voting Libertarian, Ron Paul understands that it is important to be a Republican.

But Ron Paul is not the direction that the Republican Party should go, and young people, conservatives, and Tea Parties should be fully aware of why Ron Paul is not a serious candidate for anything beyond "Important Congressional Critic of Stuff."

Ron Paul engages in and encourages conspiracy theorists, his newsletters of the '80s and '90s were filled with anti-Semitic and racist rants, and he sometimes shoots at his allies in Congress more than he does his enemies. Sometimes I indulge in fantasies about returning to the gold standard, withdrawing all troops from abroad, and living in a libertarian fantasy world, and then I wake up and grow up and realize that a lot of that stuff that Paul preaches is childish and unrealistic, and that's okay except that he doesn't realize that it is childish and unrealistic.

I guess when I was younger, I was a libertarian, but as I am getting older, I am becoming a solid conservative, and looking less and less at Ron Paul as someone who is a valid model to emulate. A lot of my students read his stuff and get enthusiastic about him, and they did about Obama too, and that bothers me, because both have visions of the world that don't match reality. It's okay, they'll grow up someday too and become conservatives.

Job Posting: Insider Puppet Performer

Nope, this is not some sort of jab at Obama- this is a real job that is available through Oakland County Michigan government. Funded through property taxes and stimulus money, Oakland County is looking for a candidate for a Summer Seasonal Program Specialist opening.

This candidate must have at least six (6) months experience in a supervisory or administrative capacity in a parks, recreation and/or program setting and have at least six (6) months experience in producing and performing in puppet shows and must have completed two shows. That doesn't narrow it down at all, now does it?

So, if you know someone already working in government who has performed two puppet shows, there yet another job opportunity available for them. Sadly, there are no jobs posted yet for existing Presidents who have only performed one puppet show, but I am sure that the stimulus has some money set aside somewhere for that.

Oh, and this puppet show job is a pretty good job too- it pays $13.51 an hour to put on puppet shows for children, with a supervisor on a nice salary to manage this person. And soon this government will be managing (or mismanaging) your health care decisions with your money (what's left of it).

So, if you are an existing parks employee who has put on more than 2 puppet shows and don't have any felonies, there is a job for you- contact Oakland County Human Resources for more information.

Remember Why We Oppose This Healthcare Proposal

The Democrats are going to make another push for their healthcare bill. Let's not forget why we opposed this bill in the first place. As I wrote in Tyranny: Healthcare Reform Threat to Life, Liberty, and Property :

The Democrats healthcare plan is going to need my tax money to be put in place, and thus it does not increase the protection of my property from government, and recent reports and reviews by several groups in government and business have concluded that this healthcare plan will indeed end up costing most American’s more money in the end, further eroding my property.

The Democrat’s healthcare plan does not adequately address concerns for life either. The plan is going to create panels who will evaluate whether or not someone or something should be covered, and this may indeed put pressure on a government that wants to contain costs to not do everything in its power to protect the life of seniors in our society.

Nor does the plan adequately address concerns that taxpayer money and government support will not be used to support or encourage abortions. It is not hard to imagine that a government that is concerned with keeping down the costs of healthcare coverage may somehow with some policy push for the abortion of special needs children who will indeed be a great cost on a national healthcare system.

My objections to the Democrats healthcare plan are based on an understanding of what the proper role of government in our society should be, as written about by those great men who founded our nation. They wrote that the purpose of government is to protect my life, my liberty, and my property, and not to create vast bureaucracies of unelected officials who will control my life, my liberty, and my property.

Don't forget what is in this bill that the Democrats want to pass- Death Panels Are in the Healthcare Bill, and none of President Obama's proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program).

I've tried to simplify this for you before- Simplifying the Healthcare Debate and Simplifying the Healthcare Debate Again. But all you really need to know about this healthcare bill you already know- that Obama's Health Care Plan Attacks Life, Liberty, and Property:

Obama's health care plan attacks life, by subsidizing abortion clinics at birth, by denying care and treatment (through rationing and bureaucratic delays) during life, and by denying care and treatment (through 'consoling and discussion') at the twilight of life.

