The Coming Tax Assault I: 2011 Destroyed by Tax Increases on Everyone

2011, regardless of what happens in the 2010 elections, will be a bad year for America due to the avalanche of tax increases that will hit everyone, specifically dead people, married people, rich people, investors, poor people, those with kids, those who save, those who buy medications, and small businesses. New tax increases of varying amounts will be levied on these groups starting in 2011, and the result of these tax increases will be lower spending, lower saving, lower investment, lower business activity, and increasing hiding of taxable income by those that can, with the end result being falling revenues to the government and less economic activity. That will mean less jobs, less income, and a lower quality of life for you. The blame for this can be laid 100% on politicians, namely anyone who voted for Obamacare and anyone who refused to vote to make permanent the 2001 tax cuts, both of whom are almost all Democrats and who are all liberals.

There are so many new taxes and taxes that are going to come back from the dead that it is tough to know where to begin, so let's start at the end- on midnight of December 31, the death tax returns. If you die before than, there is no tax on your beneficiaries property simply because you died, but if you die in 2011, the government will swoop in after you die and take more of your already-taxed before property simply because you are dead. They will take 55% of the property of those who have left behind $1 million or more in savings and redistribute that property to favored political groups in society. Of course this is immoral and unethical, but that's what you get when you vote Democrat. If you are a small business owner or farmer, you may very well have an estate that is valued in excess of $1 million, especially if you have worked hard your whole life and been successful, and after you are dead government agents will come in and figure out how to destroy your life's work and break it up and redistribute it to those who didn't work hard and earn it. This will obviously hurt our economy.

The Bush tax cuts are also set to expire in 2011. These tax cuts are not just 'for the rich'- the lowest bracket for the personal income tax, or the tax cuts 'for the poor', will jump 50% from 10% today to to 15% under Obama and the Democrats. You read that correctly- Obama and the Democrats will have worked to raise taxes on the most poor in our society by 50%.

The next lowest income bracket, we'll call that 'taxes on the lower-middle class' or 'taxes on the working class', will be increased from 25% to 28%, and 'taxes on the upper-middle class' or 'taxes on the hard-working class' will be increased from 28% to 31%. Again, these tax increases will strike the middle class as well, meaning that more of your money that you work hard for every day will be taken to you and transferred to the government who will then transfer that money to various politically connected groups. You will have less money to spend on goods and services, which will mean lower demand for those products, which will mean someone will lose a job who provides or makes those, which will mean someone else on welfare sucking down tax money. Unemployment will raise, consumer demand will fall, and our society will be more poor because of these tax increases.

Oh, I guess 'the rich' also will be taxed at higher levels too, although once you become rich, you are able to hire good tax attorneys who figure out how to hide your wealth from the government anyways. And I imagine with a more confiscatory government swooping in to take more of your wealth just because you are more successful will encourage more people to seek to hide their income and assets behind politically-engineering loopholes and accounting tricks, leading to the tax increases 'on the rich' not taking as much of their wealth as liberals and Democrats hope. The details are that those currently in the 33% taxable income bracket will have their taxes increased to 36% and the 'taxes on the super-rich' will be increased from 35% to 39.6%. I predict that the results of these massive tax increases on the rich will not provide the revenue that the government hopes it can steal from these people, and so they will demand higher and higher taxes on 'the rich' out of envy and greed. This immoral theft will result in more money and effort spent in hiding assets from an unethical government rather than in doing anything good for society, less money at the top for goods and services resulting in less demand for products resulting in unemployment and a falling economy, considerably less 'play money' for the 'rich' to put in the bank where it can be used for mortgages or small business loans, or less 'play money' for the 'rich' to invest in the stock market leading leading to depreciating assets and less business investment.

Democrats, liberals, and anyone who votes for them, are bringing this falling economy on us in 2011 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and the death tax revive. But that isn't all- those who voted for Democrats in 2008 also share the blame for the massive amounts of taxes that come with the new Obamacare bill. That will be my next post.

Source: Investors Business Daily.

Catailine = Obama ?

The Roman Republic was the period of time when Rome was governed by a complex constitution, which centred on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances and established a republican form of government. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy in 509 BC and lasted 482 years until its subversion in 27 BC into an Imperial form of government. A very interesting phase though is the last two generations of the Roman Republic, when it was falling apart and collapsing, and it is to this phase that I direct my comments today.

Towards the end of the Roman Republic, there were several Roman civil wars. Part of the reason for these civil wars was the increasing disregard of the Roman constitution and the breakdowns in separation of powers and checks and balances, combined with increasing militarism, rising debt, rising welfare policies, and increasing centralization of control in the executive offices in the capital of Rome.

This civil war period began with the Social War (91–88 BC), continued with wars between various top politicians and generals who pretended to want to restore the republic (Sulla's first civil war (88–87 BC), Sertorius' revolt in Hispania (83–72 BC), and Sulla's second civil war (82–81 BC)), then had a phase where people stopped pretending it was a republic anymore (Lepidus' rebellion (77 BC) and the Catiline Conspiracy (63–62 BC)), and ended with a series of wars over who would be the new dictator (Caesar's civil war (49–45 BC), Post-Caesarian civil war (44 BC), Liberators' civil war (44–42 BC), Sicilian revolt (44–36 BC), Fulvia's civil war (41–40 BC), and the Final war of the Roman Republic (32–30 BC)). I'm most fascinated by the Catiline Conspiracy, because it was at that point that I think people knew that the Republic was dead.

Catailine was a Roman politician and general who attempted to overthrow the Republic in 63-62 BC. His desire to do so lay mostly in ambition for power, but he and his followers appear to have been driven by a sense that they were being denied power that was due to them (their comments have a vague sense of entitlement to them) and it also appears that he and his followers had accrued massive amounts of debt that they wanted to cancel or wipe away in the fall of the government. He had multiple plots and schemes going, involving slave revolts, raising of various armies, and a plot to assassinate Senators in Rome, but before those schemes could come to fruition, he was exposed, fought valiantly, killed, and the plot collapsed. But the damage had been done- people had seen that the republic was dead, that the rule of law didn't exist any more, and that the age of rule of men had started. Even though he was unsuccessful, he demonstrated the template that one could follow to dictatorship, and soon the Republic was dead.

Jonah Goldberg began a recent article When Did the Rules Change? with the line "When Rome was “falling,” did it feel like it?". His article is about how the rules of the game are changing, how liberalism is dying and how are nation will once again be a conservative nation of rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, etc. I'm not as hopeful though.

Increasingly, I feel like the damage has been done by the Obama and the Democrats, damage that is too great and too traumatic for America to overcome. I'm still hopeful that it can be done, but the damage that they have inflicted in so many ways both big and small will take a generation to repair, if that generation has the intelligence and willpower to do so.

Although Obama might only be a one-term President and although the Democrats might lose power, they'll be back, sooner rather than later. They have seen how easy it is to get anyone elected President, even someone with no intelligence and terrorist friends who may not even like America. They have seen how easily it is to fool people into giving them large majorities, where they then jam through massive complicated bills changing the very fabric of our nation without even reading them. They'll fight a ferocious and tough rear-guard action to keep these in place, and eventually voters will get stupid again and put them back in power. Although we may have dodged a dictatorship this time, it is my great fear that the damage is done, and that after a couple Republican Presidents (Romney's two terms and Palin's one) we'll put a Caesar in power and that will be the end of great American experiment in republic.

Why Iran Getting the Bomb is Bad: The End of International Law and Decency?

Many people know that Iran getting the Bomb is bad, but exactly how bad is it? For non-students of international relations, Walter Russell Mead conveys in simple terms what will happen if Iran acquires nuclear weapons in the next year or two:

If Iran gets the bomb, the world will change in ways that are deeply destructive of everything President Obama cares about. A world in which nuclear weapons are widespread isn’t just a world in which the collapse of the non-proliferation movement has brought discredit on the concept of international law and binding treaties on security issues. It won’t just be a world in which the bad guys have learned that the good guys will blink if you stand up to them. It won’t just be a world in which emboldened Iranian adventurism will work more rashly and unscrupulously than ever to destroy our alliances and friends in the Middle East.

