Obama On Inner and Outer Circles of Leadership

In The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare (Penguin Classics), by G.K. Chesterton. Chesterton describes anarchists this way:

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.

In my post Book Review: The Man Who Was Thursday I noted that:

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.

The idea of an inner circle of committed revolutionaries surrounded by an outer circle of people who are more moderate in their views is an idea that I have never read or heard about before. Reading it in Chesterton's book was the first time I had ever even thought about viewing the world in this way.

President Obama, on the other hand, jumps quickly to viewing the world this way, and in a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black he has ascribed his personal world view to his enemies, the American people who go to Tea Parties.

Via The Politico story Obama dissects demonstrations:

Obama describes tea party movement this way: "There's some folks who just weren't sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist. So there's that segment of it, which I think is just dug in ideologically." "Then," he continued, "I think that there's a broader circle around that core group of people, who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are legitimately concerned that the federal government may be taking on too much."

Obama sees in the Tea Party movement structure and order that he is familiar with- an inner circle preaching bad things, and an outer circle who are being fooled into following the movement, but both circles are bad and wrong and do not have legitimate views.

Now, I've been to Tea Parties (see my posts Best State of the Union Address Ever, My Report from the Birmingham Healthcare Rally, or Report from Peters Townhall Sept 09) and to be honest, I don't have the slightest freaking clue what Obama is talking about. I saw the core of Tea Parties as people with legitimate views about spending and government power, and a couple hanger's on who even Tea Party people didn't like who talked about Obama's birth certificate and who waved posters of Obama as Hitler. But, there was no inner and outer core of organization to the Tea Parties- they are just masses of concerned patriots who are trying to make the world a better place.

On the other hand, let's take a look at the Democratic Party... it increasingly is attempting to centralize all decisions with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, Democratic members of Congress increasingly have 95% party line voting records (like my Congressman Peters, who is as far from moderate and independent as possible), and money that flows into the Democratic Party increasingly flows to the inner circle and then out again. That party, as it is increasingly becoming, is an inner circle of men preaching destruction (pro-abortion, pro-economic destruction, anti-allies, pro-war) surrounded by an outer circle of people duped and who chant hope and change and say the most naive and stupid ideas about the role of government in making people better.

The Democrats fit Obama's narrative better than the Tea Party movement- an inner core of devoted liberals surrounded by a mass of weak willed 'Blue Dogs' who follow orders when push comes to shove.

Get the book today!

Democrats Order Companies That Don't Like Healthcontrol Bill to Come to Washington To Be Intimidated and Threatened

Frequently on my blog I talk about how the policies of Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Peters, or your Democratic Congressman threaten 'life, liberty, and property.' I don't do this just to evoke our founding fathers and our Declaration of Independence- I do it because in reality, these principles are increasingly under attack when your friends and family put Democrats into office.

On Thursday and Friday, several major American companies- including AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. These major job providers and major providers of important goods and services in our nation stated that they think that this new health care law will hurt their companies in many ways. In a free nation, companies should be allowed to state how government policies will adversely affect their bottom lines without fear of the government attacking them. But America is not a free country when Democrats are in charge.

Via the Washington Examiner article Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill by Byron York:

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances.

Waxman has ordered the executives (of those companies) to (fly to Washington DC and) explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee.

Waxman's request (for internal company documents relating to finances) could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman. And all as punishment for making a business decision in light of a new tax situation.

If you own and operate a business, or work for a business that is owned and operated by someone, you are under attack by the government of the United States of America. If your business speaks out against a law, they will be dragged off to far away locations (Washington DC) to answer to the lords and masters of our empire, where in front of cameras and the howling masses, they will be subjected to ridicule and threats and intimidation. If your business does not show up, then the government that the Democrats are running will pass laws targeting your company for punishment or will not distribute government funds to you in 'stimulus' bills or other corrupt government give-aways.

This is no longer a free nation of a free people. Democrats like Waxman are turning it into a tyranny.

Prussian State Socialism Comes to America

Vin Suprynowic, writing in the Las Vegas Review Journal, writes:

The modern Prussian police state was built by Bismarck and others in the 19th century on a Spartan model, giving the central government vastly greater control over the individual than had ever been considered possible before.

Bismarck's program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase support for the ever larger and more powerful government. The program included health insurance, workman's compensation, disability insurance and old-age retirement pensions, all innovations at the time.

Starting with the model of Prussian compulsory schooling, American "educators," starting with John Dewey and Edward Thorndike eagerly imported this Prussian model to America.

Trained to accept such state control (and now the new "green" religion) in the schools for most of the past century, then made dependent on government insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare) as surely as the pimp makes sure his young ladies are dependent on the needle and the fix only he can provide, slavery to the state soon appears inescapable, even ordained by God and nature.

"It is possible that all our politics will come to nothing when I am dead, but state socialism ("Der Staatssozialismus") will push itself through," Bismarck said in 1881.

"State socialism," he called it.

We're told that for some reason we're not allowed to call the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda "socialism," "communism," "Marxism," "state socialism" "fascism," or anything else that might sound unpleasant.

Much as I hate to cite the tyrant Lincoln, if we call a dog's tail a leg, does it have five legs? Telling us we're not "allowed" to use an accurate label for something doesn't change what it is.

Instead of allowing General Motors and Chrysler to go through normal bankruptcies, through which new and more efficient private operators could have purchased their worthwhile assets while shedding their crippling union contracts, the two giant auto makers have now been effectively nationalized. Meantime, an unelected federal "pay czar" decides on the compensation of executives, even at supposedly private banks that have paid back all their "bailout" loans. Does that sound like the normal function of the American free market, as understood in 1910, 1960 or even 1990?

Thanks to thoroughly unconstitutional "bailouts," the federal government now de facto manages our major banks and/or credit card companies, along with our airlines and airports.

The health care bill was "sweetened" with a federal takeover of college loans. Why? You don't imagine the federal government will ever try to manipulate the behavior of college graduates, offering to "forgive their college loans" if they agree to behave in ways favored by the fedgov, do you?

"Federalizing" all these programs shifts money and employment from the private to the government-bureaucrat sector. Unionized government bureaucrats tend to belong to outfits like the SEIU, which actively back Democrat/socialists, while dispatching purple-shirted thugs to beat up black freedom-fighters handing out "Don't tread on me" Gadsden flags outside rigged Democratic "town hall" meetings.

The so-called "health reform" bill authorizes $10 billion to field 16,500 more IRS agents to collect and enforce mandatory "premiums," which we're assured are not a "tax." Providing you're a "normal" citizen with a job and house, of course. (Illegal aliens Get Out of Jail Free, as usual.)

Last week the Review-Journal mentioned in passing, in an editorial about socialist Congresscritter Dina Titus' move to facilitate the takeover of Nevada Occupational Safety and Health enforcement by the federal government, that the Constitution grants the federals no authority to regulate workplace safety within the states. One letter writer couldn't wait to write in that the newspaper was wrong: turns out the preamble to the federal OSHA law as adopted specifies that it's all constitutional, since the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and "workplace health and safety can impact interstate commerce."

So we're right back to "If you call a dog's tail a leg, does it have five legs?" If Washington can do anything it likes because everything somehow "impacts interstate commerce," why do we have a Constitution with that two-page list of specifically delegated powers? Why not just one sentence: "Congress shall have power to do anything it figures might promote the general welfare and/or impact interstate commerce"?