Obama's heath care plan attacks choice, by replacing the patient-doctor relationship with one of patient-bureaucrat-doctor, where if you choose a procedure or drug, a government employee can tell you no. It removes responsibility to work hard and insure your own self, and gives up your freedom and liberty to government run and regulated faceless bureaucrats.

Obama's health care plan attacks property, because in order to pay for it, he needs to raise money. That money is either borrowed, which lessens the worth of all other money in the system, including mine, or the money is raised, by taking it from me. I worked for whatever money I earn- if the government did not exist, I would still work for whatever money I earn and it would be mine- therefor the government is not the creator of money nor the lawful taker of it. Obama's heath care plan will take my property in the form of higher taxes, fees, or borrowed funds.

Remember why you opposed this healthcare plan in the first place, and do not let your Congressman forget.

Retiring Democrats Sit on Cash Rather Than Help Colleagues

What do you do if you are a liberal Democrat in 2010 and are likely not going to get re-elected? Sit an election out, get Obama to appoint you to some government job, suck down benefits and pay, and re-evaluate in 2012. Oh, and sit on all that cash that was donated for you for your re-election bid.

Via Political Wire, Swing State Project has compiled a list of cash-on-hand figures for all members of congress who are not running for re-election or have resigned this cycle. While retirees regularly donate the bulk of their left-over cash to their party's House and Senate campaign arms, this cycles retiring Democrats are "sitting on an enormous $33 million stockpile," despite the fact that their colleagues are facing an incredibly tough election environment.

$33 million dollars would go far in putting out new advertisements trying to convince voters that Democrats are moderates who believe in transparency and tight budgets; after all, moronic voters all around our good nation were duped into supporting Obama has cycle. But these Democrats don't believe in the socialist cause- nope, they are only in it for themselves, displaying their true power hunger by sitting on these stockpiles of campaign cash rather than spending them this election cycle.

For example, Rahm Emanuel resigned from Congress to be the guy who whispers advice into the President's ear, and shoved $1,179,094 in the bank for when he wants to run for Congress again once his boss gets kicked out in 2012. Evan Bayh just stepped aside from his Senate seat, but I don't think we have heard the last of this liberal Democrat- he is sitting on $12,987,399 in the bank. That's 12 million, folks- that'll usually buy you a nice Senate seat in an environment that isn't filled with Tea Parties.

Obama Lacks Mandate on Health Care; Description of Tyrant Fits Him Better

In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative. The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.

Barack Obama does not have a legitimate mandate to pass health care reform. After announcing this policy initiative, the polling data has revealed that America does not want it. The townhalls that were held to discuss his health care reform proposals turned into angry mobs. In almost every election held since Obama announced his desire to reform health care, his supporters have been shockingly destroyed. Tea parties are held in every district in every state in the nation, each month or week. President Obama does not have the just authority to pass health care reform, and because of this, he should not.

And yet, in spite of this evidence, President Barack Obama is upping the ante on health care. On the eve of sitting down with Republicans to discuss health care and how bipartisan compromises can be reached through discussion and deliberation, he dropped his new health care proposal on the nation, and it is even worse than anything that has come before it. Although it keeps with this administration's policy of not being transparent and having few details, what has been released by Obama is an even larger, more expensive, more insulting version of the Senate version that never was passed before.

More spending, more subsidies, and more taxes. That's not what the American people elected Obama for. Go back and watch his campaign commercials. Read the interviews from people who voted for Obama. Watch the debates again. Obama dodged and ducked and muddled, but people thought he was clear enough when he promised to cut spending, cut subsidies, cut corruption, cut earmarks, cut taxes, engage in bipartisanship, and be transparent with policy creation. Instead though, he has doubled down on everything bad and wrong about American politics- whatever voters didn't like about Bush, Obama has doubled down, and doubled down again, and when told by the American people to stop, he has doubled down again.

The central idea of a democracy and the basis of legitimacy to rule in a democracy is having politicians that listen to the voters and do what they want. But Obama does not like democracy, perhaps because he was not raised in a nation that values it, and Obama is losing his legitimacy to rule. Probably a better word for Obama is tyrannus, meaning illegitimate ruler- Obama increasingly displays the habits and methods of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests ahead of those of the American people.