That brave new world that appears when Iran gets its nukes is an ultra-Westphalian world, a world of sovereign nation states forever emancipated from the dream of true international law. Nuclear weapons give every state — and every dictator — the ability to veto troublesome interventions in their affairs by treaty-citing busybodies and international lawyers waving documents and babbling about binding accords. If you have your finger on the button, nobody can make you do anything you truly don’t want to do: this is state sovereignty on steroids, and it is the what Barack Obama will leave as a legacy if he doesn’t stop Iran’s nuclear march.

Mead is correct- once a nation acquires nuclear weapons, there is no more bossing it around at all. Many people think that is a good thing- both liberals and conservatives feel that the US should mind its own business. I used to think that way, but now I fully believe that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights, and that those rights include the right to live, the right to live in freedom free from tyranny, and the right to earn and keep property.

All men are this way, and thus I don't fret too much when the US gets involved in defending human rights concerns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. Iran will get nukes, its nuke scientists will help other nations get nukes, other nations will need nukes to defend themselves, and next thing you know, if the US tells a nation to quit butchering minorities or a particular religion, or to not kidnap or assassinate foreign nationals, or to not stone women or torture Jews, these nuclear armed nations will only laugh at the United States. The failure of the United States to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons will lead to a world that is less ordered, less law-abiding, and less able to be controlled by the Godly and righteous USA (and that's a bad thing- the US is a force of good in the world).

So, what is our great leader doing about Iran getting nukes? To be fair, George W Bush didn't do much about it- Democrats and liberals pounded the drum of 'negotiation' and 'no war' so often against his head that he wasn't going to do anything about it. So, that leaves it to Obama, and like most problems and issues that are left to Obama, he has decided to make them worse or vote present. Mead writes:

President Obama is probably hoping that luck or fate will spare him the horrible fate of presiding over the death of his dearest ideals and of being the American president who destroyed the credibility of the international system and let the nuclear genie loose in the most dangerous part of the world. Maybe sanctions will work; maybe the Iranians will change their minds. Maybe new technical problems will crop up and slow the Iranians down enough so that he can pass the problem on to his successor — as, indeed, his predecessors handed it down to him.

That doesn't make me feel any better for all those poor people who are soon to live in increasingly brutal tyranny- the one person who has the motive, means, and opportunity to stop this terrible fate is hoping luck or fate lets him push the problem on someone else's lap. But, elections have consequences, and everyone who sat home or voted something other than Republican on the ballots the last couple years had a part to play in this horrible comedy.

Perceptions of Reality Different between US and Imperial Palaces in DC

Last year, as my wife, five kids, and I were all wandering around Washington DC, I though the following (from Deep Thoughts on DC Trip- LaHood, Palaces, Rainbows, Washington, and Lincoln):

Washington DC is booming. I think it is one of the few states in the nation to actually have increasingly employment, job growth, and GDP growth. There are signs everywhere of prosperity and building- roads are being repaired, monuments are being revamped, buildings are adding on, and fresh paint and plaster is in abundance. On a guidebook of DC I read that our capitol was designed to look like the capitols of the Emperors and despots of Europe, but it was okay because we lived in a free nation that celebrated liberty and property. Well, as our country becomes more despotic and tyrannical, it is going to look increasingly like those capitols of the old days, when the Emperor took money from the countryside to build himself new statues and bigger palaces.

A new POLITICO poll proves that while the countryside is being plundered, the Democratic lords and Emperor Obama are living in a different world based on luxury, hope, and change. In Washington, Obama is far more popular than he is in the rest of the country, while Palin, the former Alaska governor, is considerably less popular in DC than in the rest of the country. To the vast majority of D.C. elites, the tea party movement is a fad, but for the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is a revolutionary phenomonum.

From the Politico story on the poll:

According to the poll, roughly 45 percent of “Washington elites” said the country and the economy are headed in the right direction, while roughly 25 percent of the general population said they felt that way. Seventy-four percent of those 'Washington elites' surveyed said the economic downturn has hurt them less than most Americans.

Sixty-five percent of the general population views Social Security as “very important,” compared with only 41 percent of Washington elites. The same goes for immigration — 53 percent of the general public says it’s very important, compared with 36 percent of Washington elites — and family values — 62 percent versus 23 percent, respectively.

Taxes are another issue where Washington does not appear to have its finger on the pulse of the country. Fifty-three percent of the general public ranked taxes as a “very important” issue, while 37 percent of elites said the same.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is viewed favorably by 45 percent of Washington elites but by only 23 percent of the rest of the country. When asked which party they would vote for if November’s midterm election were held today, the general population is split among Democrats and Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent. Washington elites however, chose Democrats by 53 percent to 26 percent for Republicans.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Washington DC, the home of the imperial palaces of our rulers, is living large on taxpayers money and enjoying doing so. Therefore it isn't surprising that the lords and ladies that inhabit our nation's capital-of-consumption have different views than the rest of the reality-based Americans out of DC.

Recommendations for Michigan's Primary Election in 2010

Many people are asking me 'who are you voting for'. They know that I am a solid conservative, they know that I read and research all of the candidates, and they know that I teach government for a living so I know my stuff, so they feel I can offer advice to them on who to vote for. Every person's vote is their own, and I've always been a little shy about trying to tell people who to vote for, but because there is a demand for my opinions on the subject, I will suggest some options for voting in the coming primary election here in Michigan.

For Governor of Michigan, the options for the Republicans are Pete Hoekstra, Rick Snyder, Mike Bouchard, Mike Cox, and Tom George. I recommend that you vote for Pete Hoekstra. Tom George is not Governor material. Mike Bouchard is a #2. Rich Snyder I've written about several times (Analyzing Rick Snyder's 10 Point Plan, Exclusive: Rick Synder Blackmailed Young Supporters for Votes in Straw Poll on Mackinac Island, Rick Snyder- Do Not Support). That leaves it down to two serious candidates- Cox and Hoekstra. Both are solid conservatives in my opinion. Cox has shown that he knows how to lead and has solid executive experience, but is slimy and personally treated me badly. Hoekstra on the other hand has a good record in Congress and people speak well about him. So I'm going with Hoekstra, although I really like Cox too. For more in-depth discussion on these candidates, see theblogprof's I endorse Mike Cox for MI Governor, and here's why.

For Governor of Michigan, the options for the Democrats are Andy Dillon and Virg Bernero. I recommend that you vote for Andy Dillon. Although I worked for Dillon's recall several years ago due to his role in pushing for the largest increase ever in Michigan's history, since then he has obviously learned his lesson, and has been much more moderate. He has tried to pass legislation that every side likes and be a leader. If you vote for Dillon, expect a slightly better version of Granholm. Virg Bernero is a communist with a streak of Stalinism in him. I heard him interviewed on the radio, and he sounded proud to be a thuggish communist. Putting him in the Governor's office would be an unmitigated disaster for Michigan and would destroy hope for ever emerging from the molasses of Granholm's administration. I know the unions are backing him and funneling money into his coffers, but that's a joke too- it's sad when the MEA backs a guy who sent his kids to private schools over people who sent their kids to public schools (like Mike Cox).

For Representative in Congress from Michigan's 9th District the options are Rocky Racqkowski, Paul Welday, Anna Janek, and Richard Kuhn. I recommend that you vote for Rocky Racqkowski. Our district needs a solid leader who will fight for what our district wants (not a bought-off partisan hack like Gary Peters). Anna Janek is unprepared and Richard Kuhn lacks the energy the office might require. Paul Welday is a serious challenger, but his years in Washington appear to have tainted him a bit- he's a lobbyist and policy advisor who wants to now be the boss. Rocky is a veteran, business leader, was a leader in Michigan's Congress, and will be a great leader for our district. See my post on this race 9th Congressional District Republican Primary Debate for more analysis.

For State Senator of the 26th District of Michigan the options are Tim Terpening, Fran Amos, Michael Matheny, and David Robertson. I recommend that you vote for. I recommend that you vote for David Robertson. I've never heard of Tim Terpening and Michael Matheny before, although I see they are decent people. Fran Amos was a good Representative, but has a limited base and rubs a lot of people the wrong way. The 26th District is a pretty Democrat district, and we need someone who can win in those areas. David Robertson has shown that he can win in those areas, and is a solid Tea Party guy too.