Vin is right- our Constitution was written for the expressed purpose of limiting the power of the national government so that our god-given rights to life, liberty, and property would be better protected. As the federal government expands, so does its threat to your life, your liberty, and your property, and that is what our founding fathers were trying to protect us against. They wanted to unleash the best of human potential, and knew that that is best done when man is allowed to be free from the constraints of the state. Our economy is more prosperous when we are free and property is protected, and our society is more civil when people provide funds for charities rather than having the government take money from people and redistribute it to favored charities.

In Michigan, I have observed what happens when Democrats run government, and I predicted accurately what would happen if Obama and the Democrats won the elections of 2008. Democrats turned Michigan into Detroit, and Democrats are now turning the United States into Michigan. You need to make sure that everyone you know votes Republican next election, or else your kids will grow up in a nation that is less civil, less prosperous, and less free than then one they are growing up in now. We need to stop these Prussians who are running out government today before they turn us into Germany in 1900... 1920... or 1940.

A Proper Take on the START Nuclear Arms Reductions With Russia

The media is making a big deal about the historic nature of Obama's nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia is and conservatives are making noise like it isn't a big deal or perhaps may even be a bad idea. I've been reading and researching the issue before trying to decide what I feel about it, and think that I've finally read something worthwhile on the issue.

This comes from The Weekly Standard blog post START All Over Again:

Has President Obama ended a second cold war? A cascade of news stories and editorials are creating the impression that his newly concluded START agreement with Moscow heralds a breakthrough in an intensifying standoff between Russia and the United States. "The new treaty represents perhaps the most concrete foreign policy achievement for Mr. Obama since he took office 14 months ago," gushes the New York Times. The Washington Post, for its part, hails the treaty as "the most extensive nuclear arms-control agreement in nearly two decades”; it represents “President Obama's first victory in his ambitious agenda to move toward a nuclear-free world."

This narrative rests on a single premise: namely that between the 1991 START agreement and Obama’s new treaty, nothing of genuine significance ccurred in the arms control arena with Russia. Particularly under the George W. Bush administration, the argument goes, the nuclear standoff with the Kremlin was treated with benign neglect as security perils multiplied. But all this is myth wrapped in a legend, shrouded by fable, and also almost wholly irrelevant—except in the imagination of arms-control enthusiasts—to American security.

One central development largely airbrushed out of the picture is the 2002 Moscow Treaty negotiated by President Bush and ratified 95 to 0 by the Senate seven years ago this month. The Moscow Treaty required each side to reduce its operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a level of between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012. At the time the treaty was signed, the United States had roughly 6,000 of such warheads. In May of last year, before the Obama administration had gotten even a toe wet in the nuclear realm, the number had already been cut to 2,126. The Bush administration had brought about a radical decrease of more than 60 percent—retiring 4,000 warheads from operational service—from the 2002 level, achieved nearly four years ahead of the Moscow agreement’s schedule.

By contrast, President Obama’s START agreement cuts American warheads from the current 2,100 to a level of 1,550. The United States will thus be making, thanks to Obama’s negotiating prowess, a reduction of, at most, a mere 550 warheads. Which president made the larger cuts, and which president reaped a larger reward?

Of course it was Obama who won a free trip to Oslo to pick up a Nobel Prize even before he had a single arms-control notch with Russia in his belt. Though Bush’s legacy remains far more significant, it is unimaginable that the former president would ever be considered even a runner-up for such a tribute. His abiding inability properly to pronounce "nuclear" was the least significant of many peccadilloes that made him ineligible for plaudits even when, by the stated objectives of arms-control advocates, praise was heavily warranted. The pillars of the liberal establishment would no doubt prefer to sit all day on plutonium pits than give Bush credit for beating warheads into ploughshares.

But ironies abound here. There may be conservatives in Congress and elsewhere who also prefer to sit on plutonium pits rather than support Mr. Obama’s new treaty, which they say weakens America’s deterrent or is inadequately verifiable. The trouble is that many of these voices were quiet or silent while George W. Bush slashed the U.S. arsenal over the course of his two terms in office. This raises the question of whether high strategy or low politics is behind the criticism of the new START agreement.

Whatever the answer, a plague should descend on both camps. For the disquieting reality is that arms-control accords with Russia are a diversion from the real security challenge before us in the nuclear arena.

In the world we live in today, whether Russia has 2,000 or 1,000 nuclear warheads matters far less than whether North Korea and Iran have one nuclear warhead or zero. North Korea’s Kim Jong Il and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can thus share a chuckle at our tragicomic celebration of a treaty with Russia that leaves the central security issue of the day untouched. The fundamental flaw of the new START treaty is that it will do nothing to end their laughter.

How a Bill Becomes a Law Today: Schoolhouse Rock Parody

This is pretty good...

Slumming Through Liberal Blogs and Liberal Comments

Sometimes it is amusing to slum around and read liberal blogs and comments. One blog that pretends to be a rival of mine here in Michigan is called "Michigan Liberal." On this blog, people who attend tea parties are routinely called 'teabaggers' as an insult, and the headlines are witty and clever like "Putting the ass back in jackass" or "Granholm, Freep slam the attempted Cox Block" (for those of you who are not used to liberal intelligence, put your mind in the gutter and pretend you are a foul-mouthed ugly person- the author was trying to make a play on words using male genitalia).

Eric Baerren runs Michigan Liberal, and is a big supporter of Democrats and their policies, and proves his liberal credentials by engaging in foul-mouthed low-level thuggery whenever he gets a chance. You can contact him at ebaerren@michiganliberal.com and contact one of his employers, the Midland Daily News, to let them know what you think of their employee, at janderson@hearstnp.com.

Reading liberal blogs or reading their comments gives you some insight into the level of intellectual depth and intelligence that these people have when approaching issues. I was reading a recent story over at the Oakland Press about how Peters is all sad that his opponents are going to make an issue over him voting for Obamacare and how Peters isn't a left-wing super liberal like his voting record shows and instead is some sort of moderate that only votes liberal. The story itself was kind of lame- Peters being a big cry baby and his spokesman injecting talking points- but the comments under it were interesting.

Here are some typical liberal comments, demonstrating the type of voters who vote Democrat and the kinds of people who support the modern-day Democratic Party:

• Joe wrote "Gary Peters is going to win another term and he'll keep winning until he retires. All the teabaggers complaining about how "Gary Peters' doesn't listen to his constituents" is a load of bull. He does listen to the MAJORITY of his constituents, not the fringe, America-hating right who think having to buy private insurance makes us a totalitarian dictatorship and still wants to see Obama's birth certificate. "
• I heard... wrote "that Paul Welday was a birther. Does anyone know if it's true? " (Welday is running against Peters, and there is no evidence of him being a 'birther').
• Mary wrote " A majority now support health care reform. It will only get more popular."
• Drop the Cover wrote "Call it the Tea Party all you want. But I know the Klan when I see it! "
• G wrote " silly tea baggers.. think they shouldnt have to pay taxes. "
• timmmy wrote "the republicans have turned into the party of racist, homophobic,sexist, azzclowns unable to tell the truth if their mothers life depended on it. t-baggers they are. "
• Get over it conservatives you lost wrote " Whaa whaa whaa like little crybabies you conservatives act like. I'm lmao at you nut cases. The 9th district is becoming more and more progressive and you can't stop it. Peters will be re-elected and I hope it twists you guts. "
• To Get Over It Conservatives wrote " We're not the ones that lost......YOU ARE. You're just to dumb to realize it. Wait a couple of years. Maybe then you'll grow up and face reality. "
• Watcher wrote " Rubbing my eyes here. Did I see and read what I thought I did. Welllll, yes.An Oakland County idiot claiming that the Aryans of Oakland County have values????They do have value, they like a good value on pillow cases with slits for eyes.Peters is going nowhere. He will win in a landslide. Even an idiot like peters is a lesser evil then a fascist Republican. "
• Eyerock wrote " Where do all the tea partiers and right wing nuts live in Oakland County?All my neighbors and friends are far more liberal than most of those posting on the OP.We support our President, are for Health Care Reform, and are all for closing the gap in America between the haves and the have nots. And we like to burn one every now and then. "
• Tim T wrote " Thanks Gary for standing up for the People instead of the insurance industry. "

There you have it- just a selection of the kind of voters who supported health care and support Gary Peters, and a little bit of a window inside their heads. I hope you all enjoyed reading that!

