CBO: Iraq War Cost Less Than Porkulus

Via Memeorandum, I came across this story from FoxNews CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act:

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.  (By comparison) the projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.

If you'd like another comparison, the projected cost of Obamacare over a decade is going to be $2 trillion.

This does not imply that the cost of the war in Iraq was not steep, but it is meant to provide evidence for you to rebut a frequent liberal comment that "the debt is because of the War in Iraq" or something like that (if you listen to talk radio, you'll hear every day how the entire debt is because of the War in Iraq against evil militant terrorists and that Bush should be blamed for the entire recession because of this).

That's right- during a time of growth and prosperity that was the majority of the Bush years, our nation engaged a violent Middle-eastern nation and removed an evil dictator who was a strategic and tactical threat to our nation, all for the cost comparable to a Democratic President's one-time give-away, and at one-third of the cost of a decade worth of massive welfare increases.

Data, evidence, and information clearly shows that the reason for our debt and our declining economy is not 'Bush's fault', in spite of how much the Democrats want it to be. The reason for our debt and our declining economy is over-spending on domestic policies combined with falling revenues due to high taxes and regulation. That's not 'Bush's fault' (although he does bear some fault for those)- but it is the fault of Democrats and liberals in Congress.

Evidence of Democratic Success! Record Number Enroll in Government Anti-poverty Programs!

One measure of success for Democrats is the number of people that they have helped save from starvation and poverty. It is a worthy measure of whether a policy is successful or not, and Obama, Peters, and all the other Democrats often campaign about how hard they have worked to expand the 'safety net' and 'feed the starving masses.' In their speeches they talk about how they are setting a goal for themselves of getting as many people who need help into the right government programs. And on their watch, under the Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, they have been successful in destroying an economy and driving record numbers of people to accept the forced charity of the governments dependence programs.

Democrats have been successful in ruining the private economy, of killing jobs with high taxes and regulation, of drying up private charities through taxes and regulations, of bankrupting businesses with regulations and taxes, and of setting up legal and regulatory barriers so that that private individuals are increasingly unable to help others. Barack Obama has done his job- under his watch and guidance, more and more people are forced to swallow their pride and accept the forced charity that is government welfare. Gary Peters has done his job well- money has been taken from businesses and individuals who worked hard for it, some of those businesses and individuals are unable to pay that money and go out of business or into bankruptcy, the money that is collected is cycled through several government agents who are well paid and have great benefits and retirement funds, some of that money is transferred to people and businesses who have friends in government and use those political connections to take some of that money, and then what little of that money is left given those people who need it. Success! And under Obama and the Democrats, that number has gotten bigger and bigger!

More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since December 2007, the month that Democrats enlarged their majorities in the House and Senate and captured the Presidency. One out of every six people in the United States have been driven to beg for aid from the government, creating a mass of dependent wards of the state who are stuck on the dole but reliably deliver votes to those people who promise more benefits with less obligations and time limits. The remaining five out of every six people in the US are forced to work increasingly harder to provide for themselves and for the other who are not working.

Even worse is that last year Obama and Democrats in Congress like Gary Peters passed Obamacare, which is scheduled to add a minimum of 16 million new people to Medicaid, starting in 2014. This massive expansion in taxpayer funded welfare is sure to drive increasing numbers into bankruptcy and job losses, driving the numbers on welfare up even higher, all thanks to the success of Democrats policies.

More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% since the election of Obama in December of 2007, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years, ever since the Democrats captured Congress in 2006, as Democrats policies have increasing taken their toll on Americans and driven more to beg government agents for food.

Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits.

One last success for Obama and the Democrats- more than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession.

(Source data comes from USA Today's Record number in government anti-poverty programs)

The Establishment Strikes Back, or Dat Seme Weak T!

The story of the Michigan Republican State Convention was the story of missed chances for the tea party and conservative elements of the party to put in place leadership for their future. When the time came for the over 4000 delegates (2K of which were voting delegates) that assembled at the Breslin Center in East Lansing, Michigan on Saturday to decide who they wanted to be the party's nominees for Attorney General and Secretary of State, it was as if the tea party element wasn't even there.