For Judge of the Probate Court in Oakland County Michigan the options are Kathleen Ryan, Jamie Marie Verdi, J. Martin Brennan, Dana Margaret Hathaway, and Barbara B. Murphy. To be honest, I don't know much about these candidates, so I would direct you to look at the League of Women Voters Voting Guide Questionnaire that each filled out, and also take a look at OpenSecrets.org. I recommend that you vote for Marie Verdi though, because Kathleen Ryan donated money to Debbie Stabmenow (D), J. Martin Brennan has donated thousands to Democrats over the years, and Barbara Murphy has also donated thousands to Democrats over the years, and Verdi's answers on the questionnaire were decent.

For anyone who is curious, I am not on the ballot this year.

To any candidate who reads my blog, and I know there are a few of you out there, I want to pass on the following message- I've talked to you personally or attempted to do so several times, and so I gave you all a chance to earn my vote. Some of you blew me off, some of you offended me, and some of you insulted me, all without knowing the power of my pen, so I hope that because you treated me (a voter) that way, you suffer. Thus my wrath is great and probably powerless.

Thoughts on the Book of Samuel

Via Big Hollywood, I read this random thought from Victoria Jackson in her post Sunbathing Naked (Day One):

….I was reading in 1 Samuel 8 how Israel wanted a king and God did not want them to have a human king. God was the King of Israel. He gave them The Ten Commandments and other super smart laws, like not eating pork (it was not sanitary) and getting circumcised (prevention of disease), and ”an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” (crime prevention). God wanted people to obey Him because He is the smartest leader and loves us the most. But, Israel wanted a king really, really bad. A human King. God relented.

King Saul was elected. And it was bad for everyone.

This reminds me of America. When God was the King of America we were blessed. Our founding fathers built our country on the Judeo-Christian foundation of The Ten Commandments and the presence of no human King. The colonists were escaping the human king of England, seeking religious freedom and they set up our Government purposefully to prevent the corruption of power; thus, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of Government – all balancing out one another. No one man in charge. No human king. King God was engraved onto our money, put in our pledge, and carved into our buildings in Washington, D.C.  But, as time went on, just like Israel, we gradually started to take His blessings for granted, and abandon His laws. We kicked God out of the courts, the public school system, our families, and our personal lives. So, now we had no King. And we wanted a king really, really bad. A human king. God relented.

King Obama was elected. And it was bad for everyone...

As many people do, every Sunday we read the Bible together as a family at bedtime, and right now I'm also making my way through the Book of Samuel. To me, the strongest passages in Samuel was Chapter 12, when Samuel recounts for the people of Israel all that God has done for them- he lists all the amazing things that the Lord did for his people. That is powerful, and evidence of the real power of the Lord. Having a King rule over you and attacking your enemies and saying nice stuff like 'change' and 'hope' is nothing, and I'm always surprised when people want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Things were good when you follow the Lord, and abide by his laws, which I believe include the laws of natural law and the laws of the free market. God gave us life, liberty, and the ability to pursue and keep property, and the closer we stick to those beliefs, the more we will prosper. We should have been happy enough with the way America was going, but instead, like the people of Israel, we weren't happy enough with that and demanded a King to rule over us to decree hope and change, and the result is bad for us.

Is My Children's Future Being Ruined by Democrats?

The election of Democrats to Congress in 2006 and Obama to President in 2008 has caused the federal budget deficit to explode. While George Bush and the Republicans ran deficits too (about $400 billion a year), those deficits grew steadily in 2007 and 2008, and exploded to record highs in 2008, set new records in 2009, and according to the White House, will set records again this year and next.

Democrats are spent a record $1.4 trillion last year, and will spend more than $1.4 trillion that they don't have this year, and plan on spending another $1.4 trillion that they don't have next year. This reckless and immoral spending of money that they don't have to provide goods and services to people today is an attack on the futures of my children and grandchildren.

The spending of today will mean that my children will have to massive amounts of interest to pay back so that hippies and baby-boomers don't have to cut back when they lose their jobs. My children are going to be holding depreciating dollars because their parents didn't pay for health care insurance but now are old and want it for free. My grandchildren are going to be faced with security challenges when bossed around by the other nations that lent their grandparents money so that they could have nice smooth roads and shiny schools and fancy monuments.

My children's future is being ruined by Democrats and their irresponsible spending habits right now in Congress. Any member of Congress who has voted for these large spending bills deserves to be thrown out of Congress. Times are tough right now, yes, but it is immoral and wrong to borrow money from your children and grandchildren to provide goods and services today, especially when you have no intention of ever paying it back.

The election of Obama and the Democrats was indeed historic- it has destroyed the future and hope of our nation.

PS: Don't be a sucker either- these numbers will be revised again when tax receipts continue to fall due to continued Democratic legislation, and once the 2011 tax increases go in, expect a crashing economy to create ever more debt. My children are going to owe something closer to $2 trillion for 2011 and 2012, meaning that my grand kids someday are going to have to pay back the $7 trillion Barack Obama experiment in hope and change.

Dad Life Rap Video

This video protrays exactly what it is like to be a dad today:

US Losing Geopolitical Wars Too

Sometimes a foreign perspective provides fresh insight into the situation at hand. Andrew Osborn of the Telegraph echo's some of my thoughts (see my post Obama's Failures in Foreign Policy) in his article Hillary Clinton talks tough with the Kremlin, but Russia has won the geopolitical war:

(US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) could only offer two pieces of advice to ordinary Georgians on how they could get the rest of their country back. Do not react to Russian provocations and grow your own democracy and economy so that people living in the two breakaway regions will one day want to reunite. It was sound advice but it was also a tacit admission that Russia had won the geopolitical as well as the hot war, that the territory is perhaps irreparably lost, and that there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

So, to review, in the waning months of the Bush Presidency, Russia takes advantage of the US preoccupation with the election to invade a key US ally, Georgia. After driving the Georgia army back, Russia's army then withdraws back to two key provinces in Georgia and proclaims them 'independent.' It is understandable that the US was able to do little directly to force the Russian troops to withdraw and to cease with the charade of the 'independent provinces', but it is not understandable that the US was not able to make this look bad and make other nations around the world condemn Russia for invading another nation, breaking it up, and then occupying parts of the pieces of a former nation.

Bloggers and journalists write considerable amounts about Obama's failures in domestic policy, but don't forget that under Obama, not only can other states invade and destroy our allies, but they can do so without feeling or looking bad about it. With Democratic President Obama in charge, our nation will lose the hot wars, the geopolitical wars, and everything in between, and that is not going to increase the security and well-being of us or our allies.

Too Many Scandals to Count: TheBlogProf Covers Them All

Usually I don't post round-ups, but I'm falling behind trying to keep up with all these scandals that going down right now. Oh, I know it doesn't compare to the Bush era (although I can't remember exactly what the horrible scandals were during his time period, I know the media was hysterically yelling about it every day), there are a stunning amount of real scandals going down. I'm going to point you towards TheBlogProf's website for a review of all of these since it does a much better job than I am doing of keeping up with them all.

Typical: Obama's ambush on Pete Hoekstra in Michigan was coordinated with the media:
Obama ambushed Hoekstra with a classless joke- I covered it here- but it turns out that the White House had clued the media in on the ambush and everyone in the media knew that the White House was going to ambush Hoekstra and was just waiting to see his reaction when it did. Classless collusion.

Gallup: Congress Ranks Dead Last in Confidence in Institutions, Lowest Rating For Congress In Recorded History:
Latest Gallup poll shows a marked decrease in confidence in Congress ever since the Democrats took control of it in 2006- it looks like only 11% of people trust it to make decisions- and yet it is making more and more decisions of bigger and bigger impact. That's not right.

Breaking: Charles Rangel charged with ethics violations
Culture of corruption, thy name is and always has been Democrat.

When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists colluded on best line of attack, called themselves Obama’s “non-official campaign”:
The growing JournoList scandal reveals that journalists colluded to attack Palin, the media then did attack Palin, and so the vast left-wing media conspiracy myth may in fact have truth to it.

Great News: Race was factor in which GM,Chrysler dealerships Obama forced to close:
The election of Obama did not lead to a post-racial era- it did the opposite in yet another example of Bizarro world's sense of humor. Turns out that that President was using racial criteria to determine which private businesses his goons would shut down. Tyranny?

Government Attacks Showerhead Makers with Fines and Regulations

Via Powerlineblog I discover this Wall Street Journal Story A Water Fight Over Luxury Showers:

(Government) regulators are going after some of the luxury shower fixtures that took off in the housing boom. In May, the DOE stunned the plumbing-products industry when it said it would adopt a strict definition of the term "showerhead" in enforcing standards that have been on the books—but largely unenforced—for nearly 20 years.