In Favor of Partisanship and Factions

"Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires… As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed... …The absolute rights of all free men, in or out of Civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty and private property… The Legislature has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people.” James Madison

What our founding fathers knew is that in order for a free society to form and prosper, one based on treating everyone equally and treating each other decently, we would need to tolerate and support different factions of people fighting one another. These factions, whether they be political parties, interest groups, or other groups in society, are free to argue about the nature of government and government's role as much as they want, as long as they respect people's right to life, liberty, and property, since the government never has any power over these. But all other partisanship is okay, and indeed, even to be encouraged.

While some in our government, mainly Obama and the Democrats, argue that partisanship is bad and that we need to rely on their vision of selfless disinterested fighting for the people, what they really mean is that they want people to give up their struggle for their life, liberty, and property and to roll over and give in to the tyrannical vision the Democrats would subject on the people if they were not continually blocked and opposed by the most bitterly partisan of Republicans.

The White House is trying to end 'partisanship', its latest ploy being a health-care summit on Thursday. The President claims that this will restore everything to normal again, and we'll have two parties talking things out, bipartisanship flowering, order restored.

This is a vision of tyranny, and a romantic vision at that- never in our history has there been anything like this, except when one party dominated, and that was always to detriment of the nation. Bipartisanship and order restored sounds to me like a rubber stamping of skyrocketing debt and increased statist control of our lives, and in no way should that be supported.

And besides, Obama doesn't want these, any more than my Congressman, Gary Peters, wants bipartisanship, conversation, communication, openness, or any of the other stuff that they were elected to do. Obama wants to use this chance to browbeat Republicans, as he understands bipartisanship to mean the end of all opposition to his rule. Gary Peters used his townhall to only meet with imported healthcare supporters and has continually locked out any of his constituents from meeting with him, all while claiming to be open and accessible.

Partisanship is good, as long as it opposes tyranny and fights tooth and nail for life, liberty, and property rights for all.

Get Comfortable with Mitt in 2012

Last election, before deciding who to support for the Republican Party, I researched all the candidates and then went and heard them all speak in person. I saw which groups supported each, what types of people they were, and then pictured in my mind our nation being led by each person.

After all of that, I decided to throw my support behind Mitt Romney for President in 2008, and I maintain that he would have been the best choice then. Mitt had experience rescuing disaster operations, such as the Olympics, and would have been a solid conservative in office balancing a liberal Congress. He also would have run a much better campaign than Obama. He might not have won, but he would have had a better showing and if he won he would have made a better President than Obama has shown to be.

2008 is in the past now, but 2012 is quickly coming up, and my support for Mitt remains. In my post Welcome Back Carter I wrote:

There is good news though- after Jimmy Carter defeated the moderate Republicans, we responded by electing Reagan. I know we can't expect that again, but after the smashing the moderates took last election, maybe we indeed will go back to our roots and elect a good conservative. I suggest a former Governor in 2012, someone who lost his primary like Reagan did in '76, but someone who is educated and knowledgeable enough to lead us forward as a nation after the disastrous Obama years- I suggest we keep the Carter/Reagan analogy going by choosing Romney to run against Obama in '12.

In The Man Who Should Be President Gives Advice I wrote:

Some people think there is no difference between the two major parties or think that Romney wasn't really that different than someone like Obama. They are wrong. In many important and key situations Romney would have advocated considerably different policies than Obama, policies that may have led to a shorter and less severe recession, that would have lowered the cost of healthcare, and that would have led to Iran thinking twice about seeking the bomb.

And in New Faces in 2012? Nah, Make it Mitt Instead I wrote:

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

Today the Washington Post says this about Romney in its editorial Palin and Brown: Mitt Romney's best friends:

And the fact that the relatively moderate Brown is now loved by conservatives suggests that for all their talk of ideology, conservatives still value victory over absolute purity. That helps Romney.

Romney is not an absolutely pure conservative, but let's be honest- neither was Reagan. They are both solid, reliable, able conservative executives who do good things and do them well. Let's start getting more comfortable with Mitt in 2012.

UPDATE: USA Today picks up on my story and starts to get comfortable with Mitt Romney for President in 2012 with its story Step by step, Romney lining up support for 2012 . From this story:

Romney shows more gray in his hair than he did in 2008, displays an easier confidence in an interview and articulates a clearer message on the stump: Call him Mr. Fix-It.