While many, myself included, thought that the tea party groups and anti-establishment crowd would be a big voting presence, when it really came down to it, they voted like many in the establishment, and picked their candidates not on principles such as limited government, federalism, and core principles, but rather the assembled delegates voted based on local loyalty, patronage, recognition, and successful attack ads.

For those of you who weren't there, let me try to paint a picture for you of the days events. The line to get in to the Breslin took several hours, and after it grew too long, security broke down and they just started letting everyone in. The steps to get up and down the seats were narrow and steep, and all the old-timers there had a lot of trouble with that. The speakers all pointed straight, which meant those to the right and left of the stage had trouble hearing. Those in wheelchairs were seated on the floor, but voting took place above. I didn't see anyone signing for the hearing-impaired. The big-screen behind the speakers had poor visuals, the sound was poorly done, and the order of events was chaotic. Rick Snyder, who is at the top of our ticket, spoke somewhere in the middle instead of at the customary end of convention, and then at the end of the convention they just dropped a bunch of balloons, almost as an afterthought. Ron Weisner has a lot to learn from this event I hope that he puts on a much better one next time.

The delegates sat through speech after speech, and then every candidate was nominated (with a 5 minute speech) and then seconded (with a 5 minute speech). Early on there was a real moment of excitement- after several dignitaries nominated state Rep. Brian Calley for Lieutenant Governor, who was Snyder's choice, a member of the Tea Party of West Michigan nominated Fruitport businessman Bill Cooper to challenge him. Since there were no ballots present, the chair called for a voice vote (which sounded pretty close), called Calley the winner, and then after more yelling called for a hand vote (even though at this point they were just letting anyone in the building). Things looked like they were going to get ugly until Brian Calley went in front of the crowd and in a very well done speech nobly withdrew his name for consideration.

The next major race was for Secretary of State for Michigan. After the first ballot Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson received 625 votes, state Sen. Cameron Brown received 454, Calhoun County Clerk Anne Norlander had 412 votes; Rep. Paul Scott of Grand Blanc had 335 votes, and Sen. Michelle McManus of Lake Leelenau had 237 votes. The delegates then through a second ballot with only the top two vote getters on it, Johnson and Brown, and on the second ballot Ruth Johnson won the nomination over Brown by 1,089 votes to his 974. I thought those two were the weakest out of the 5, but apparently delegate voters didn't see it that way. Even so, Johnson will be a fine SoS and will do a lot of good things. But the real surprise to me was the failure of Scott to gain any traction and win the nomination- out of all the candidates, he made the most direct pitch to first-timers and to the tea party crowd, crafting a message designed to echo their beliefs and send a message to the establishment. And he soundly lost.

The race that bummed me out the most was the race for Republican nominee for Michigan Attorney General. This race was between former Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Bill Schuette and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop. Bishop has done a lot great things for our state over the last 6 years, and after voters re-elected Granholm and gave her a House majority, Bishop held together a thing Senate majority and fought Granholm tooth and nail. A lot of voters blamed him for some of the budgets passed and some of the taxes we've had levied on us, but he fought these as hard as he could and that was unfair. The vote was a close one, but Schuette edged Bishop 1,092 votes to 971. Schuette appeared to have most of the party leadership backing him, and there was some speculation that alternates to the convention were raised to delegate voting status by party leadership based on their support for Schuette in pre-convention online polling. I really hope that wasn't the case, because the margin was very thin and Bishop is a great guy, but I saw at least 10 alternates elevated who were wearing Schuette stickers, so who knows. It could have been my my endorsement yesterday, which appears to be the kiss of death around here (Governor, SoS, and AG).

Another important race that delegates voted on where the race for the Supreme Court in Michigan, which was won by Bob Young and Mary Beth Kelly. There were no real moderates or establishment picks in this race- the conservative Justices all lined up behind these two and that was an impressive sight, so establishment and Tea Party aligned with these picks and everyone won.