UPDATE: Michigan Liberal responds to my post by mocking me and simply denying that he is foul-mouthed. Typical liberal- the evidence I provided above (Eric's casual use of cuss words and foul phrases like cock blocking and tea bagging) is just crazy right-wing hysteria. Eric Baerren is a foul-mouthed low level thug, and if he doesn't like it, perhaps he should not use such foul language or foul phrases in his posts. But he won't- as a liberal, he is unable to rise above the tendency to think above gutter-level, so will likely continue with foul phrases and crude sexual innuendo in his posts.

And if you want to let his employer know what you think about his journalism abilities or use of language to get his points across, his editor can be reached at janderson@hearstnp.com.

Obama Wins Praise from Castro, Chavez, Putin, and Other Evil Dictators

Clad in blue t-shirts that read “Health is the heritage of the people,” and grey t-shirts with “Health Committee,” participants in the new national health program waited patiently with street vendors selling red t-shirts with ironed-on images of President Barack Obama with text that read “With Obama the people continue to rule.”

Maria Sojo, a volunteer for Obama's political action team, has been waiting years for Obamacare. “Nothing like this (Obama) ever existed before. We were never taken into consideration. Now we are and we are grateful to our president for what he has done for us,” Sojo said.

Actually, Sojo said that about Venezuela’s national healthcare program called “Barrio Adentro", and the t-shirts described above had images of Hugo Chavez on them, not Obama, but the idea is the same- that Obama and his policies have more in common with dictators and thugs and socialists from around the world rather than evoking ideals of liberty, life, and protection of property.

The reforms that Obama put in place are closer to the reforms of Russia and China, countries that traditionally the United States has not attempted to emulate. But Obama believes our nations healthcare system should look more like Russia's and China's, and so Obamacare is jammed through.

And although it was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for, it is not shocking to anyone that Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency. Castro's biggest objection is similar to most Democrats- that it took the US so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Peters have all made communist dictatorships around the world proud with the passage of Obamacare. Myself, I think that if all of those bad countries like someone, maybe it would be smart to think twice about jamming it on our nation.

Welfare and Taxes- Democrats Back to Work

Now that the healthcare bill has been passed, I see that the news is getting a little more honest about reporting just exactly what the healthcare bill is. For example, the Detroit News says:

The landmark legislation that Obama signed Tuesday would provide health care to 32 million uninsured people. The $938 billion, 10-year price tag would be financed largely by culling savings from Medicare and imposing new taxes on higher income people and the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

That's exactly what this healthcare bill was at its heart- a massive expansion of government welfare paid for by raising taxes (the 'savings' from Medicare are fake savings- the government telling doctors that they are going to accept less money for procedures and drugs doesn't affect the real cost of those procedures or drugs).

Welfare and tax raises- that's the Democrats solution to everything, and you can just put 'healthcare reform' in that same boat and that basically is what it is. But, Democrats are still in Washington, so today they went right back to the Obama/Pelosi Democrat plan for America- more welfare spending, more 'construction' spending, and more taxes to pay for this government largess.

A bill passed Wednesday in the House of Representatives would billions of more dollars for construction projects and welfare programs in selected states. Democrats characterized the $16 billion dollar bill as yet another stimulus program, but in reality it is more welfare and government make-work projects funded by increased taxes and fees or increased debt. This is the Democrat's only answer to every problem in society- increase dependence on the unaccountable state, increase the power of the government, increase the number of people in society working for the government, while taxes and fees and regulations go up on free people who are forced to carry the deadweight of government and its dependents around on their backs.

Democrats, like my Congressman Gary Peters, don't make it a secret that what you are voting for when you don't vote Republican is welfare and taxes.

Recent Polling Data for Michigan Governor Race

Time for a little bit of polling data. According to MRG Michigan, a recent statewide survey shows every major Republican gubernatorial candidate defeating both major Democratic gubernatorial candidates by significant margins- both Republican Attorney General Mike Cox (44%) and Republican Congressman Pet Hoekstra (43%) top Democrat Speaker of the House Andy Dillion (27%) and Democrat Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero (26%). This is a good sign for Michigan, which has been suffering for 7 long years under Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm, whose liberal policies have been a negative on every aspect of government.

In the GOP primary matchup among likely Republican primary voters Attorney General Mike Cox and Congressman Pete Hoekstra are tied at 21% with businessman Rick Snyder right behind at 20% and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard trailing significantly with 10%. In my humble opinion, Cox or Hoekstra would be fine choices for Governor of Michigan, both having demonstrated on many occasions their conservative credentials and both being sound experienced politicians who are willing and able to make the tough decisions to bring Michigan back from the brink.

In the Democratic primary matchup among likely Democrat primary voters Speaker Andy Dillon has a 21% to 9% lead over Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero. Until recently, the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party was Lt Governor Cherry, but he recognized that running on Granholm/Obama policies was the kiss of death, and so he dropped out of the race rather than face the coming trouncing. Andy Dillon is an okay nominee- ever since he survived recall for dramatically raising taxes several years ago, he has moderated his positions considerably, and would make a better Governor than the one currently in office, although would mostly continue the same liberal politics that have driven business out of Michigan and caused this state to be in a recession for most of the decade.

For more data on this poll, here is the source.

100 Years of Trying- Communism Wins in the End Though

President Barack Obama's remarked today after the passage through the House of his new health control law that "after nearly 100 years of talk and frustration, after decades of trying, and a year of sustained effort and debate, the United States Congress finally declared that America's workers..." have health care reform.

Obama is right- the battle between communism and liberty has been raging for over a hundred years, and last week, communism won a great battle. The headlines are shouting how after years and years of fighting, finally healthcare reform is here. The way they say it makes you think that the reform is the good guy and the bad guys were the people fighting it- but in reality, the good guys were fighting the reform, and in yet another case of bizzaro world striking, the newspapers are cheering on the bad guy, health care reform.

That is not to say that health care reform is a bad thing- don't get me wrong, I think it is nice that millions of people are now going to get healthcare, that people with pre-existing conditions get covered, etc. It's just sad that to do that, the government is going to hold a gun to my head and make me work harder and longer so that others can benefit from the fruits of my labor. In a way it's like forced charity, but not really, because it is a very inefficient charity and it is a charity that makes me not want to give and the recipient not feel thankful for the gift that is being given to him. This healthcare reform, like much of communism, degrades the human condition, by forcing one person to give to another what they did not earn, demeaning the transactions that make our society civilized and humane.