The showdown is a challenge to President Barack Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, as they try to cajole—or compel—Americans to use water and energy more efficiently. Mr. Chu, a self-described "zealot" for energy efficiency, says he crawls around in his attic in his spare time installing extra insulation.

A 1992 federal law says a showerhead can deliver no more than 2.5 gallons per minute at a flowing water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch. For years, the term "showerhead" in federal regulations was understood by many manufacturers to mean a device that directs water onto a bather. Each nozzle in a shower was considered separate and in compliance if it delivered no more than the 2.5-gallon maximum. But in May, the DOE said a "showerhead" may incorporate "one or more sprays, nozzles or openings." Under the new interpretation, all nozzles would count as a single showerhead and be deemed noncompliant if, taken together, they exceed the 2.5 gallons-a-minute maximum.

In May, the DOE's general counsel, Scott Blake Harris, fined four showerhead makers $165,104 in civil penalties, alleging they failed to demonstrate compliance for some devices.

I particularly enjoyed how the government changed the rules, didn't inform anyone (or didn't give manufactures the years it would take to comply with the new rules), and then fined them. Those are the actions of a tyrannical government that is disconnected from law and human decency, a government that should be opposed and fought.

To summarize, in the name of 'environmentalism' (which is a religion based around a false god that demands sacrifices of energy and luxuries), the government uses a law passed by the Democrats (who controlled Congress in 1992) based on a tortured view of the commerce clause to control the kinds of showerheads that manufactures can build, with the intent on driving these manufactures out of business and stopping Americans from buying the kind of showerheads that they want.

Life less enjoyable, liberty and freedom violated (both the manufactures and the consumers), and pursuit of property denied.

Unknown Government Agency Shuts Down 70K Blogs for Unknown Reason

Via Doug Ross, on Moonbattery today I discovered that Blogetery.com, a little-known WordPress platform used by more than 70,000 blogs, was shut down by its Web hosting company more than a week ago and nobody seems willing to say why or who is responsible. Apparently some sort of law enforcement agency, which no one seems willing to disclose, shut down the blogs for unknown reasons. Usually a move like this would be because of copyright violations, but the operator of blogetery says that he didn't allow copyright violations and also usually there is some warning for moves like this. That makes it a suspicious and curious move.

Apparently the shutdown was inflicted without a court order. This doesn't shock me- increasingly our society is falling into tyranny where the rule of law does not matter as much as the rule of men. As a blog that fights this slide and works to return man to his life, liberty, and property rights, I can expect that someday some unknown government agency will likely shut me down. I can only hope that before they do that I've planted again the seeds of liberty and freedom that will grow up another tree of liberty.

Econophysics first step towards Psychohistory?

Via Dissecting Leftism I came across this article called 'Econophysics' points way to fair salaries in free market':

A Purdue University researcher has used "econophysics" to show that under ideal circumstances free markets promote fair salaries for workers and do not support CEO compensation practices common today.

"It is generally believed that the free market cares only about efficiency and not fairness. However, my theory shows that even though companies focus primarily on making profits and individuals are only looking out for themselves, the collective self-organizing free market dynamics, under ideal conditions, leads to fairness as an emergent property," said Venkat Venkatasubramanian, a professor of chemical engineering. "In reality, the self-correcting free market mechanisms have broken down for CEOs and other top executives in the market, but they seem to be working fine for the remaining 95 percent of employees."

In the new work, the researcher has determined that fairness is integral to a normally functioning free market economy. Findings are detailed in a research paper that appeared in June in the online journal Entropy and is available at http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/6/1514/

This is pretty interesting, and provides hope that our society will finally begin making progress on psychohistory. Pshychohistory, invented by science fiction author Isaac Asimov and a key point to The Foundation Series, is a concept of mathematical sociology analogous to mathematical physics that uses the law of mass action so that it can predict the future, but only on a large scale; it is error-prone on a small scale. It works on the principle that the behaviour of a mass of people is predictable if the quantity of this mass is very large (equal to the population of the galaxy, which has a population of quadrillions of humans, inhabiting millions of star systems). The larger the number, the more predictable is the future. Using pshychohistory, you can predict the future.

This scientist who is working on econophysics could be an early Hari Seldon.

UPDATE: To elaborate on my thoughts on the fictional theory of pshychohistory, I do think there is a plan out there- God's plan- and I do think that some of God's plan is revealed to us through the Bible and his unseen hand (the free market). I think that the field of economics is probably the closest to guessing at some of it, and thus I find it kind of cool whenever anyone works on this.

Too many people are focusing on the 'fairness for CEO's' aspect of this guy's equation, but the more important point is that the free market is working. Probably the failures with fairness with CEO compensation are the result of government policies.

Recommended Read: Codevilla's 'America's Ruling Class'

If you haven't gotten a chance yet to read the essay America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution that was recently in the American Spectator, you should do so. It is long (took me about 5-10 minutes to read through it), but very well done. What I do like about the essay is that it lays out quite clearly the two classes that are evolving in our nation- what Codevilla calls the 'ruling class' and the 'country class.' Codevilla echo's what I tell my students every year- it is getting increasingly important to understand how the ruling class in our society works and how they use government to maintain their ruling status, because our society is increasingly about what the government does and less so about what you do. Oh, I also enjoyed how Codevilla explained how we have gotten to this state.  What I didn't like about the essay is the end of it- although Codevilla identifies the problem and describes it exactly, he does not lay out a remedy for the problem. He writes about how some time in the future a third party should be created, but as I have written about before, that's not a realistic option (see my posts US Has Two Party System- Deal With It and Vote Republican and Libertarians Screwed Themselves Again by Not-Voting or Voting Libertarian).

Please take some time though to read the full essay- it is one of the most inspiring and inspired pieces of commentary that I have read in some time.

UPDATE: I've already picked up on some of this when I noticed that the The New Counter Culture in today's youth is Liberty:

So what then is the new counter culture? It is those people who love liberty and freedom- the new counter-culture are those people who have been raised on the soaring rhetoric of the Bible and the Declaration of Independence- the new rebels are the old rebels once again, those who fight against tyranny and oppression again.

Reflections from High School World History Students

As many of you know, in addition to teaching AP Government, Military History, and US History, I also teach World History (yeah, I know- 4 preps!). At the end of each year that I have taught World History, I have my students do a capstone project or final project that requires students to integrate, interpret, analyze, synthesize, and link together different ideas, concepts, people, and events from world history.

It's not a complicated project. First, I take all the important words from our course, including people, places, events, concepts, and terms, and put them on a list and then randomly sort them. Then I break the list up into 10 separate groups. Students are to pick one word from each group. Then they are to create a timeline that demonstrates the relationship of the words through time. Then they are to write a paper linking together all of the words into a coherent and comprehensive essay that hopefully displays some sort of big understanding of history, religion, science, government, economics, social structures, etc. The theme drives which words are chosen and that in turn drives the timeline and essay.

Reading through the essays written by my regular World History High School students, I was struck by the wisdom that even high school students sometimes can exhibit.

One student wrote about an interesting pattern that she saw after looking back on world history- she wrote about the long history of anti-Semitism that stretched from burning Jews in the Middle Ages to the Holocaust to events of today (for this example, she used the biased coverage of the Gaza boat controversy). Another high school student wrote that one pattern he saw was the continuing struggle of freedom vs tyranny, even in countries that seemed to have had it figured out- he pointed out that at various times in history freedom has seemed to have won, but then later tyranny rose up and overwhelmed freedom (examples used were Greece, Rome, Germany in 1920, Japan in 1910, and the USA today), demonstrating how fragile and fleeting freedom really is.  Another student pointed out how it has been such a long struggle for women's rights in our world, and documented all the progress that we have made, but ended her paper by concluding that our society still doesn't treat women equally (as an example she used the Sarah Palin Boobgate controversy). Another one of my high school students pointed out that history is always seems to be more of the same- that although there are the occasional true revolutionaries (Locke, Socrates, Newton, Einstein, Da Vinci were the examples used) that turn things on their head and advance ideas that are brand-new, most of history has been filled with more of the same- people promoting old theories as new or recycling bad ideas all over again (Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Napoleon, and Obama were all used as examples).