Leaving the Convention, one couldn't help but feel like an opportunity was missed- our state had a chance to have dynamic and solid conservative leaders for the future stocked in the AG and SoS spots, but instead it is my hypothesis that  after Snyder wins and then wins again, the race for Governor will be wide open in 8 years instead of being contested by solid, experienced executive officers.

(Source data for vote counts was provided by the Detroit News)

UPDATE: RightMichigan has a very good account of what went down at the Convention. In particular, I direct you to the following paragraph to chew on:

I learned in a later private conversation that Rick Snyder, the gubernatorial nominee (and the Strategic National candidate in the gubernatorial primary) had been working behind the scenes - in direct opposition to the party officials and other sundry staffers - to advance my motion. No dice, apparently; it seems that the Yob Machine was already at risk of losing one contested ballot (which I'll talk about in another essay), and they didn't want to take a chance at being embarrassed twice in the same convention.

GOP Learns to Fear the Tea in Michigan

In Michigan, the 'establishment' GOP is facing a power struggle with the 'tea party' groups, and from what I've seen and read, the 'tea party' groups are winning. From Newster:

Michigan Republican Party Chairman Ron Weiser talks enthusiastically about welcoming tea party supporters into the GOP, but he wasn't planning to give them his seat at the state convention.

Michigan tea party supporters flocked to Republican party meetings across the state this month and won several hundred delegate seats for the Saturday state convention, including Weiser's. Now, the activists are positioned for an attempt to push the Michigan GOP further to the right and put hard-core conservatives on November's general election ballot.

The tea party's bid to capitalize on its delegate coup, which caught veteran Republican activists by surprise, is an important test for a national movement seeking concrete political impact.

Tea party supporters also have won GOP delegate seats or other party roles in Maine, Idaho, Illinois and several other states in recent months. But their potential impact could be the greatest in Michigan because the convention chooses the Republican nominees for secretary of state, attorney general, education boards and the Michigan Supreme Court.

Efforts to press other tea party causes, such as draconian cuts in government, could also produce a collision with moderate Republicans who have held sway despite growing conservative strength in the state. GOP leaders are worried that a rebuff of tea party followers could sap their support for GOP candidates in the closely fought general election campaign.

Although there is no precise count of the delegates affiliated with Michigan's approximately 50 active tea party groups, they could amount to a fifth or more of the nearly 2,100 party activists who will vote at the East Lansing meeting.

Tea party leaders plan to hold their own pre-convention caucus meeting Friday night. They say they can leverage their strength by coordinating efforts, as they did in seizing the delegate slots.

Weiser still will preside at the convention. But the major GOP donor and former ambassador to Slovakia must go as an alternate after he was defeated at the party meeting in Washtenaw County. He said he's still excited by the tea party push. "These are the people who are going to go out and work for this ticket after the convention," he said.

The tea partiers won the positions by running their members in precinct elections, which normally attract few candidates, and then turning out in force at many county GOP meetings to support the winners for state convention slots.

For those of you interested, the the Michigan Tea Party Alliance has organized a pre-convention meeting of tea party and Project 9/12 delegates for 7 p.m. Friday at the Capitol City Baptist Church in Holt, the group announced this morning. Delegates must present valid GOP State Convention credentials for admission, even though they won't be getting credentials until Saturday (not sure how that's gonna work). According to their release: "The Michigan Tea Party Alliance will discuss voting as a block to insure 'our' favorite candidate has a good chance in Saturday's vote." Fear the Tea!

Recommendation for Michigan Attorney General: Vote Bishop

Michigan's current State Attorney General, Republican Mike Cox, is barred by state term limit laws from running for a third consecutive term in office, and so the position is going to be open. Cox did a fantastic job as AG for our state, and one can only hope that our next AG continues fighting for Michigan citizens. The Michigan Attorney General election of 2010 will be held on November 2, 2010, along with all of the other races. In Michigan, candidates for Attorney General are nominated by the respective political parties at their fall state convention, which will occur this weekend.