People are claiming this health care reform is historic- it isn't really. Most communist nations long ago jammed through healthcare, overcoming opposition by those who fought for rule of law, liberty, freedom, and private property protection. Stalin greatly expanded health care for poor people in the Soviet Union in the 1930's, and so whatever victory Obama achieved he did so much later than other great communist leaders of the past. I guess what the newspapers are cheering is that Obama is right- after 100 years of determined efforts to keep the government out of private transactions between a medical professional and a person, the government finally managed to do what Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did long ago and inject itself between those groups and gain power and control over the transaction.

The sadness and anger I have is that after 100 years of talk, debate, and deliberation, our nation went stupid for two elections (2006 and 2008) and that was all that Democrats needed to end talk, debate, and deliberation and ram through the society-changing initiatives to move our nation away from a Republic of laws to a Dictatorship of men. Obama is right to gloat- he did what other dictatorships only dream about, and took a society of liberty, life, and property and reformed into into one of tyranny, death, and poverty.

Breaking: British Crown Shocked by Appalling Behavior of Tea Party Patriots

March 21, 1776. The liberal media is apparently outraged that patriots and tea party activists are upset that their liberty, life, and property is being voted away today. Many of the King Obama's supporters are shocked by the unruly behavior of these so-called patriots, who are waving American flags and screaming about law while they apparently should be cheering the massive expansion of welfare and government power that is the Obama Healthcontrol Bill.

A senior editor in the New Republic describes what just transpired here inside the House of Representatives. Moments ago, while members of the Kings faction were on the floor for a vote to put in place the Intolerable Acts, a protester stood up in the visitor's gallery and began shouting "Liberty! Freedom! Life! Property!" Armed thugs quickly removed the man, but while they were doing so, several of those patriotic Republicans actually cheered on the man. This was shocking to the editor of New Republic, who couldn't understand why anyone would believe in the unalienable rights of man, and also was surprising to Representative Barney Frank, who yesterday made up the fact that he was was the target of homophobic epithets (like teabagger), who was "appalled" and that he felt George Washington and James Madision "were encouraging him to resist. ... It's a dangerous situation and the Republicans are cheering him on."

Some Democrats, liberals, and Loyalists even seem a little scared that the continual erosion of liberties and freedom and the increasing taxes and regulations and fees might even spark a revolution. They accuse these patriots of being divisive, feeling that people should just roll over when faced by a determined tyrant.

As the senior editor of this newspaper reported, the scene was more farcical than scary--like a scene out of some movie starring Madonna and not a real attempt by real people to keep their god-given rights to life, liberty, and freedom. But there was still just a little bit of something unsettling to it, even to him- it was almost as if people really believed in the Declaration of Independence or something.

The Republic is dead, Democrats remark- the King by a stroke of the pen can now make laws in our nation (such as the deal made with Congressman Stupid)- and people now face a choice- either be part of the tyranny of the majority, or fade away.

Key Provisions of Health Care Bill

The Detroit News today put together a nice article which lays out the key provisions of Obamacare. I'm going to liberally quote from it with my comments added in and review just what Obamacare is about.

• Cost: $940 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This estimate includes 10 years of taxing and fees and only includes 7 years of benefits. This estimate also assumes that the program will cost what the government says it will- more often than not, government programs end up costing 2-3 times what they say it will cost. Whatever the cost of Obamacare, there is no money to pay for it anyways, so it is all debt, regardless of the Enron accounting schemes that the Democrats used.
• It would expand coverage to 32 million uninsured, which means that at its heart, it is the largest welfare expansion in a generation. This comes after decades of successful welfare reform that has cut the number of people on government welfare by considerable numbers- this indeed is a change.
• Almost everyone would be required by law to be insured by 2014 or else pay a fine. The government does not have this power or authority, and its that simple. If you doubt me, imagine if the government said everyone needs to buy a Hummer or else pay a fine- do you think the government has that authority and power to? What if the government said everyone needed to buy a plastic bag and put their head in it or else pay a fine- do you think the government has that power to? The insurance mandate is unconstitutional, and anyone who supports it supports shredding the Constitution.
• Major consumer safeguards take effect in 2014. These are 'important safeguards'- but not important enough to put in place now? All of these will make insurance more expensive. All of them will drive up the costs of healthcare.
• Massive new expansion of Medicaid, with massive new costs picked up by the federal government.
• Taxes are raised on investment income by 3.8 percent.
• Businesses are required to provide insurance to employees, or else the government will shut down your company, terrorize your business, or break your kneecaps.

Not included in the bill- anything that reduces the cost of healthcare, anything that reduces the cost of providing healthcare by businesses, anything that improves the economy, anything that provides any sort of jobs, anything that increases liberty and freedom, anything that protects life, and anything that protects property.

Call your Congressman and Senator today and let him/her know where you stand on this bill. It won't matter- thugs are determined to put in place tyranny and destroy our nation- but at least you can say you made the attempt.

Pro-life Democrats Choose Democrat Label Over Life

When it comes down to it, there is no such thing as a Blue Dog Democrat or a Pro-Life Democrat- when push comes to shove, they are just Democrats, and even if they believe in small government or protecting life, they are willing in the end to vote for a big government 'healthcare' bill that diverts tax money to killing unborn babies.

Over the last day, Dale Kildee, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, and James Oberstar all have said that there concern over protecting the lives of unborn babies or even protecting the right of people in our nation to choose what they believe about abortion is not as important as making sure that taxpayer money is used to support abortion. If you are pro-life or pro-choice, you now will be forced to send your money to the federal government, which will then cycle it through several government agencies before finally sending it to a Community Health Clinic or something, where it will be used to give free abortions on demand.

And Kildee, Cardoza, Costa, and Oberstar think that is super and they will support taxpayer money for abortions. When the rubber hits the pavement, when push comes to shove, when it is time for a person to really look in the mirror and make real decisions about what is important in their lives, their concern for life didn't match their concern for supporting the Democratic Party on its suicide mission to destroy our nation by drowning it in debt and more unfunded liabilities.

Michigan Liberal Demonstrates Stupidity of Obamacare Supporters

One of the most striking features of liberals in the Democratic Party is their stupidity. They are like little children who, lacking any understanding of economics or history, have childish notions for the way the world works. For example, over at Michigan Liberal, there is a post called Representative Gary Peters: Keep standing up for us, not the insurance companies. The entire post is the following video.

This video says that insurance premiums are going up and that is reason for the government to take over the entire insurance industry, give free coverage to illegal immigrants, divert tax money into killing unborn babies, and put in place death panels. Government restrictions, laws, and regulations are the reason for insurance premiums going up, and the solution is not more government, but less.

Liberals suggest that the reason premiums are going up is that evil insurance agents are making obscene profits, but if that is the case, the solution is easy- open up competition so lower cost insurance companies run by decent people can compete with those evil high profit (and high premium) companies. But that can't happen either, because of government regulation and laws, which restrict competition and put in place local politically connected monopolies.

So, again, liberals act like children- they don't understand why costs are going up so they turn to nanny government to bring down costs, without understanding why costs went up or how the government taking over things will bring them down. You watch the video- tell me if I am missing something here.