People lose hope in our next generation, feeling that the years of public schooling and liberal indoctrination that goes on in those facilities has created a group of people who are somehow less than future generations. But they are wrong- students today, just like students in the past, are as smart, hard-working, intuitive, and creative as previous generations, as long as the previous generations get out of the way and let them be all that they can be. Have hope- after a year of going through World History, you can clearly see that students recognize the big themes that are out there, and I'd be more than happy to have them as voters someday, provided they are not crushed, demoralized, and further indoctrinated by those previous generations.

9th Congressional District Republican Primary Debate

North Oakland Republican Club and Let Freedom Reign hosted a debate for the Republican candidates for the 9th Congressional District. The candidates are Rocky Raczkowski, Richard Kuhn, Paul Welday, and Anna Janek. The winner of the primary will move on to face Gary Peters in the general election. This is an important election- Gary Peters needs to go (for more details, see my posts Gary Peters Scores a 90% On the Pelsoi Index- A Vote by Vote Analysis of Peters Liberal Record in Congress, or Oppose Gary Peters, or Peters Hasn't Done Any Independent Thinking- Congressman Gary Peters Votes 96% of Time with Liberal Democrats).

The debate was well-attended- the Oakland County Commissioners Auditorium was filled with about 250 people (including Peter's hired thug Paul Spurgeon). Jim 'J.J.' Johnson moderated the debate. Candidates began with a prepared statement and then answered a series of questions and ended with a concluding statement. The following are my impressions of each candidate, based on my best recollections, as well as further commentary by me.

Richard Kuhn is a judge who worked in the House- from 1943-1946. That should give you some indication as to his age. He was is a Reagan conservative, and has a solid judicial record of conservative decisions. He wants to cut spending and put in place a balanced budget, is strong on the 2nd amendment, wants to win the wars overseas, and thinks Gary Peters needs to go. He is a good judge, but may lack the energy and political savvy necessary to deal with being a Congressman.

Anna Janek grew up in Czechoslovakia, and was motivated to run for Congress because she sees our nation going down the same path to communism that she fled from years ago. She is a strong economic conservative who wants to abolish the federal reserve and get the government out of healthcare, and also was non-interventionist and wants the US to pull its military out of nations abroad. She is a Ron Paul supporter, and shares some of his conspiracy theories about international bankers running the world and cars that run on water, and wasn't familiar with many of the hot-button issues of the day.

Paul Welday is a politician whose biggest accomplishment appears to have been one of the chief legislative aides to ex-Congressman Knollenberg, who Peters soundly defeated. Welday feels that his 10 years working in Washington and with Washington elites gives him the ability to be a good Congressman for the 9th. I feel that being part of a moderate GOPer who spent big bucks and had a lot of bad votes isn't a positive this election, and perhaps he shouldn't run on that alone. Welday approaches everything as a politician should- when asked about Obamacare or Cap-and-Trade, he feels those are bad pieces of legislation that were poorly crafted. When asked how he would fight Democrats, he says he knows procedural gimmicks to combat them. He is a conservative, but I think that he is a conservative more so because it is popular rather than because he feels it in his gut. Welday throws out a lot of hot-button words, and obviously listens to Rush and Sean and reads the blogs and papers, because he uses a lot of the same lines and reasoning on issues. I got the feeling sometimes that he is approaching this as a big game of political power- not that it isn't, but it is more than that too. For example, when asked what Welday would do with social security, he repeated over and over that he would make the tough decisions if he got elected, but never once said anything tough that he would do. He wants to be the kind of candidate that others want him to be, and that's okay- it's just that there is another candidate who is the kind of candidate that others want. Lastly, Welday interrupted the moderator and others several times, and was the only candidate who launched negative attacks on the others, and I didn't like that.

Rocky Raczkowski is a former legislator (House Majority Leader) and military veteran (enlisted at age 17, recently called to duty as Major in Army Reserves). During his opening statement, he went out into the crowd and told them that he wanted to represent them- that he wanted to listen to them and serve them in Congress. He mentioned the Constitution quicker than any candidate, and came back often to it. He is a solid conservative on a range of issues- pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, lower taxes, control spending, balance budget, repeal Obamacare, stop Cap-and-Tax, against regulation, against taxes, etc.- and wants to expand nuclear power in the US and approaches the War on Terror from a warrior perspective (he quoted Sun Tzu!). Although Welday knew his stuff, Rocky quoted Animal Farm, the Heritage Foundation, the New York Times, and other sources, demonstrating his much larger range of knowledge. To me, he approaches things a true conservative should- he doesn't oppose Obamacare because it is a bad bill, he opposes it because it is against life, liberty, and property (my words). His parents were immigrants, and they obviously raised him on the old-school myths of our founding fathers, on being proud to be an American, on believing in the old-fashioned American dream, and on doing your duty, and now he has dropped everything to go all-in to defeat Gary Peters. Watching him speak, I saw our next Congressman from Michigan's 9th.

These are my thoughts and impressions, for what they are worth.

Republican Congressman Visits White House and Insults Democrat President in Front of Friends

Opps, that headline is wrong- it was a small-minded and petty Democratic President named Barack Obama who went into the home district of Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra and made a bunch of snide underhanded comments directed at him.

What exactly was President Obama doing in Holland, Michigan, on a business day in the middle of the week? He was dropping a million dollars at yet another ribbon-cutting ceremony trying to convince people that the numbers which show that he has destroyed millions of jobs aren't the real story- the real story is that he dropped $151.4 million to create 300 jobs. That amounts to $504,667 per promised future job.

Our President, in the footsteps of greats such as Carter, Hoover, and Pierce, took time out of his day to travel from Washington DC in a private jet burning gallons of jet fuel to deliver a speech in Hoekstra's district calling him out. "I know there are some who want to go back -- who think we should return to the policies that actually led to the recession," Obama said to a crowd of 400 bored guests. "And some of them have made the political calculation that it's better to obstruct than lend a hand. They said no to the tax cuts, to the small business loans, to the clean energy projects. Of course, it hasn't stopped many of these same people from turning up at ribbon-cuttings, but that's OK."

Ha ha ha... that's so clever, you joker... Hoekstra voted against dropping billions on 300 jobs building batteries for cars that an average American can't afford, and he turned up at the ribbon-cutting facility... what a funny guy... Obama himself shows up for every ribbon-cutting that he gave away billions of dollars for, because that's sweet, to be giving away massive amounts of taxpayers money to friends while adoring crowds clap for your little speeches.

Obama is a joker. Laugh at him.

Iowa Tea Party Billboard Comparing Obama to Hitler and Marx

Have you all seen this billboard that was put up by a tea party group in Iowa? The billboard was making two points- first, that radical leaders prey on the fearful and naive, and the second, that national socialism (German fascism), Marxist socialism (Leninism), and liberal socialism (liberal fascism) are all similar. Those are very bold points to make, and the billboard was accompanied by images that were bold- images that compared Obama to Hitler and Marx.

Of course, controversy erupted, and the billboard was removed. The Democrats were upset that Obama was compared to Hitler, because Hitler killed all the Jews. Democrats were not upset that Obama was compared to Marx, or that Obama was compared to Hitler in other ways- nope, it was just the Jewish issue that bothered Democrats. Even that is interesting- just how friendly is Obama to Jews and if he were given total power (ie, not blocked by conservatives and Republicans) what might he do to the Jews? I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, I'm just saying this- the poster makes good points, and it is a shame that it was pulled down, because it is provoking and the not that far from the truth.

Let's examine the main point- is Obama and his vision of government a version of socialism or fascism?

In Fascism Healthcare, I wrote:

Under fascism, the government does not overtly take over an industry ("seizing the means of production," in Marxist terms). Rather it leaves ostensibly private institutions in place, at least for the time being, and then subjects those "private" institutions to top-down regulation that turns them into agents of state power. No meaningful competition will be permitted. The federal government runs the system, but will do so behind a facade of private enterprise.

In The Third Way: Obama and Fascism I wrote:

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.

In State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism, Syndicalism, Corporatism... Obamaism I wrote:

...the Obama administration is putting place a version of fascism that you can nicely called Crony Capitalism or State Capitalism, whereby the government subverts the free market for the good of the 'state' and makes alliances with Big Business to crush smaller companies through regulation and taxation.