The Democratic Candidate will be Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who won (as usual with most Democratic races) with no opposition, vetting, or primary election. He is a solid liberal lawyer who (according to his website) will 'fight for you' by fighting for more environmentalism, will push for more government control over your children, and will try to make the public safety in Michigan more like Flint's. Special interests are funding his campaign, and as AG, he'll attack citizens, the Constitution, and businesses in our state. So I think I'll suggest you don't vote for him.

The two Republican candidates are former judge Bill Schuette and current State Senator Mike Bishop.

Bill Schuette has a lot of endorsements and campaign finances, and as AG would be a solid, reliable AG, but he strikes me as a career politician who is better at getting endorsements and campaign finance than he is fighting for the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Michigan. Whenever he talks, he talks about why you should vote for him, about who is on his team, about who likes him, about how he is the best man for the job, about how great he is- but he never gives any evidence, reasons, or backing for these claims. I don't care who likes him and how popular he is, and he rarely talks about the issues or what he would do as AG. He looks through you when he talks to you, looking to what you represent and who you've got backing you, and I don't like that. Oh, he's a lot better than the Democratic candidate- he's conservative and understands the nature of federalism, something the Dem doesn't- and if he gets the nomination I'll pull the lever for him, but I'm not going to recommend him now.

A Conservative Teacher strongly and without hesitation endorses Mike Bishop for Michigan Attorney General. Mike strikes me as strong leader who isn't afraid to make tough decisions. He brings up the US Constitution quicker than anyone whenever you talk to him, and is quick to reflect everything back on it when he talks about the proper roles of state and national government. As AG, he'll fight for letting Michigan residents and citizens decide how Michigan runs, and push back against the encroachments by our national government in our local affairs. He will fight to expose corruption in various government agencies, and will continue to push for greater transparency in all of Michigan's government corrupt venture capital groups (Film Office and MEDC as examples). He's a solid conservative who is willing to risk the media's wrath to get things done in our state. Above all of that though Mike is a good guy- he's personable, he takes the time to care about your issues, and he is a solid family man. He's exactly the type of guy our Founding Fathers would have endorsed for Michigan AG were they around today- a real citizen/politician.

I strongly suggest that you vote for Mike Bishop at the convention and make him our next AG.

I'll See You All in Hell!

Hell, Michigan, that is. RetakeOurGov, a local tea party group, has a pretty cool event coming up called TEA Party in Hell. They've planned this party 666 Days after the election of Obama to our nation's presidency, and I think it sounds like a good event. It will be  at the Dam Site Inn in Hell, Michigan (a little town in Livingston County- I've played paintball in Hell myself), on Wednesday September 1, 2010.

This group RetakeOurGov has got some pretty good stuff put together- I especially like their "Campaign to Fire Gary Peters" initiative. From their website:

Gary Peters (D) is the Congressman from Michigan’s 9th Congressional District. His voting record clearly shows a passionate support of European-style socialist entitlement programs. These programs and their inherently high levels of taxation are robbing our children of the American dream. Every citizen who is concerned about the economic health of our nation should be interested in seeing Gary Peters voted out of office on November 2, 2010. This includes citizens that live in this district and those that do not.

Yes, when people talk about 'tea parties', this is exactly the kind of thing they are talking about- patriotic Americans who love liberty and freedom fighting back against the socialist takeover our our children's heritage. Check out their website and I hope to see some of you in Hell.

9th Circuit Says Government Can Sneak onto your Property and Legally Plant a GPS Tracking Device on your Car without a Warrent

Surprisingly, Memorandum hasn't picked up this story and made it the number one story out there, but it should, because it demonstrates everything wrong with liberals and Democrats and their judicial philosophy. The story comes from Time and CNN and is called The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves:

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

If you are like me, you're stunned and shocked and angry from what you just read. My reaction was "you have got to be freaking kidding me!"

This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.

After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand.

If only Pineda-Moerno were a terrorist than I am sure the court would have found something wrong with federal agents sneaking onto his property to put a tracking device on his property.

Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

When one reads the decision from the Ninth Circuit, one has to wonder just what the heck they were thinking, and what liberals in general are thinking. They blather about freedoms and rights, but when it comes down to it, these are not conservative judges agreeing with the government's claim that it can go on to your property and bug your car without a warrant- they are liberals. Liberal judges, appointed by Democrats, using 'empathy' and 'diversity' as guidelines, are fighting for the government to control your freedoms of speech ('fairness' on the radio or 'net neutrality' on the internet), these liberal judges are fighting to take away your right to guns (liberal dissents on recent gun cases), and these liberal judges are now chipping away at your Fourth Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit court is the court most closely controlled by Democrats and liberals, and thus is a great indicator of the type of society and laws that they'd put in place on us if they were in charge or get any more power.

The DC Circuit court has 11 judges on it, and 6 were appointed by Republicans, 3 by Democrats, and 2 empty spots. Since it is so controlled by Republicans and conservatives, it is a good indicator of the type of society and laws that they'd put in place were they in charge of us or given more power.

The thing is, it is up to you to decide what type of court we get. The way that our federal court system works is that federal judges are appointed by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Democrats always nominate liberal judges, while Republicans nominate both liberal and conservative judges (they pick liberal judges to try to be balanced and fair in a mistaken belief that Democrats will return the favor once they're in power). If you're looking for someone to blame for this decision, the appropriate person to blame is Democrat Presidents who appointed them and Democrat Senators who confirmed them, and since Democrats continue to support them, you pretty much can blame any Democrat anywhere on the ticket.

Obama is Dukakis? Smack JSM's Campaign Manager Around!

In Massachusetts Miracle I wrote:

I found this fun fact about Dukakis on wikipedia- Soon after his loss in the 1988 Presidential election to George Herbert Walker Bush, the so-called 'Massachusetts Miracle' of prosperity also went bust, and Michael Dukakis was little more than a 'lame duck' Governor for his final two years in office. At the close of his tenure, Massachusetts was mired deeply in debt facing a budget shortfall of more than $1.5 billion.

Barack Obama is Micheal Dukakis.

From the Weekly Standard's Duking It Out: The Dukakis administration that never was:

As Barack Obama sees his ratings descend toward the high 30s, he is increasingly described as the second coming of James Earl Carter Jr., whose presidency, gone but hardly forgotten, lives on in masochists’ minds. The comparison is unkind and not quite on target: This is less Carter II than the lost presidency of Michael Dukakis, which seemed a sure thing at this date 22 years ago, and from which we were saved by the elder George Bush.

Of course, no one thought Dukakis could be the messiah, but in other ways the connections are strong: both creatures of the liberal Northeast and of Harvard, with no sense at all of most of the rest of the country; both rationalists who impose legalistic criteria on emotion-rich subjects; both with fixed ideas of who society’s victims are, which do not accord with the views of the public; and both with a tin ear for the culture and a genius for creating wedge issues that split their own party.

So what happened? If Obama is Dukakis, how did Obama win while Dukakis lost? It is time, boys and girls, for a little lesson in "How to Run a Campaign and How Not to Run a Campaign: Comparing HWB with JSM."

Let's take a look at one of my favorite websites, The Living Room Candidate. This website contains all the major campaign advertisements that were run on television from 1952 to today. They are sorted by year, theme, issue, etc. This is a great website because in watching it you learn one of the most important facts about being elected- it doesn't matter how good the candidate is, it only matters how good a campaign they run.

In 1988, Dukakis had a 17-point lead in mid-summer, lost to Bush by 8-points in the fall. What caused that 25 point swing? Probably some of the most brutal campaign advertisements you'll ever see (aside from LBJ). When I show these ads to my students, they gasp in shock at how utterly punishing those ads were, and when you're showing a crowd of high-school kids these ads for the first time in their life, they are a good judge of whether they are effective or not. When I ask them what they think about GWB's ads, they say "there is no coming back from those for Dukakis." What was so brutal and effective about GWB's campaign advertising? Back to the article...