He points to his résumé as a turnaround artist for businesses — he was CEO of Bain & Co., a management consulting firm — and for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

"His profile fits the needs of the times," says Romney adviser Kevin Madden. "Many Americans see an economy that is teetering on the brink and a Washington that is out of control with spending. There doesn't seem to be any management or order, and institutions seem broken. … His whole career has been about fixing broken things, whether it's Massachusetts' budget, whether it's businesses or whether it was the Olympics."

Fort Jackson Five Story- US Army Catches Five Muslims Poisioning Soldiers

While lefty blogs are trying to make out this nut who ran his plane into a building into a 'teabagger', they are all ignoring a breaking story- the U.S. Army is investigating allegations that five Muslim soldiers were attempting to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson in South Carolina. All of the suspects were part of a Arabic translation program called "09 Lima" and use Arabic as their first language. Coming on the heels of the Fort Hood shooting, this is an important story to follow.

A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators that they suspected that the "Fort Jackson Five" may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that recently traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.

UPDATE: Keep following this blog for more details: Stakelbeck on Terror: Erick Stakelbeck :

The Army is investigating allegations that a group of soldiers from the 09 Lima program (more on that later in this post) at Fort Jackson--which is based in South Carolina--had talked about poisoning food in the base's mess hall. The men were questioned about two months ago, around Christmas. Gray said that to protect the integrity of the investigation, he could not comment further. He stressed that the investigation is "open and continuing."

CBN News also spoke to a Department of Homeland Security official with knowledge of the investigation who wished to remain anonymous. The official confirmed that the investigation was ongoing and said that someone in the Lima 09 program overheard five Muslim colleagues talking about poisoning food at the base. The person then reported the men, who were brought in for questioning.

The DHS official stressed that after the terrorist massacre at Fort Hood, the Army is taking a zero tolerance policy towards any potential threatening statements and is now extremely sensitive about any allegations in that regard.

Democrats Spend $57K to Weatherize Each Home- Cash for Caulk Burried in Red Tape

According the US Department of Energy, so far $522 million has been spent from Recovery Act dollars on the Obama's weatherization program, sometimes called "Cash for Caulk". With that 9,100 homes have been 'weatherized', providing temporary jobs or work to 'weatherize' the home and providing energy savings in the future. These are indeed worthy goals, and only came at the cost of about $57,362 per home that was 'weatherized.'

That's right- $57K per weatherized homes. Tubes of caulk are pretty cheap, so where does all that money go? According to the General Accountability Office (GAO), most of it went for 'red tape.'

RED TAPE. This is why government jobs are booming and why government salary is booming- the Obama administration is raising taxes and fees and sucking up massive debt in order to run hugely inefficient programs that do very little good, but funnel large amounts of money for 'red tape.' Red tape is code for government jobs, politically connected unionized employees who are getting pay raises and job security in order to vote consistently Democrat.

Obama and the Democrats = corruption and inefficiency. Next time you go vote, take a look at whether or not your Congressman voted for this program, which pays $57K to weatherstrip a single house.

Report: Students become more liberal throughout college

According to a study of over 14,000 college freshmen and seniors nationwide, students that go through college become more liberal on many key controversial issues.

Here is the study, although I am going to highlight two of its major findings.

Finding one. If two people otherwise share the same background characteristics, as well as equal civic knowledge, the one who graduates from college will be more likely than the one who does not to favor same same-sex marriage and favor abortion on demand, for example. Similarly, a college graduate will be less likely than the non-college graduate to believe anyone can succeed in America with hard work and perseverance or favor teacher-led prayer in public schools.

Why is this? Contrary to liberals smug beliefs that it is because they are smarter, the real finding is that when you surround impressionable young students for 4-5 years with solid liberal professors who make passing their class dependent on you buying into their worldview, you make kids more liberal.

Here is finding two. Being a college professor alters one’s worldview on propositions involving education, economics, religion, and America. If two people share the same basic characteristics, the one who has taught at the college level is more likely to agree that America corrupts otherwise good people, The Ten Commandments are irrelevant today, Raising the minimum wage decreases employment, Educators should instill more doubt in students and reject certainty; and Homeschooling families neglect their community obligations. So, professors are liberal, and they teach our children and shape their minds, thus these kids come out liberal.