America is Going to Get Ugly

In my high school government class, we talk about the fact that the government of the United States of America is a legitimate government because it was a social contract with the people of the nation that was duly voted on and ratified. The Constitution of the United States it the agreement that the people of our nation signed with one another, promising to follow the laws of our government if it promised to stay within its limited powers. Everyone that has come to our nation has agreed to follow the Constitution by the mere fact of coming here, and everyone who is born in this nation is 'grand-fathered' into the agreement by their ancestors, who signed it or agreed to come here and follow it. The Constitution of the United States is the document that gives our government the just right to rule.

But what happens if the government no longer follows the Constitution, by evading rules and procedures established in it, by disregarding the limits to its powers, or by violating the principles that it embodies- founding principles like separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, popular sovereignty, judicial review, and federalism? Does the United States government still have the just power to rule when it violates the social contract that was signed with the people of our nation, or pretends that there never was any sort of contract and that this agreement was some sort of vague statement from the past that has no relevance to today? What are the people of our nation to do when the government that rules them increasingly lacks legitimacy and the just power to rule?

The people need to engage in a revolution- a revolution at the ballot box. But what if the election system itself is no longer a fail gauge of what is just or not- what if more people have figured out the best way to wealth is to vote it out of other people's pockets, or that the most effective way to get ahead in this world is to use the force of government to transfer wealth from one favored group to another. What if those people begin to outnumber the hard-working citizens of our nation, the wealth producers, the charity-givers, and the soldiers who defend our land (all of these groups are statistically more conservative than liberal). What if the ballot box becomes simply a means to legitimize the tyranny of the minority by the majority who no longer respects checks and balances, limited government, or federalism. What then?

What you are going to see in this nation is an increase in partisanship, an increase in fighting, an increase in craziness, an increase in bitterness, and increase in hate speech, an increase in lawbreaking, and a breakdown of the law and order of this nation. You're already seeing it- look around you at the nuts shooting up the Pentagon, or running airplanes into buildings, or Congresswomen advocating lawbreaking, or fighting and yelling on the floor of Congress. Our nation is being ripped apart, and it will come increasingly to violence and bad things, and then it will go one of two ways- the forces of liberty, freedom, protection of property, and celebration of life will win the day and things will be good again; or the forces of tyranny, oppression, confiscation of property, and the destruction of life will win the day and they will put down their opponents with brutal oppression.

This road that we are traveling as a nation is not a good one, and things need to change. Sadly, voters choose the wrong kind of change, and now we have a party that is willing to destroy our nation and economy in order to put more change in place.

Things are going to get ugly around here, and that's a shame.

Healthcare Bill Loaded With Pet Projects and Corrupt Bribes

President Barack Obama says he wants projects helping specific states yanked from the health care bill Congress is writing. But since Obama's word means rather little (case in point, Obama said it is time to move on from healthcare and start talking about jobs and yet we're still on healthcare and not jobs) and because Obama is a rather weak President, the safe money is on the healthcare bill being filled with pork as no bill ever in this history our republic has been filled with pork. Look for hundreds of projects 'helping specific states' which were traded for votes on this corrupt and backroom-deal created healthcare bill.

The latest version, if one can keep track of what is what in this awful non-lawful process, includes some of the following projects. Although each of these projects may indeed be worthy, they should be judged in the context of available funds (none- in fact, we're already swimming in debt and deficits) and whether or not they are a necessary priority to be spending our scarce resources on as a nation. Here are some of the projects:

• $600 million will be given over the next decade to Vermont for Medicaid assistance, and another nearly $600 million will be to Massachusetts. The other 48 states will not receive this give-away, for reasons unknown.
• Connecticut would get $100 million to build a hospital. Hospitals in other states would receive no assistance because they lack the political connections to game the corrupt system the Democrats are running.
• 800,000 Florida seniors would be allowed to keep certain Medicare benefits. It is unknown why they were chosen for this gift, but in a tyranny, one does not expect rule of law and fairness to be the norm.
• Asbestos-disease victims in tiny Libby, Montana, and some coal miners with black lung disease or their widows would get help. Everyone else suffering these diseases will pay increased taxes and fees on a wide range of products and services to divert money to these chosen people, likely in exchange for a 'yes' vote on the final bill.
• Cash prizes are awarded for Louisiana, the Dakotas, and other states, because fake reasons couldn't even be invented to give these away, so instead Obama and the Democrats in Congress are just simply bribing people for their votes without even pretending it is for essential goals.
• Supposedly the Cornhuster Kickback is going to be removed- this specific bribe gave $100 million in extra Medicaid money to Nebraska to help win support from that state’s Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson. There will be discussion about removing this one piece (but not about the other 100 bribes), but I bet in the end, it's in the bill.
• Obama and the Democrats are not going to take out the extra $300 million for Louisiana because they really need Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu's vote on this bill, so that bribe will stay in, and the reason given will be 'Hurricane Katrina aid' or something.

This healthcare bill is what is wrong with America. It needs to be defeated. If you have been sitting on the sidelines during this process, shame on you- get off your butt, make some phone calls, send out some letters, and go to some tea parties.

On The Texas Board of Education Decision

Texas Board of Education on Friday recently approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

But liberal blogs are going crazy, stating that it is totally wrong to put a conservative stamp on social studies curriculum and that the only allowable stamp allowed in education is a firmly liberal stamp. Blogs like the Daily Kos, which Obama reads often, suggest that it is better to homeschool your children now that the Texas Board has prohibited discussion of "transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else."

There are a lot of reasons to homeschool children- look at Detroit Public Schools, in the firm solid grip of liberal policies and an utter disaster- but suggesting that you pull your child out of public schools because they won't learn valuable important information about transvestites in social studies is disgusting. I mean, in Detroit (firmly controlled by Democrats), kids have an equal chance of being shot or graduating high school, but that's okay to liberals and readers of the Daily Kos, as long as those students learn in their history classes about transvestites and transsexuals, and that's wrong.

For fun sometime you need to slum it in blogs like the Daily Kos and read the comments that liberals and Democrats put on that blog. They're voters too, don't forget that, and some of you may have even voted with them last election (or voted third party, which is the same in reality as voting for the most communist person on the ticket).

It's fun to read things on the Daily Kos like "unlike with socialist governments, we don't get a vote" and "But, in Texas, it is not a democracy. Their governor (Bush) lost the popular vote; and then lost the electoral vote. And then was appointed by the Supreme Court. So, to Texans, this is not a democracy." Yup, that's why I went back to school to get my teaching degree, and why I am a conservative teacher- I really hope that I can catch these idiots in school before they are released into the wilds and teach them that socialist governments (like China or Soviet Union) are bad, and that Bush won the 2000 election according to the laws of our nation.

Hopefully, the more conservative we can make education, by changing curriculum and standards and textbooks and methods and teachers to conservative ones, the better educated our children will be, and there won't be Democrat voters out there who comment "I compare the Texas right wing to the Taliban."

Democrats = Stagflation

President Obama has appointed Janet Yellen, President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, as Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I'm really trying to not be critical of everything that Obama does, and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt- I mean, after all, a banker is a banker, right? It shouldn't matter which President of which bank he nominates, right?

But decisions have results, just like elections have results. When you or your friends or your family voted for Obama and other Democrats, they put in place the people who choose a banker such as Yellen. Here is what she recently said:

She is considered one of the most "dovish" members of the central bank's policymakers, meaning she is seen to lean toward policies that will boost growth and promote employment rather than those aimed at keeping inflation at bay. ...

A top-flight economist, she has warned of "undesirably low" inflation and the prospect of a prolonged, sluggish recovery for the U.S. economy.