It was a campaign that quite openly exploited primitive racial-sexual fears. More subtly .  .  . the Bush campaign exploited nativist prejudice. .  .  . Dukakis is not an American, Dukakis is different, this was the unwholesome subtheme that tied together the pledgehammer assault. .  .  .

That's right- GHWB capitalized on the fact that Dukakis wasn't 'American', didn't like saluting the flag, blamed America for everything (later on Dukakis blames America for 9/11), and didn't reflect the values that made America great. GWB hammered away at how Dukakis was simply an elitist, no-nothing, Harvard-educated liberal who was purely smoke-and-mirrors and who, if put in charge of our nation, would never make the hard tough choices that have to be made. If you don't believe me, watch some of the ads yourself- check out at the website the ads "Tank Ride," "Revolving Door," and "Willie Horton." There is no coming back from those body blows that GWB inflicted on Dukakis.

On the other hand, for some reason John McCain didn't run a brutal, hard-hitting campaign that called Obama's policies, judgement, and character into question. He didn't go after Obama for his church, he didn't attack him for his terrorist friends, he didn't call into question his 'Americanism', he didn't question his patriotism, he didn't attack his naive views, he steered away from questioning his lack of experience, and he didn't attack Obama for his elitist schooling. On every major important point that McCain could have capitalized on, he pulled back, and only gently batted Obama around a bit. Oh, he hints here and there about stuff, but nothing smacks you in the gut with the full brutal face of a real battle that Obama could have brought against Obama. If you don't believe me, watch the ads yourself, and lick at the kitty milk that JSM poured playfully on Obama- see the ads "Celeb," "Education," and "Storm" for examples of how weak and unfocused the attack on Obama by JSM was.

So, I guess we have whoever ran GWB's campaign in 1988 to thank from saving us from the mess that we find ourselves in today, and we have whoever ran JSM's campaign in 2008 to thank for us finding ourselves in the mess that we are in today (may that person be smacked around by milk jugs). Oh, of course if McCain was President we would have had a recession, and Democrats in Congress likely would have passed bloated budgets, but likely the national debt would have only exploded by a trillion or two a year, unlike what has happened now, and likely Iran would not be happily building a nuke to nuke Jews, and probably a mosque wouldn't be being built at Ground Zero, and likely we'd be emerging from the 'Bush recession' rather than already starting the 'Obama Depression.'

Oil spilled: But Hysteria by Democrats did the Real Damage

While Obama spent his time responding to the Gulf Oil spill by deciding "whose arse to kick", on my blog I took the correct approach to the spill. The correct approach to the spill was not to demonize a company, not to overreact to the events, not to try to make political hay out of the events, and not to make the damage worse.

The correct approach was to "gather the experts — federal, state, local, public and private — not to discover who is to blame but to secure their active and continuous involvement until the crisis is resolved". Mitt Romney said that, and I talked about it in my post Mitt Romney on Leadership, when I said that "what we need right now is someone who will use what power and authority and resources that the federal government has to help, and other than that stay out of the way." Obama didn't choose that correct approach- he closed his group and cast blame.

Another correct way to respond to the Gulf Oil spill would be to take a look at government policies and see if they are in any way making the situation worse. I did so when I was one of the early bloggers writing about the Jones Act- see my post Obama: Didn't Waive the Jones Act, Made Gulf Spill Worse. In that post, I wrote "Don't kid yourself- there is a lot that the government can do to help the situation in the Gulf- like getting the heck out of the way of people who want to help"- that's right, the correct approach would be to get government out of the way, not get it more in the way. Obama didn't do that either.