Those were two of the main findings from the study The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs by The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The ISI is a non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt educational organization. The Institute receives no funding or any other aid from any level of government.

These findings fit with my own studies into this issue, of which I read dozens of books, did my Master's thesis on, conducted my own (although assuredly amateur) study on, and have observed through anecdotal evidence from former students.

Crony Capitalism Booming Under Obama Rule

One of my biggest fears about the Obama administration is not that it is liberal and not that it is communist, but rather that it is the beginning of a renaissance of National Socialism. One of the common misconceptions that people have about National Socialism is that it was against big business, or that big business opposed it. Free markets oppose national socialism, and individuals oppose national socialism, but Big Business, threatened by government, does the logical thing, and joins in. National socialism leads to an alliance of Big Business, which enjoys government protection against challenges to its market share and in exchange transforms itself into a tool of government control over the economy. Top executives and lobbyists do very well under a National Socialist regime, while the people suffer.

Via Powerlineblog's post Crony Capitalism, 2010 comes this post from Michael Barone called: "Under Obama, crony capitalism again rules the day:"

Last week, amid Washington's blizzards, Obama was asked about the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and the $9 million bonus for Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein."I know both these guys; they are very savvy businessmen," he said. "I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth." So much for campaign-trail denunciations of "fat cat" bankers and bloated bonuses.

But the savviness that Obama handsomely acknowledged has been evident not only in their business judgment but in their politics. Goldman employee contributions to Democrats in 2008 ranked second only to those employed by the University of California. JPMorgan Chase's employees ranked No. 7. The stereotype of Wall Street being Republican is decades out of date.

Crony capitalism is now the order of the day in the United States. The government and the United Auto Workers own General Motors and Chrysler, which aren't likely to pay back their billions in TARP money any time soon, if ever. Meanwhile the government tells Americans to stop driving Toyotas.

The government was going to remake the health care sector, and so Billy Tauzin and other health care industry lobbyists were busy in the White House cutting deals to keep their clients above water. The government was going to remake the energy sector, and utility CEOs and lobbyists have been busy flaunting their green credentials.

As my Washington Examiner colleague Timothy Carney has been documenting, Big Business has been busy lobbying Big Government for "reforms" that serve big companies' interests. Wal-Mart backs a health care mandate, Philip Morris shapes tobacco regulation, General Electric is setting up a joint venture to trade carbon offsets (wasn't that Enron's line of work back in the day?).

The picture is not pretty. Government's pets or, in the president's words, "savvy businessmen," use government to get policies that will give them competitive advantages and stifle smaller competitors. Pleasing their masters in government is now absorbing the psychic energy of CEOs who used to concentrate on meeting consumers' needs in order to make profits.
This is a scary picture that is being painted- but it is a picture that is getting closer to reality the longer the Obama administration and the Democrats are in office. Republicans aren't perfect, and the GOP made a lot of mistakes in office, but people need to wake up and realize that the 'Third Way' that Obama is forging has already been done before, and its called National Socialism, or Fascism as its variant called in Italy, or Nazism as its variant called in Germany.

I've written about this before, for a while. Please check out my posts A Conservative Teacher: The Third Way: Obama and Fascism or wikipedia description of fascist sounds like someone i know or calling a fascist a fascist or book review: the man who was thursday or barack obama was a member of the new party. My dad might want me to tone down the "Obama is a fascist" rhetoric, but I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Little Green Footballs Wrong on Texas School Board

With all due respect to 'Little Green Footballs', it's take on the story about Texas school board officials trying to moderate and diversify the textbooks used in Texas is all wrong. In it's story "Far Right Texas School Board Members Push Revisionist History" it says that

far right conservatives in charge of the Texas State Board of Education (are making an) outrageous attempt to manipulate curriculum development and textbook production for public schools. The social conservatives appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry are pushing a revisionist history of the United States in which separation of church and state do not exist, in which the founding fathers intended the US to be a 'Christian nation.'

Before I taught US History last year, I read quite a few of the textbooks, and in almost all of them, the textbook taught a very liberal version of US history, emphasizing strict separation of church and state, never mentioned the religion of our Founding Fathers, never mentioned the religious background of our history, and for every religious movement in our nation mentioned 50 progressive movements.