"Even with my moderate growth forecast, the economy will be operating well below its potential for several years," Yellen said on February 22. "If it were possible to take interest rates into negative territory I would be voting for that."

Yes, she seriously would make interest rates negative if possible- that means that she would give out money that the government doesn't have for free and then pay people for holding that money. This is what passes for 'top-flight economists'? My little 5 year old can reason and think and understand economics better than that.

Decisions have results though, and in the real world, the results from a Fed that gives away money for free to anyone is inflation. The Democrats anti-business policies (increased taxes, regulations, bureaucracy, unpredictability, and verbal assaults on business) will lead to stagnation. The results of the elections of 2006 and 2008 are clear.

Inflation + stagnation = stagflation.

The NEA Should Support Republicans: The GOP is Better for Education

In Teachers Should Vote Republican I wrote that "Teachers need to wake up and vote the right way next election- vote Republican." The reasoning that I laid out there and elaborated on further in my post Oppose Race to the Top: Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose RTTT is that teachers need to start doing a simple cost-benefit analysis- they need to weigh the real results for education under Republican leadership vs the real results for education under Democratic leadership.

The NEA and the MEA should be supporters of the Republican Party, like me, because when you look at the results for education under Democrats vs the results under Republicans, things are almost always better for education when a Republican is in charge. The economy is better is better under Republicans, which means more tax money going to schools, which means higher pay and better employment for teachers. And perhaps surprisingly, whenever Democrats are in charge, labor unions are under assault even more so than when Republicans are in charge.

Today everyone in our school got the following message from another teacher-

"Colleagues, we as educators are facing attack from all sides. Check out this letter that was recently sent by me to Arne Duncan. Right now legislation is going to be introduced that will impact all of our futures as teachers. Our union needs your support to represent our interests effectively. Become informed and ask what you can do to support the efforts of our union."

The sad thing is that our union worked hard to put in place the very people who are attacking it the most. The legislation that he refers to will be introduced by Democrats who will try to put in place more provisions for the Race for the Top program. The letter that this person sent was to Arne Duncan, a Democrat appointed by a Democrat President and confirmed by a Democrat Senate, who supported the firing of every single teacher in a particular district.

My reply to this teacher, sent to the whole staff, was a sarcastic "Good thing we didn't vote Republican last election- imagine how bad things would be if Engler or Bush was in charge."

Engler was a past Republican Governor in Michigan who dramatically increased teachers salaries but was bitterly opposed by teachers, and Bush was hated by teachers even though he through billion at them through increased budgets for education nationally.

Now my inbox is being filled up with all sorts of emails, most of which missed the sarcasm and agree that if Republicans were in charge things would somehow be worse, even though the evidence is the contrary- when teachers work to support Republicans and get Republicans elected, when Republicans are running our country and states, things are better for education and things are better for the union. I hope one day the union and Democrat teachers will get this and start to vote the right way for education- vote Republican.

Obama Attacks Anglers, Fishermen, and Boaters

It seems that President Obama has appointed a group called the Ocean Policy Task Force. The original idea was to plan Federal policy related to ocean fishing- innocent enough. But because our rivers and streams are in a 'crisis', Obama ordered that within 90 days this OPTF come up with a comprehensive plan on how to gain control over and manage a whole range of new areas, including recreational fishing and boating.

The idea is that Obama will create a new Federal bureaucracy through decree that would attempt to coordinate and manage all existing state, regional and local planning agencies that deal with fishing, boating, cruise ships, marine wildlife refuges, marine mining, ports and harbors, hunting, and any "Other Recreation- e.g., boating, beach access, swimming, nature and whale watching, and diving" that may be on or near a river, lake, stream, or body of water.

Under the pretense of ‘protecting’ these areas, Obama has ordered that Task Force to develop zoning laws and regulations which will permanently close vast areas of fishing waters nationwide. The Task Force intends for this to be done December 9, 2009, after which the national government will close lakes, streams, rivers, and harbors to fishing, boating, hunting, or swimming, in order to 'protect' those habitats.

The federal government will take control of these areas regardless of the state, local, or regional laws that may affect them- this is intended to be a yet another power grab by the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress.

Dave Pfeiffer, President of Shimano American Corporation explained how the Obama Task Force worked:

"In spite of extensive submissions from the recreational fishing community to the Task Force in person and in writing, they failed to include any mention of the over one million jobs or the 6o million anglers which may be affected by the new policies coast to coast. Input from the environmental groups who want to put us off the water was adopted into the report verbatim – the key points we submitted as an industry were ignored.”

This is the Obama government and this is what happens when you elect Democrats- Task Forces are created by Presidential decree to take over areas of our lives and come up with rules and regulations, and business leaders are not invited to participate in these secret and closed processes but environmental wacko's are.

The original White House memo and (not surprisingly) the Task Force report also contains multiple references to the managing these lands in a manner “consistent with international law, including customary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was never ratified by the United States and even today there is no way that even liberal Democrats in the Senate would sign on to it, but apparently that isn't going to stop Obama from making the United States follow that treaty anyway.

Here comes the Fishing Czar!

For additional information and sources for this story, see the following two stories- Feds to 60 Million American Anglers: We don't need you or Federal takeover of our coastal fishing and marine resources?

Via Lucianne.

CBO's Latest Predictions on Obama Budgest- $9.8 trillion More in Debt Over Next Decade

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), President Obama's latest budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration, and doesn't take into account that recent CBO estimates of Obama's budget plans have been underestimated the deficits.

Barack Obama, a Democrat, in his first year of office (2009) submitted a budget to the Democrats who run America's Congress that added another eye-popping $1.75 trillion to the federal debt. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy - the largest since 1945. He is now prepared to follow that with more eye-popping deficit budgets that will add another minimum of $9.8 trillion to the debt, especially if Obama is a two-term President (8 years).

Under the president's budget, debt held by the public would grow from US$7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to US$20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020,” CBO said. This level has not been seen since World War Two, and is not sustainable.

Interest on the debt would become one of the largest spending categories in the federal budget, and would more than quadruple in the next 10 years, rising from US$209 billion this year to US$916 billion in 2020. This debt would increasingly be held by foreign investors, such as China, who currently hold $7.5 trillion in debt but at the end of Obama's two-terms would hold $20.3 trillion in American debt.

Obama has repeatedly said that he inherited a financial mess from his Republican predecessor President George W. Bush and had to step up government spending immediately after taking office to fight the worst U.S. recession in decades. He has indeed done so, dramatically increasing federal spending (CBO estimates that showed a record US$3.8 trillion in spending in fiscal 2011). He also says that he will fight these deficits that he is increasing by increasing taxes and fees, arguing that taxing more of the wealth from Americans will revive the economy and lead to higher government revenues and thus lower deficits.

Obama is wrong- raising taxes will lead to falling revenues, more government programs will stagnate growth, the federal government debt will be a toxic drag on the economy, increased government spending will create more inefficiencies in the marketplace, and his trade policies will lead to falling exports and rising costs of imports. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are wrong for America.

Information and data for this story came from this source.

Reynolds Consent of Governed- A Teacher's Perspective

In today's Washington Examiner Glenn Reynolds wrote in his article: Consent of the governed - and the lack thereof:

"Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This is boilerplate American history, and something that Americans -- and, in particular, America's political class -- have long taken for granted.

But now things are looking a bit dicey. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll , only 21 percent of American voters believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed. On the other hand, Rasmussen notes, a full 63 percent of the "political class" believe that the government enjoys the consent of the governed.