In Obama Can Help with Gulf Oil Spill I gave our clueless partisan hack of a President some advice on what to do when I wrote:

Obama CAN help to contain and clean up and prevent future Gulf Oil disasters- but he isn't doing that. He isn't helping to contain the spill- in fact, it appears that he is not repealing regulations that hinder fighting the spill and he is hindering efforts by states to build reefs and other means of protection. He isn't helping to clean up the spill- he has created a vacuum of leadership at the top of our nation, a vacuum that is sucking the oil right out of the ground and spewing it everywhere in a potent symbol of his inadequacy for the Presidency. And he isn't helping to prevent future Gulf Oil disasters, unless you consider his attempts to drive the US back into the Stone Age by killing energy production a way to help prevent future spills like this one. Obama can help the Gulf Oil Spill... but he isn't. The same things could be said for the Democrats who are running Congress as well.

One of the great things about being a policy advisor like me is that I can suggest solutions and options, and then compare the results of what politicians did to what I suggested. If Obama would have taken my suggestions, the Gulf Oil spill would have not been a hysteria-filled situation, would not have been front-page news, and would have appeared to everyone who asked about it to be 'not a big deal.' Oh, I know liberals would have been all upset that I was ignoring the situation and not giving it the attention that it deserved, but the most important thing about the Gulf Oil spill was to not make the situation worse- the rig had exploded already, the oil was leaking already, and freaking out after that would only make the situation worse.

But Obama and the Democrats in Congress did freak out, and now crashing visitor numbers and plummeting fish sales are devastating businesses in the region. Yeah, likely less people would have visited the Gulf region due to the oil spill, but after Obama and the Democrats promoted an image of oil everywhere that it resorts had to start planning on an 80% drop in revenues.

Figures show just 16 of the state's 180 holiday beaches are at all polluted, while the bulk of the spill appears to have dispersed, or be dispersing out at sea, but perception becomes reality, and President Obama and Democrats hyped the oil spill for political purposes and created a perception that oil is evil, and now the taint of their lies has tainted the entire Gulf economy.

Simon Jenkins, writing in The Guardian, writes:

The spill has been another classic of state terror in which incident and response are wholly out of proportion to one another. As the oil leak began back in April, Obama declared a disaster, banned fishing in 37% of the Gulf and ordered a halt to underwater oil exploration, putting some 27,000 jobs at risk. Columnists screamed it was "Obama's 9/11" and demanded he "harness the nation's outrage". He was attacked for playing golf within 58 days of the disaster. With dial-a-quote scientists howling blue murder, any who might have looked at previous spills and thought it might not be so bad would have been unpatriotic disaster-deniers.

Hardly a day passed without the president castigating BP, the hated "British Petroleum" – never its American site operators, Transocean and Halliburton, or his own regulators. It was a field day for xenophobes. The president used the sort of language normally visited on global terrorists. He was going to "get BP" and make them "pay for this". It was another Hurricane Katrina, but one that could thankfully be blamed on foreigners.
Now, mysteriously, Obama speaks of we, we, we … who "have this thing under control". His environment adviser, Carol Browner, says "the vast majority of the oil appears to have gone". Less than 10% of coastline saw any oil at all. There have been no sightings of dead fish floating in the sea and most fishing will soon be "back to normal". The Gulf is apparently "clean, safe and open for business", and a lovely place to take the kids. It is OK, everyone. Disaster has turned to triumph, so let us all think about the midterm elections.

So whose fault really was the collapse in the local economy? It began with a failed oil well, responsibility resting with BP, but blame still not apportioned. Yet as every terrorist knows, it is not the bomb that does the real damage, it is the publicity multiplier given it by the media and politics. The bomb causes the bang; the target is then relied on to supply the megaphone.

The great conflation of fear – often egged on by "the science" – is the result of government gladly allowing itself to go mad for a day, to raise a fear, glean a headline or win a budget rise. Obama grotesquely exaggerated the oil threat to advance his personal and party cause.

As voters, we have to hold those people responsible for doing the damage they have done to our economy and nation. Thankfully, as voters we can hold Democrats responsible this coming election. Please do so.