Injecting some 'revisionist history' and 'manipulating the curriculum' would be adding some real diversity to what our students learn. There is even an outside chance that injecting conservative history into our textbooks and revising the curriculum may even help students gain a more accurate view of our history and may very well lead to increased understanding of what made our nation great and what will make it great again.

Let's be more specific and not just fall back rhetoric when we talk about this issue. I read the NY Times article that went into this story in a little more depth. One specific issue that so upsets many is that the Texas School Board wants to include a new standard that textbooks would have to meet that requires students taking classes in U.S. government to identify traditions that informed America’s founding, “including Judeo-Christian” and to “identify the individuals whose principles of law and government institutions informed the American founding documents,” among whom is included Moses. Is this really objectionable? Why is it offensive to ask students to learn these things and for textbooks to discuss them? Other than the fact that they are true and that truth burns like a light through the lies and darkness that liberals wish to spread in schools, what else is wrong with this new standard? Nothing.

Another objectionable standard that these 'right wing fanatics' push on our poor young students is to have students “analyze the importance of the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and the Virginia House of Burgesses to the growth of representative government.” Oh the horror! Of course, go through your laundry list of liberal cannon law, and I'm sure it is in the guidelines for students to analyze them, but have them learn a little bit about conservative history (our history!) and it's suddenly crazy wild indoctrination!

Little Green Footballs might think that Rick Perry is appointing "religious fanatic cronies who have turned Texas education into a national laughingstock," but I don't think what they are doing is all that 'fanatical' or even something to laugh at. One particular 'fanatical' recurring theme that these 'wacko's' keep pushing is the desire of the board to stress the concept of American exceptionalism in our standards. I guess to liberals it is a laughing matter that America is exceptional. If liberals have their way and push their views in our curriculum, without balancing and sensible conservative views, then soon the sad laugh will be that America will indeed no longer be exceptional.

Let's wait and see what sort of guidelines the Texas School Board comes up with and how textbooks meet them, and then what sorts of students are produced after reading these textbooks. I'm willing to bet that injecting conservative values and religious education in them doesn't harm them as much as liberals and Little Green Footballs thinks it will.

Analyzing Rick Snyder's 10 Point Plan

Via The Western Right comes this post called Rick Snyder's Ten Platitudes. It is an analysis of Republican-hopeful for Governor Rick Snyder's 10 Point Plan for Michigan:

Rick Snyder, the stealth candidate in the Republican race for governor, has a list of 'ten principles' on his website. But most of them are platitudes, not principles. Can you imagine any candidate running opposed to "Create More and Better Jobs"? Where are the specific details of how he would do this? How would the reform the tax system, reform government, restore cities?Still, there are some interesting tidbits here. Does "control urban sprawl" mean restricting people's right to control their own land? What is a proper "mass transit backbone"? People hate mass transit, and for good reasons. Discouraging the use of cars is just what Detroit needs."Invest in the arts?" Take money from taxpayers and buy 'art' that nobody would pay for with their own money? This is a Republican?Alternative energy? Alternative energy is a scam. That's why it's alternative; nobody wants to buy it in the free market because it costs too much. Shouldn't a businessman understand that? Would Snyder invest his own money in alternative energy?"Rick believes that a child’s progress from pre-kindergarten through college and advanced degrees is the cycle on which the state’s efforts should be focused and coordinated." Huh? What does this mean?"Rick believes that the cornerstone to successful health care reform must include prevention, wellness and personal responsibility." Isn't a cornerstone one thing? Did anyone edit this?"Rick also believes in the importance of embracing our racial, social and geographic diversity to reach common goals for the state." Any person or institution that celebrates diversity is bad news. When Rick moves to Detroit, I'll believe he's serious about this.

The Republicans have a bunch of great candidates for Governor- Cox and Hoekstra are my favorites- but Rick Snyder is not one of them. I'm already on record opposing him- see my posts Rick Snyder- Do Not Support and Exclusive: Rick Synder Blackmailed Young Supporters for Votes in Straw Poll on Mackinac Island.