In Wikipedia Description of Fascist Sounds Like Someone I Know I wrote:

...the overall description of fascism is curiously close to Obama policies. I loosely quote "Fascism is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and seeks to solve such problems by achieving a historic national rebirth, many times by promoting cultish ideas of unity and purity." Other elements of fascism include national socialism, national syndicalism, or economic nationalism (check), class collaboration, economic planning, mixed economy, and third position (check), dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism (check again), and militarism (Obama is awfully warlike towards everything but Iraq). Apparently fascism also promotes political violence against opponents (check), welfare (check), is fiercely anti-religion (check), and promotes cults of personality (check).

So, is the billboard 100% wrong, or are there are a lot of similarities between Obama, Hitler, and Marx? I think the evidence is clear on this.

Democrats Healthcare Plan Sets Aside Taxpayer Money for Abortions- Obama was Wrong, I was Right

In The Secret to Doing Well on Government and Civics Tests: A Grader Tells All I wrote:

Once, a student asked me how I could consider myself a conservative, when conservatives are such bad people (in their opinion). I said that I wish I could be a socialist, or a liberal, but sadly, those ideologies are false- they do not describe the reality of the world that I see about me. An ideology is a way of looking at the world, a lens through which you can view things, and if the lens is wrong or incorrect, you won't see the true reality of the world. Liberals don't see the true reality of the world around them- in fact, most outright reject that there is any sort of true reality to the world and that everything in it is just subjective- and so whenever they advance their theories, make predictions, or shape policy, they are always wrong, because their lens is wrong. I'd love for them to be right- if only money grew on trees and that paying people to stay home and do nothing made society a better place to live and criminals could be released early from prisons and holding hands and singing a song made evil dictators be nice- but sadly, that isn't the way the world really works. To be right, to be correct, you have to be conservative.

Okay, so let's examine this theory in the context of whether or not the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 provides more public taxpayer money to increase abortions. In my post Obama's Health Care Plan Attacks Life, Liberty, and Property I claimed that the act did subsidize abortions. In speech after speech, and with an executive order signed under oath of office, President Barack Obama claimed that the act did not subsidize abortions. I'm a conservative and view things through a conservative lens; Obama is a liberal and views things through a liberal lens. So, which lens is correct and which one is incorrect? Does the Health Care Act provide public taxpayer money for abortions? Does it allow the government to increase the amount of money taken from from pro-life individuals and give it others so that they can kill unborn babies? Turns out it does. It looks like I was right, and the President was wrong.

Via theblogprof That was fast! Obama approves first taxpayer-funded abortion under ObamaCare that he promised would never happen, from LifeNews Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law:

The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.


The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March. It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

Looks like I was right. The healthcare plan passed by the Democrats does attack life, liberty, and property.

Democrat Congressman Peters Still Employing Thugs to Harass and Stalk His Opponents

Recently I went to another townhall for Rocky Raczkowski, who is running for U.S. Congress in Michigan’s 9th District, and while I was there, I noticed that Rocky was again was being stalked by this Paul fellow! Let me take you back to an earlier post that I had written, called Representative Gary Peters Up to Same Old Tactics, where I wrote:

Congressman Peters hasn't changed tactics- he still intends to defeat his opponent by systematically harassing them, building up dirt on them, attacking them, and lying about himself. Today at a Tax Day Tea Party in Royal Oak, Michigan, Gary Peters had one of his staff there to harass Rocky Raczkowski, his likely opponent in the upcoming Congressional election in Michigan's 9th District. His staff member stood around the entire time, hovering about 3 or 4 feet from Rocky for about two hours, filming him. He didn't talk to anyone, didn't seem that interested to be there, and rudely tried to butt his way into every conversation, zooming in on people and attempting to capture as much video and audio as possible. Was this staffer's goal to learn more about Rocky? Document his campaign for a future movie? Nope- Gary Peters sent this guy down there to simply hang around and try to catch something that Rocky said that could be taken out of context and used against him in the campaign. The guy said his name was 'Paul' and that he worked for Gary Peters staff. Gary Peters intends to dirty up this coming election. I hope voters know this and throw the bum out.

To me, this type of political campaigning is the bottom-of-the-barrel type stuff that people who can't win an election on their own merits employ to try to win a dirty election, and is the kind of campaigning that should be beneath an incumbent Congressman like Gary Peters- but it apparently it isn't, as Gary Peters has lowered himself to the lowest levels in order to get elected and now get re-elected.

Oh, and this wasn't just some one-time trick that Gary Peters employed- nope, he has decided to employ Paul full time to stalk Rocky at every event that he has. That seems like a lot of resources to set aside for the this task, but Peters has decided that he will pay people to stalk his opponents and harass them rather than actually be a good representative. Peters should take the money that he is paying to this Paul fellow to stalk Rocky full-time and instead pay someone to write non-canned responses to constituents, or work on gathering more research for legislation, or work on doing anything productive- but he doesn't, because Peters isn't about making America better, he is about winning power and controlling others through taxation and regulation.

It is sad and disgusting that Congressman Peters has someone follow his opponents around harassing them at townhalls, when Congressman Peters himself refuses to hold any townhalls (except the one sham of a townhall last year that was packed by SEIU members- see my post Report from Peters Townhall Sept 09 for more information), doesn't open his office to visitors (in fact, he had his thugs chase people away from his office and barred the parking lot the last time he visited his district), and sends canned formed letters in response to any constituent mail.

On a related note, I'm getting closer to figuring out who this Paul fellow is. Keep in mind that it really isn't his fault- he is just the hired goon who Gary Peters, his employer, has decided to use to harass and stalk Rocky Raczkowski, his likely opponent in the coming election. But I don't really know who he is yet- he only gives his name as 'Paul', with no last name and no connections to any campaign, almost as if he knows what he is doing is wrong and is ashamed by it, but is doing it anyways because his boss (Gary Peters) ordered him to do it. I've got it narrowed down to one of two 'Paul' possibilities.

Possibility one is that he is Paul Turner, Congressional District Liaison to Gary Peters, (phone #248-273-4227). A friend of mine asked 'Paul' if she could help out Gary Peters and do similar things to harass Rockey, and this 'Paul' fellow gave her a business card with Paul Turner's information on it.  According to Legistorm, Paul Turner is paid about 30K by Gary Peters do to something in the district- one could imagine that his job duties could include stalking and harassing.

The other possibility is that 'Paul' is Paul Spurgeon, from Royal Oak, MI. My main evidence of this is that there is a Paul Spurgeon on facebook who has a picture that looks very similar to the pictures that I have of 'Paul.' It's restricted, but you get on it and try to confirm for me if this 'Paul' who Gary Peters employs to stalk and harass his opponents is in fact Paul Spurgeon from Royal Oak, MI. If you need help in identifying him, here is a picture I took from the latest Rocky townhall event that I went to.  Good luck!

Oh, and it costs money to fight back against dirty-handed tactics like Congressman Gary Peters is employing in his slimy attempt to hold on to his power. Please be sure to visit Rocky for Congress and make a donation to Rocky so he can continue to fight back against this type of stuff.

First Rig Changes Plans: Hopes to Drill in Egypt Because US is Now Hostile to Profits

Via Chron:

Diamond Offshore announced Friday that its Ocean Endeavor drilling rig will leave the Gulf of Mexico and move to Egyptian waters immediately — making it the first to abandon the United States in the wake of (Obama's) ban on deep-water drilling.

And the Ocean Endeavor's exodus probably won't be the last, according to oil industry officials and Gulf Coast leaders who warn that other companies eager to find work for the now-idled rigs are considering moving them outside the U.S.

It was unclear how many U.S. jobs could leave with the Ocean Endeavor, but typically more than 100 workers are on the rig at any given time, doing everything from drilling to cooking meals. Onshore, a network of businesses supplies the rigs with groceries, equipment, uniforms and drilling materials.
 
Dan Pickering, a financial analyst with Tudor, Pickering Holt & Co. Securities, said the legal uncertainties surrounding the ban - and the administration's plan to issue a new, revised moratorium - ensure that no companies will resume deep-water drilling in U.S. waters anytime soon.
 
"Are you really going to spend $5 million … getting ready to drill a well that someone would when probably block you from drilling?" Pickering said.