Even among the rulers, only 63 percent -- triple the fraction of the general populace but still less than two-thirds of the political class -- regard the federal government as legitimate by the standards of America's founding document. The remainder, presumably, are comfortable being tyrants.

These numbers should raise deep worries about the future of our republic. A nation whose government does not rest on the consent of the governed is a nation whose government holds sway only by inertia, or by force.

Reynolds theory for this is that bit by bit, American democracy has been watered down, much like the classic beer Schlitz was. This might be the case, but I propose an alternative theory- that bit by bit the next generation of American citizens have been brainwashed into accepting tyranny by their teachers.

In my post Students Accept Majority Tyranny I wrote:

Last week I was asked by a testing group out west to help grade some essays that students wrote. Thousands of students from the area took this test, which was designed to evaluate how well students understood how government worked in our society. These students all took either a semester or year-long course in government prior to taking this class, and all the students who took the test were either seniors or juniors in high school (17 or 18 years of age). I personally graded over a thousand of these essays over several days of work. In doing so, I was able to read first hand what the students in our classrooms thought and believed, and what I read chilled me.

According to most of the students (about 2/3rds), the advantage of being the majority party in Congress, like the Democrats are today, is that they can pass laws that favor themselves, they can vote to transfer money from the minority party's districts and supports to the majority party's districts and supporters, that being in the majority means they can pay themselves more money and the minority party less, that being in the majority means that they can tax anybody they want, and can do 'whatever they want.' The phrase 'the majority party can do whatever they want' was written on over half of the essays that were written.

The overwhelming thought that I left with was that students in our nation, the youth and future of our country, are totally okay and fine with majority tyranny. In their minds, there is nothing wrong with one party, just because it has more, putting in place laws and policies that favor their supporters over others. In my class, I pound majority rule with minority rights, and I talk about the problems of democracy and why we went with a republic, but most teachers, in fact almost all teachers, seem to be giving students the impression that minorities do not have rights and that our nation is a democracy.

Our next generation is being bred to accept tyranny- it is being taught that it is okay for a government to rule through force, as long as they are in the majority. How are they taught this? In Liberal Teachers To Students- Play God I detail a typical lesson plan for teachers:

A frequent activity that teachers have students engage in is to have students from social studies to elementary school to high school pretend that they are a government entity or official and give them control over the world to do anything that they want, without any consequences at all.

In Watching a Liberal Teacher Indoctrinate Youth I talk about my experience watching another teacher, and end with this:

To this teacher, and to thousands of teachers around the nation, their job is not to teach math, science, reading, writing, or history. Their job, as they believe it to be, is to indoctrinate the youth of our nation into accepting and fighting for tyranny. Their jobs are to teach students to disobey their parents and throw down man so that he can be raised up again as a new man, more progressive and communist.

Reynolds might think that the American brew of democracy is being watered down, but I think it is more that the drinkers of that brew are being taught to spit it out and instead do some shots from the hard liquor of tyranny by their drunk-on-liberalism teachers.

Michigan Fails to Win Any of the Race to the Top Slush Money

Last month I wrote about the reasons why conservatives should oppose Obama's education policy initiative Race to the Top. A lot of people dismiss my criticisms as typical union objections and cheer anything that appears to take power away from the unions, but I wanted to make sure that people knew that there are real reasons for conservatives to actually join with labor unions in opposing Obama's education initiative.

To sum up what I wrote about last month, conservatives should oppose RTTT because it centralizes power in the federal government, the program is a corrupt give-away of taxpayer money intended to bribe states to change laws, the initiative was pushed rapidly to cope with the 'crisis' in education, the initiative attacks teachers, the initiative just throws new money at problems in education without really improving anything, and that the initiative was flawed from the start.

But, Michigan decided to rush through changes in our education system, changes that send more power to Washington, in the hopes of winning some sort of one-time only prize distributed from the 'stimulus money' slush fund that Obama runs. Teachers didn't sign on to the changes or support them, but our clueless governor and inept legislature did. And the result is that Michigan put in place these changes for nothing.

From The Detroit News:

Recent school reforms failed to win Michigan a shot at millions in federal funding Thursday, and officials must wait a month to see if more changes are needed to increase its chances. The state was one of 25 applicants that missed out on a share of $4.35 billion in the first round of Race to the Top education funding.

"This decision is not just disappointing, it is shocking," said David Hecker, president of the American Federation of Teachers. Detroit Public Schools was counting on $80 million.

Michigan schools Superintendent Mike Flanagan said despite not making the cut in this first round of Race to the Top, the state will continue to implement the recently enacted education reform laws.

So, to sum up, Michigan's desperate ploy to grab a bit of stimulus money to use to jam through important changes in education by sending more control and power to Washington failed to win any money for our state... but sent more power and control to Washington and did who knows what else.

Obama Pushes Away Britain Over Falkland Islands

Sometimes we get so caught up in domestic policy- like debt, politics, healthcare, or education- that we miss major events that are occurring at the international level. So it probably slipped by some of you that last week that in foreign policy Obama took that opportunity to seriously damage our relations with one of our best ally's by announcing that we would remain neutral in the growing Falkland Island dispute.

From Victor Davis Hanson "No Allies -- But Plenty of Enemies":

Almost 30 years after losing a war over the Falkland Islands, Argentina is once again warning Britain that it still wants back what it calls the Malvinas. Argentina is now angry over a British company's oil exploration off the windswept islands in what it considers its own South Atlantic backyard.

Although nominally democratic, the unpopular Kirchner government in Buenos Aires has claimed that the sparsely settled islands are a symbolic matter of Spanish-speaking pride throughout Latin America - and is theirs because the islands once belonged to Spain in the 19th century.

In response to all this, the Obama administration announced that it would remain neutral. Aside from the fact that the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British, and our prior support for the Thatcher British government during the 1982 war, there are lots of reasons why our neutrality here is a bad idea.

Britain is a longstanding NATO member. It has bled side-by-side America in two world wars, Korea and two conflicts in Iraq, as well as presently in Afghanistan. And the United Kingdom still shares close linguistic, cultural and historical affinities with the United States.

We do not support all the British do; nor do they always support us. But our centuries-old friendship should earn Britain special support in its disputes, even in the relatively unimportant Falklands mess. If Britain is not considered an ally, then America no longer has real allies.

And perhaps that is the point, after all. The Obama administration does not wish to see the world so divided between allies and the rest. The president rather abruptly cancelled missile defense with the allied Czech Republic and Poland in order to woo the antagonistic Russians. Dictatorial Syria and the anti-Western Palestinians gain as much American outreach as does pro-American and democratic Israel. Obama seems more eager to mollify Venezuela's Hugo Chavez than to strengthen our alliance with a democratic and pro-American Uribe government in neighboring Colombia.

The list goes on. Meanwhile, Obama has symbolically tried to downsize the profile of the U.S. by downplaying the idea of an "exceptional" America, bowing to foreign leaders, and apologizing for supposed past American sins.

All that raises the question of what exactly are advantages these days of being a friend of the U.S., when neutrals and enemies garner as much of our sympathies?

We have seen such naive attitudes before in the West. After the horrific carnage of the First World War, utopians wrongly swore that rival European alliances had alone caused the war, and so created the League of Nations. Enlightened world citizens would do better legislating peace than prior nationalist politicians who crudely had once sought security through balancing power and forging alliances. Hitler and the far more lethal Second World War followed instead. After 1945, a much wiser United States talked grandly about the new United Nations, but, in reality, its own alliances kept much of Europe and Asia free from an aggressive Soviet Union.