UPDATE: Although I did not support Snyder in the primary and feel he is not a solid conservative Republican, he will make a considerably better Governor than Granholm and a way way way better Governor than the communist angry special-interest controlled Virg 'Job Killer' Bernero. So, consider everything I have said in the correct light- as bad as Rick is, Virg is a thousand times worse.

Obama Policy: Kill Terrorists, but Don't Catch Them and Pump Them for Info

Although I do agree with the theory that the only good kind of terrorist is a dead terrorist, I've always felt that we should catch them, pump them for info, and then kill them off. The problem with this line of thinking is that it means that you have to be willing to take a couple losses in the attempt to capture them, you have to be willing and able to pump them for info, and then you have to have a reliable and honest means of killing them off. I'm not a monster, and I recognize that terrorists need to be given some rights, at least until it is established that they are in fact a terrorist, and that needs to be done in a delicate and sensitive manner. In other words, the policy of 'catching them, pumping them, killing them' is hard work that requires boldness, vision, and intelligence. Obama doesn't have these, so he instead just killing these terrorists.

Now, on one hand, I really do like the fact that Obama is killing terrorists. But on the other hand, I get the feeling that once again, Obama has demonstrated his lack of boldness, vision, and intelligence on this key issue. And this policy does not fit with Obama's desire to read Miranda rights to captured terrorists and give them civilian trials. It's like Obama has decided to shoot and kill them before talking to them, but if we do accidentally catch one, we can't do anything but release puppies and bunnies on them.

From powerlineblog post "Obama takes the easy way out, to the detriment of our national security":

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is increasingly opting to kill al Qaeda terrorists rather than capturing them and attempting to find out what they know. For example, when a window of opportunity opened to kill or capture Saleh Ali Nabhan, the leader of al Qaeda in East Africa, the White House opted to eliminate him by firing from helicopters rather than trying to take him alive.

According to the Post, these decisions are being driven in part by the "dwindling options" for placing U.S. captives. As one "senior military officer" put it, "when you don't have a detention politcy or a set of facilities," the balance tends to shift in favor of simply eliminating the terrorist.

But this entails an obvious cost -- lost opportunities to obtain important intelligence. Thus, says the Post, "some military and intelligence officials" are balking at the administration's "shoot the bastard" policy. The decision to eliminate Nabhan appears to have come in for particular criticism, as well it should. It's difficult to conceive that we might be more secure with the head of al Qaeda's East Africa operations dead and dumb than we would be with him sidelined and singing.

Obama's Nuclear Ambitions Spot on... For a Soviet

Donklephant wrote recently that "Obama’s Nuclear Energy Ambitions Are Spot On". Donklephant is buying into the hopeandchange rhetoric that has come to characterize the Obama Presidency.

The news that prompts this comment is the news that President Barack Obama next week will announce a loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the United States in almost three decades. Let's repeat that- the President of the United States, who has no personal experience in loans, investments, or running energy companies, is going to be using your taxpayer money to give to a politically connected company in Georgia in order to build two new nuclear reactors. This loan guarantee is fully intended to be a bribe in order to get Republicans to sign on to a larger cap-and-tax plan that will destroy America. The government will afterwards continue to play a large role in this nuclear reactor, as it will have been paid for by state money.

Building nuclear reactors is fine, and needed, and welcome. But Obama's ambitions are not 'spot on'- we don't need more government-financed business interests, given away to politically connected people, run by the government, for the purposes of scoring political points. This isn't freaking Russia, this is America, and Obama's ambitions fit better there then they do here.

In America, the way the government supports nuclear energy is by getting out of the freaking way. It repeals all of its stifling regulations. It gets rid of its stinking taxes and fees. It puts in place proper private property rights and then protects them. In America, the way the government supports nuclear energy is by getting out of the way and letting the American people unleash their full intelligence, insight, creativity, and hard work on this issue.

I've already talked about Obama's policies with regards to nuclear energy in my post "Yucca Mountain":

The shutting down of the Yucca Mountain project (by Obama, in defiance of what Congress ordered) will cost jobs (already thousands are being laid off in Nevada because of this policy decision), will cost energy companies money (they paid billions of their own money for this project and now will have to pay billions more for unsafe temporary storage of spent nuclear waste), and will lead to lower investment in clean and safe nuclear energy (because there is no place to store the waste).