Are you going to invest money in doing something productive in America when Democrats are sitting around to talk bad about you, change the laws around, and tax that money away so that they can give it to their politically-connected friends? Are you going to work hard, knowing that Democrats can change the rules of the game whenever they want and whichever way the wind blows just so that they can pay back those who put them in office?

The answer to both of those questions is an obvious 'no', and demonstrates why Democrats shouldn't be running anything at all in our great nation. It is sad that their policies- the policies of Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Peters, Levin, Obama, etc- have directly forced one company that employs hundreds producing a product that is high demand for a nice profit to leave our nation and go to Egypt because that country is more welcoming and accepting than ours. It is sad that these oil rigs are being forced to change their plans, and instead of making America a richer, more prosperous nation, are enriching a nation like Egypt instead.

Elections have consequences. This is what happens when you vote Democrat, anywhere on the ticket- businesses leave and our nation and society are a little bit less rich than we used to be.

Democrats Propose Regulating Internet

Why has the internet been so successful? Because it has been largely unregulated. That's kind of the secret to creating wealth in society- you let all the greatness of man shine through in an unregulated environment. Sure, there is a lot of bad stuff that goes along with it (cyber-stalking, porn, etc), but on the whole, the internet has been very successful on many different levels. It reminds me of what happened after telephones were deregulated (the explosion of cellphones and now iPhones and Blackberries) or the continued success of the virtually unregulated soda pop market (which Obama and Democrats in Congress have just began to attack).

But if there is one thing that we have learned about Democrats during their control of our governmental institutions over the last couple years is that what Democrats do is find successful, thriving, profitable areas of the economy and kill them with taxes, regulation, and government oversight. America's health care system is about to severely drop in quality while becoming considerably more expensive now that the Democrats are going to regulate it more than it already was (and health care was already expensive, inefficient, and not top quality because of heavy government regulations). The Democrat's cap and trade scam will be the final nail in the coffin for manufacturing.

But what about the internet? Surely Democrats, who have pretended to care about free speech such that idiot social libertarians voted for them, would not attack the internet with regulations and taxes? Didn't we have to live with the screeching by social liberals who were afraid that it was the Republican Bush who was going to do this for years... for 8 years... and yet never did? Via RedState:

Last week FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and his fellow Democrats decided to take a significant step toward gaining that control by opening for public comment their proposed changes to Internet regulation. The FCC currently classifies Internet service providers as information services, which prohibits significant government regulation. Genachowski seeks to classify them as telecommunications services, which would give the FCC a much stronger regulatory hand. This change of classification would likely result in strict government regulation of the Internet, despite the Chairman’s promise to rule – er… regulate with a “light touch”. Combine that with May’s draft report from the Federal Trade Commission considering such options as rewriting copyright law to favor of print media, creating a “journalism” division of AmeriCorps, or taxing Internet devices to support newspapers, and the future doesn’t look particularly rosy for all things Internet related.

This is scary stuff. In case you haven't noticed, my blog has gone after Democrats pretty hard, exposing their various schemes to violate my freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. I'm pretty sure that Obama and the Democrats in Congress feel that I am not a 'legitimate' journalistic enterprise, and thus don't get 1st amendment rights, and so will shut me down once they gain control of the internet. I'm pretty sure that a 'light touch' will mean that I'll be slapped down, junk lawsuits will be filed against me, I'll have to pay some sort of tax for maintaining a site on the interent, or some other slimy Democrat plot will work to further deprive me of my god-given rights.

Oh, I know, the leftists were all worried that Bush was going to do this, but Bush never even got as far as Obama has, and Bush was at it for 8 years and Obama has only been ruling us like the tyrant that he is for less than 2 years. Imagine what will happen if the Democrats keep control of the House and Senate for another 2 years because you didn't do anything to support the Republican candidates for Congress. We're stuck with Obama for 2 more years, but he can't continue to rule unchecked like this, where he believes in all his hubris that he has the legitimate power to control the internet.

Flee from Democratic Areas! Thrive in Republian Areas! Wayne County (MI) Compared to Tarrent County (TX)

Wayne County Michigan is where Detroit is. This county is almost entirely run by Democrats at every level. It has a Democratic President, a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Congressman, two Democratic Senators, a Democratic County executive, Democratic County Commission, Democratic township and city officials (the mayor of Detroit is of course always a Democrat), and Democratic library board members. And yet... everyone is fleeing Wayne County like a sinking ship!

Via Forbes interactive feature "Where Americans are Moving", we can see this visually. The red lines represent people fleeing from the area, while the black lines are people coming into the area. Note how far in the red (deficit) a Democratically-run area is:

For fun, compare that map to Tarrent County in Texas. A similar sized county in geography and population, it's biggest difference is that it has a Republican Governor, Republican Congressman, two Republican Senators, a Republican County executive, a Republican County Commission, Republican township and city officials, and Republican library board members. Yes, the biggest difference between the counties it that one is Democrat and the other is Republican. Oh, and one is failing (the Democrat one) and one (the Republican one) is successful. Note how far in the black (surplus) a Republican-run area is:

I Knew I Was Different From Liberal Teachers When...

I knew I was different than other teachers when during my student teaching, I substituted for a 9th Grade 'US History' and 10th Grade 'Political and Economic Systems' teacher at nearby High School in a local public school. This event really struck home to me how different I was as a teacher from the majority (50%+) of teachers in public schools, in particular social studies teachers- they were mostly liberal and some were very liberal teachers, and I was a very conservative teacher.

The teacher that I subbed for had so many inappropriate left leaning liberal communist Democrat pieces of propaganda and teaching materials in her room that I was immediately frightened for the students of this teacher. These students were surrounded by slogans and images that assaulted them continuously, especially if they were conservative, Republican, libertarian, or moderate. For example, there was a sticker on her desk that had in large letters "Hey Congress, Don't let Bush Ruin Social Security." What purpose does displaying this sticker to a classroom of students have? You put stickers like that where students can view them for the purposes of teaching students that that phrase or thought or idea is acceptable, desired, and to be believed.

Another sticker (covering up the fire alarm) read "Kerry for President." You know, that's okay- a lot of social studies teachers collect stickers and slogans and show them as an example of the types of thought that go through American society- as long as they are historical, meaningful, and balanced, there is nothing wrong with that particular sticker. So, seeking parity or equality in political representation in the room, I looked around the room. I immediately saw another large poster displayed that read "Kerry/Edwards", but had to keep looking before I eventually found a Bush poster in the room. There it was, a big picture of Bush- and tacked over it were dozens of editorials printed from the teacher's computer that criticized Bush and attacked him- so many angry attacking editorials were taped over Bush's picture that it was almost entirely covered.

Also up in her room, tacked to the front board, was a print-out of an article calling Bush a dummy, a poster that advocated car pooling with the slogan on it "collectivism beats individualism!", and a big poster against peace through strength and against a strong nuclear policy (good thing people like her had no power in government during the Cold War, or we'd all be speaking Russian or dead) (bad thing people like her have power over students education on the Cold War).

Skin still crawling and almost in shock at the liberal leftist overload that this room assaulted students with, I browsed through some of her teaching materials (there were no students yet- I had gotten to school early to prepare myself for the days lessons).

One eternal truth that I now know is that a liberal left teacher does not seek to enlighten and educate students, but rather seeks to indoctrinate and brainwash students. Critical thinking and opposing viewpoints are not welcome in a liberal teacher's classroom, only affirmations of their beliefs to satisfy a liberals lack of self-worth. Because of this truth, once a liberal left teacher is spotted, their teaching materials will obviously be slanted as well, as they seek to warp students to their viewpoints.

This liberal teacher's unit on WWII was a good example of the type of liberal indoctrination that goes on too frequently in the public schools of the United States. It was liberally slanted- for example, there were long discussions in the class 'debating' whether to drop the atomic bombs- but debate is a weak word, since the discussion prompts were designed to point students toward being against dropping the atomic bombs, and in the teacher's notes she herself wrote down many more arguments against dropping the bombs than for, so in reality, there was no real 'debate' with this issue (and from my later questioning of students, they told me that there was little education behind the debate as well, as this teacher felt that military theory and tactics and strategy was un-politically correct to mention in a classroom).

Another key part of this liberal teacher's WWII lesson focused on a long talk on the Japanese internment, had several days planned on the Holocaust, there was a lecture on how WWII ended the Great Depression, there was a lesson on how rationing and state control of the economy helped to win the war, and lastly there was an article written by a German that criticized the US for bombing civilians. All of these items were in the "WWII" unit. This was all that was in the unit on WWII (I looked through many folders in this teacher's closet trying to find more).