Today there are many Falkland-like hot spots throughout the world. Yet the United States, not the International Court at The Hague, keeps North Korea from attacking our ally South Korea. The power of America, not the international community, persuades China not to squeeze our friend Taiwan. Europe is safe because of an American-led NATO - not due to any concern from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

In other words, America and its alliances keep friends safe. And the world is more peaceful and prosperous than at any time in history because dozens of nations count on our support and share our values.

So until human nature changes, there are always going to be some nations that are more aggressive than others, seeking to take what they can by force. Groups of like-minded others will resist them both for principle and their own self-protection. And the majority of "neutral" countries will keep quiet, waiting to see who proves the stronger - and then opportunistically joining the eventual winner.

An idealistic America may now decide that it does not want or need special allies like Britain. But that diffidence will eventually mean we have more enemies than ever - as the watching world makes the necessary adjustments and joins those who unabashedly promise them support and protection.

Dueling Memes: Building Codes vs Milton Friedman When Comparing Quakes in Chile and Haiti

In January, a 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti and over 230,000 people tragically died. In February, a 8.8 earthquake hit Chile and over 700 people tragically died. Even though the earthquake that hit Chile was nearly 500 times more powerful than the one that hit Haiti (Earthquake magnitudes are measured on a logarithmic scale), Chile's death toll was only a tiny fraction of Haiti's. Why the difference?

The liberals point to building codes, regulation, and strong government involvement in society are the reason for the difference in death and destruction between the two states. On liberal talk radio, callers and hosts praise the communists who ruled Chile in the 1960's and forced business to adopt strict building codes. They praise the government building inspectors who work hard enforcing these regulations. And they point to the strong and active government in Chile that took control of the situation and told people where to go when the quake struck.

The BBC says this to explain the difference:

People in Chile knew the safest places to go to when the earthquake struck. Chile has developed a seismic design code for new buildings, which has made them better able to stay standing in an earthquake.

Huffington Post, where Obama gets his news and views from, explains the difference this way:

Chile was better prepared, with strict building codes, robust emergency response and a long history of handling seismic catastrophes.

Treehugger.com explicitly advocates the liberal view when it says:

Builders cut corners all the time, and are interested in building at the lowest possible cost. They are perfectly happy to shift the burden to the owners and the insurance companies. And occupants don't know risk either, and happily live in old brick unreinforced structures in the middle of earthquake zones. Building codes, and their proper enforcement, are about the only thing protecting them.

Conservatives point to free market and conservative economic policies that brought Chile from being one of the poorest countries in South America in 1970 to being the richest country in South America by 2010. This wealth, generated by liberty and respect to property rights, led to buildings that were built soundly with good materials. The respect for liberty and freedom in Chile led to a respect for rule of law, which meant that building inspectors were not bought off and codes were indeed followed.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal puts it:

It's not by chance that Chileans were living in houses of brick—and Haitians in houses of straw—when the wolf arrived to try to blow them down. In 1973, the year the proto-Chavista government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Chile was an economic shambles. Inflation topped out at an annual rate of 1000%, foreign-currency reserves were totally depleted, and per capita GDP was roughly that of Peru and well below Argentina's.

In March 1975, Pinochet had a 45-minute meeting with Friedman and asked him to write a letter proposing some remedies. Friedman responded a month later with an eight-point proposal that largely mirrored the themes of the Chicago Boys- sharp reductions to government spending and the money supply; privatization of state-owned companies; the elimination of obstacles to free enterprise and foreign investment, and so on.

As for Chile, Pinochet appointed a succession of Chicago Boys to senior economic posts. By 1990, the year he ceded power, per capita GDP had risen by 40% (in 2005 dollars) even as Peru and Argentina stagnated. Pinochet's democratic successors—all of them nominally left-of-center—only deepened the liberalization drive. Result: Chileans have become South America's richest people. They have the continent's lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant-mortality rate, and the lowest number of people living below the poverty line.

Chile also has some of the world's strictest building codes. That makes sense for a country that straddles two massive tectonic plates. But having codes is one thing, enforcing them is another. The quality and consistency of enforcement is typically correlated to the wealth of nations. The poorer the country, the likelier people are to scrimp on rebar, or use poor quality concrete, or lie about compliance.

For all the talk about the morality of liberalism, look at the results of countries where liberal ideas are dominant- when government increases spending, when government takes on more debt, when government owns businesses or heavily regulates private businesses, where tariffs are increased and trade wars are elevated, where corruption and influence buying runs rampant, and when more government is the only solution for all of societies problems. Look at the results! You don't even need to look at other countries- look at what has happened to Michigan under Democrat control- or better yet, look at Detroit, where there are no Republicans to blame.

Conservative policies make the world a better place whenever they are tried. That's the difference between 700 dead and 230,000 dead- liberal policies.

UPDATE: Thank you for linking to this page Newmark's Door! Please look around my site and see what else interests you! And remember- the difference is liberal policies.

Breaking News: Killer Whale Linked to Tea Party

TNOYF News has just received this photo of the killer whale Tilikum at a tea-party rally. Here we see the the radical right wing mammal at a John Birch Society gathering, where he apparently engaged in anti-Obama hate rhetoric and then was encouraged to bite his trainer by NRA gun freaks. The evidence to support these claims is forthcoming by trained journalists at the MSM.

It's The End of the World, Don't You Know It

Simon Johnson from MIT’s Sloan School of Management and Peter Boone from the London School of Economics predict that the world is close to inflating its final economic bubble. After this bubble bursts, the world will plunge into a long and lasting depression that we haven't seen in many centuries. The end is near, they claim, because interest rates are near zero all around the world and cutting interest rates was our best weapon to fend off collapse.

According to them, the US financial system has tripled in size over the last three decades, and each time it has gotten into trouble, the Federal Reserve would jump in and slash interest rates down to revive it. The problem is that the crises appear to be getting worse and worse, their impact is increasingly global, and interest rates around the world has been slashed already to zero. The economy is not reviving, the debt is piling up, and many countries around the world are on final trajectories to economic collapse.

According to these economists, what brought us to this failure is that the state has corrupted the free market system. Banks and capitalist institutions have been protected from risk-taking and failure by the government through subsidies and bailouts, and the government regulators who were entrusted to protect the people from these risks and failures have not done so. This has led to these banking and financial institutions to make an utter mess of things, the government to bail them out, this encourages riskier behavior and rewards failure, interest rates are cut to revive things, debt is taken on, the the cycle restarts again, each time getting worse and worse.

The only hope is for governments to begin to live within their means (no more debt), for governments to quit playing games with the market, for the regulators to do a better job, and for some bankers to be punished with failure. But, this isn't likely to happen.

Last election the second biggest contributor to the Democratic Party was Wall street, and they know that they own Obama and the Democrats and that they won't let them fail. They own the regulators and won't ever face real regulation or opening up. The other big owner of the Democratic party is the labor unions, in particular the labor union for the government workers, and they won't let government live within its means or quit playing games with the market.

So, if this analysis is correct, there is a major bubble going to burst soon, and it'll be a big one. Our only hope is that Republicans, real Republicans, conservative and libertarian Republicans, win control of every single government institution and jam through brutal austerity measures. That kind of change may indeed give us some hope for the future.