Obama's ambitions, like everything else he does, fit better in Russia than they do here. They are not 'spot on.'

Too Late To Apologize: a Declaration

Soomo Publishing created this really cool video called "Too Late To Apologize: a Declaration" as a way to facilitate learning in creative, innovative ways. In this video, we see our Founding Fathers singing about the Declaration of Independence, set to music that kids listen to. It's pretty cool, and if you teach US history or government, you might want to start class by showing this video to students and following it with questions designed to get them to think about about the themes presented in it. Enjoy!

Oppose Race to the Top: Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose RTTT

Recently, Michigan Senate Majority leader Mike Bishop asked me for my opinion on the President's Race to the Top program. I told him that I didn't support it, and he looked at me in a way that said "I thought you were a conservative" and "I thought you wanted to help education." At the time, I struggled to explain why I didn't like the program- I didn't really know all the details to it, but suspected that I was indeed correct in opposing it from what little I knew. He thought I was just a tool of the teachers unions, who also oppose RTTT, but I knew that for some reason I didn't like this initiative by Obama, and it wasn't just paranoid anti-Obama sentiment.

Today, via theblogprof, via Right Wing News, I came across the an article called "Ten Rules for Anti-Government Republican Radicals in D.C. ." As an anti-government conservative radical, the kind that our founding fathers were, the kind of people that built our nation and made our country a great success, I find these rules to be useful in helping me begin to articulate why I oppose Race to the Top.

Rule number one for being an anti-government conservative radical is always try to decentralize power as much as possible. Race to the Top does not do this- it bribes the states into giving the central government in Washington DC more centralized decision making power over our education system.

Rule number two is that earmarks are corruption. RTTT is a $4.35 billion incentive program that awards prizes to districts for meeting a certain criteria. Like most Obama initiatives, it will be not be an open and transparent process the fairly distributes grants to the districts, but instead will be an opaque and closed process that awards grants to districts based on highly specific criteria designed to steer money to politically favored districts- ie, it is a program ripe for earmarking.

Rule #3 is that the louder they scream "emergency," the more suspicious you should be. The supposed reason why we should pass RTTT as quickly as possible is because we should never let a serious crisis go to waste, and our education system is in a crisis, and so now is the time when we should jam through massive bad legislation, but I don't buy this argument, and so I reject RTTT.

#5 is that the grassroots are your friend. What RTTT does is attack teachers, all teachers, and pretend that they are all incompetent and bad teachers, and that empowering the central government more to distribute gifts and prizes for things it like will somehow make the education system better. Teachers aren't bad people (or at least no more so than any other person)- I'm a proud member of the MEA. What is bad is the government structure that they operate in, the forced unionization, having them be employees of the state, etc. RTTT attacks the people, and you should never support legislation that attacks people.

#7) We will never control spending unless we change the system. This program steers money intended for 'economic stimulus' into prizes for school districts, prizes that they will become dependent on and become addicted to. It creates and enlarges a system of out-of-control spending and does nothing to help school districts become more efficient in delivering high-quality education to students.

9) We don't need new laws; we need reform. RTTT is yet another multiple-billion dollar new program that only supports and extends and strengthens the existing system, and does not really reform it. Oh, I know there is some good in it, but the main thrust of it is not to reform the system, but to put in place new laws, and thus a good conservative should oppose it.

10) It's better to kill a bad bill than improve it. Mike Bishop communicated to me that although there is a lot of bad stuff in RTTT, there is some good in it that we can work with, and that we need the money, and that education is in a crisis, blah blah blah. Mike, I support you, and think a lot of time you have good instincts, but sometimes it looks to me like the system is slowly corrupting you, as it does all good men. Kill Race to the Top- it is a bad bill, and although it could be improved, it is better to just kill it and start over with real reform that centralizes governments influence in education.

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

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

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

Green Police- The Real Government Superbowl Ad

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

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

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

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

Obama Nicknames

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

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

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

Biased Test Questions on Standardized Tests that I Read

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama is No Visionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama and Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biggest losers from Obama's budget:

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

The Third Way: Obama and Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

Air Force Academy Builds Altar to Green God

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

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

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

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

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

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