Lacking from this liberal teacher's WWII unit were discussions on opening a second front, war aims of the various countries, strategy and tactics of battle, stories from GI's of individual courage, sacrifice, or heroism, "Saving Private Ryan" type stuff displaying real qualities of people in the war, or anything at all that was moderate or critical of liberal ways of thinking. A student, after spending a week or two learning about WWII in this teacher's class, would be ill-prepared for anything but a shockingly liberal and incomplete view of WWII.  This liberal teacher, like many more all over the nation, choose to have a discussion about how price controls helped us win WWII rather than discuss the individual heroism of our ancestors in WWII.

Another example from this one teacher's files was her lesson on rating the Presidents. As she taught it, the Presidents could be rated as FDR 2, Clinton 20, Reagan 40, Bush 25, etc the list was liberally and Democratic slanted.  Her unit on political cartoons was filled with cartoon after cartoon that ripped into conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans- and had not a single cartoon that ripped Democrats or liberals. This teacher had a book on her desk almost burned my hands- it was called "A Necessary Evil" and here is a quote from it 'antigovernment sentiment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history...' and the book goes on to defend big statist government. This is the type of material that inspired her and that she passed on tot he students in her classroom.

I sat and thought about the situation I was in a little more, and suddenly it occurred to me- it was no surprise that the district had hired, employed, and supported a teacher such as this to teach "Political and Economic Systems." This class, mandated by the school district, had a syllabus that should have read "Attacking Capitalism and the American Way of Life." The whole class and semester of learning was just a series of liberal leftist attacks on conservatives, limited government, freedom, individuality, and libertarianism. From looking through all of her materials, it became apparent that every discussion about economics was focused on obligations the employer owed the voluntarily employed employee, and were heavily pro-union.

This liberal teacher's Progressive Era test actually had the following as the 'right' answer- Rockefeller's description was 'wealthy industrialist who ran standard oil, and was asked about his duty to the public, replied 'public be damned.'" The one thing this teacher wants students to take away about an innovative and brilliant industrialist such as Rockefeller is that he said 'public be damned,' thereby creating a whole new batch of people who hate Rockefeller and 'industrialist's'. Her 'Progressive Era' test and teaching materials were interesting- I assumed she meant the time period, and thus other things that occurred during this time, but instead the unit should have been called "Why Progressive’s were Right". According to students who studied in her class, from 1870 to 1910, the only thing that occurred were Progressives people saying the right things.

The capstone of this class was for students to watch and discuss Michael Moore's controversial film "Roger and Me." Again, it's not necessarily wrong to show this film, if it will serve as a basis for a critical discussion, bring up contrary arguments, and expose different viewpoints to the students, and is matched by some sort of conservative film. But not in a liberal's class- in this class, it was shown as fact. There was to be no criticism of his methods, beliefs, or agenda allowed. Oh, students did have to get a permission slip signed for this movie- but not because most parents would not want their child learning about this guy and his sick methods and agenda, but because in the movie there is shown "violence against animals." Rudeness, violence, foul language, heavily slanted viewpoint- no permission slip needed, but "Violence against animals" needs a permission slip.

Liberal students feel encouraged and safe in an environment such as this, while non liberal students are threatened and made to feel unsafe- emotionally they are belittled and told how evil they are, and intellectually they are attacked daily. And it was after seeing this teacher's classroom and teaching materials that I knew in my heart that I was different than other teachers, and was a heavily conservative teacher, and would have to struggle against the education system the whole time as such. But I don't care- if I can do even a little bit to counter what this teacher is doing in her classroom through my conservative teacher philosophy of teaching students critical thinking and individual responsibility and real knowledge, I will have made the world a better place.

UPDATE: The level of detail in this post should convince readers of the depth of liberal indoctrination that can occur in government skools.

NASA's New Mission- Build Muslim Self-Esteem

Several times on my blog I've written about how President Obama has handled NASA. I've criticized that it took Obama several months to bother to getting around to appointing a new head of this agency in my post Obama too Busy to Appoint Public Officials. I've criticized Obama's decision to cancel NASA's Constellation program, pointing out that by doing this he has revealed to me that he does not not have a bold vision of the future that reaches for the stars, but instead has a vision of the world that is old and already tried (call it tyranny, call it European socialism, call it whatever you want) that sets it sights on the mud underneath our boots- see my post Obama is No Visionary for more on this idea. And lastly I've criticized Obama's budget proposal for NASA last year, a budget that will have NASA focus on studies and reports and analysis for future plans, and change its mission away from exploration of outer space to research and monitoring of climate change- see my post Obama's New NASA Policy- Yet More Broken Promises and Lies for more on this.

Today over at Powerlineblog I watched a video from the Director of NASA (who Obama eventually got around to appointing) that is just mind blowing, and yet another example of how badly voters messed up our nation (perhaps beyond the point of no return) when they voted for Obama and the Democrats over the last several elections. Here is how Powerlineblog reviews the video:

In the video below, Charles Bolden, head of NASA, tells Al Jazeera that the "foremost" task President Obama has given him is "to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." Thus, NASA's primary mission is no longer to enhance American science and engineering or to explore space, but to boost the self-esteem of "predominantly Muslim nations."

Exploring space didn't even make the top three things Obama wants Bolden to accomplish. The other two are "re-inspire children to want to get into science and math" and "expand our international relationships."

This is more evidence, if any were needed, of Obama's lack of interest in American achievement or, indeed, American greatness. He seems to believe we've achieved enough (or perhaps too much) and that the trick now is to make nations that have achieved little for centuries feel like we couldn't have done it without them (in the video, Bolden goes on to talk about how much NASA owes the Russians and the Japanese).

Behind the bravado of the Muslim world there may well lie an inferiority complex. If so, Obama is a fool if he believes we can help Muslims overcome that complex by having the head of the agency that symbolizes our technical superiority make patronizing statements about ancient Muslim contributions to science.

Here is the video, where Obama's appointment (confirmed by the Democrats in Congress) discusses NASA's new mission to build Muslim self-esteem, inspire children, build relationships, and study climate change (basically anything other than explore outer space, put men on the moon, build bigger rockets, conquer Mars, or anything that NASA was really established for):

Originally via Weasel Zippers.

President Obama Defends Slavery?

President Barack Obama said something pretty darn surprising in a speech recently. He said "(?) have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass (?) would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable."

I wonder- what sort of people was he describing that are the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers, a sort of people who are underpaid, treated poorly, and often times not given their full rights? These people might work very hard to produce cotton or something. Now let's suppose that we wanted to do something about these people, something to fix the situation, something that would make things lawful and right, but to do so would disrupt our economy and communities in a way that many, perhaps in the South, would find intolerable. I wonder- what would you do?

So, do you think that President Obama was arguing in favor of slavery or in favor of illegal immigration? Go ahead- replace the first question mark with 'slaves' or 'migrant workers - mostly here illegally' and replace the second question mark with 'emancipation' or 'mass deportations'- and you'll see that the argument is very similar.

People used to argue that slaves were important because of their work producing agricultural products and to get rid of slavery would be disruptive. Today people argue that migrant workers (mostly illegal immigrants) are important because of their work producing agricultural products and to change the situation would be disruptive.

Something needs to be done with those people who came to our country illegally, who disobeyed and disregarded the laws of our nation, and who snuck into our country under the cover of darkness and deceit. I don't know what, but I do know that simply saying 'okay, you're all citizens now' is not the right approach and is an approach that demands no courage and is an approach that will invite further lawbreaking and illegal immigration. I know that 'disruption to the economy' is important, but deporting illegal immigrants who broke the law will be no more disruptive to our economy than the healthcare bill that was recently passed or the cap and tax bill that Obama wants passed, so Obama is disingenuous and selective using this argument. And illegal immigrants haven't been in in the labor force for generations- if they have any kids, they're citizens, so they are no longer illegal immigrants and demand minimum wage and full rights and so likely won't be 'migrant workers'- so making an argument that they have been here for generations is a bad argument too.

You go ahead and read Obama's speech if you want, and you tell me- is he Abraham Lincoln or Stephen Douglas, or some local nobody that couldn't match wits with either?