Recommendation on the GOP Candidate for Secretary of State

One of the hotly contested races this year at the Michigan Republican State Convention (held in Lansing on Saturday, August 28) will be the race for the Republican nominee for Secretary of State. In my opinion, there has been little objective analysis so far on the candidates, as I don't consider the liberals working at the major newspapers or the hired hands working for the candidates to be objective opinions, so I am going to once again jump into the void and provide some analysis of the candidates. To prove my objectivity, I will volunteer that when I began writing this blog post I still had not decided who I would recommend, although in doing research for it and looking over my notes from the many debates and functions that I have attended, I feel that I can offer some guidance on who delegates should vote for.

Voters will be able to vote for a Michigan Secretary of State election of 2010 on November 2, 2010.  Candidates for Secretary of State are nominated by political parties at their state conventions. The office of Secretary of State is an open seat because Michigan state term limit laws prevent current Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land from running for a third term, in spite of the fact that she has been doing an amazing job with that office and proved that someday she is going to be an important leader for our state.

Unlike in years past when the Secretary of State race really didn't matter that much, this year it does. The main reason for this is because of billionaire George Sorus and his attempt to corrupt our democracy by corrupting the very nature of elections in our county. As I wrote earlier in Soros Creates Project to Install Secretaries of State Across the Nation in Attempt to Control Vote Counting Forever:

George Soros has created a "527" group called the Secretary of State Project, which can accept unlimited undisclosed money, and will use that money to run attack ads and hit pieces on Republican and moderate Democrats in an attempt to install left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. Once Soros has put in place left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state all across the nation, they will be the ones counting the votes, deciding who is a registered voter and who isn't, and supervising the election process.

Joseph Stalin once remarked, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." George Soros is setting it up so that across the nation, left-wing Democrats will decide everything for our nation.

SoS Project is also endorsing Jocelyn Benson, candidate for secretary of state in Michigan, whom it lauds as an "[e]lection law scholar and community organizer." Benson is a candidate ACORN would love.

Now that you understand why important it is to win the Secretary of State position this year, let's immediately narrow down our list of possible candidates. Of course I hope that no one in their right mind considers voting for Democrat Jocelyn Benson- she is a left-wing liberal professor and lawyer who wants to let illegal aliens and Democrats from out of state vote, doesn't really like the 'one-person, one-vote' rule, wants to put an electronic chip in your license card so that she can track you at all times, wants to have Democrats count the votes and certify the votes in any election, and thinks that ACORN should run the entire Secretary of State office.

Also we probably can eliminate Green Party nominee John Anthony La Pietra, who is an attorney and likely a watermelon, Libertarian Scotty Boman, who is a community college instructor and will only suck votes away from real conservative candidates, and Tea Party candidate Kyle Franklin, who likely lives in California and is a registered Democrat who got on the ballot through forged signatures (see my post Fake Tea Party Group Exposed as Democrat Plot!).

So, let's now take a look at the possible Republican candidates for Secretary of State. There is State Senator Cameron Brown, Calhoun County Clerk Anne Norlander, State Representative Paul Scott, Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson, and State Senator Michelle McManus.

According to recent polling data the race is still wide open, although for the record McManus and Brown are in the lead. The numbers are Michelle McManus (R) 9.4%, Cameron Brown (R) 7.6%. Paul Scott (R) 5.2%, Ruth Johnson (R) 4.4%, Anne Norlander (R) 2.2%, and Undecided 71.2% (source: Glengariff Group Inc.).

As far as campaign finances go, Brown raised $228,000 (including $160,000 he gave his campaign), Norlander raised $224,000 (including $174,000 she loaned her campaign), McManus raised $197,000, Johnson has raised $174,000 (including $51,000 she gave herself), and Scott has raised $103,000 (includes $36,000 he gave his campaign) (source: The Detroit News), so it appears that McManus and Johnson are the big fundraisers.

Cameron Brown has a Master's Degree in Public Administration, served as St. Joseph county commissioner from 1988-98 and Mchigan State Senator from 2003 to present, and also is the former vice president of marketing for Freeman Manufacturing Co. He is a rather bland and boring speaker, does not get the crowd fired up, doesn't strike me as particularly conservative, has no experience as an elections official, and I haven't seen him at too many Tea Party events. He would be a solid and steady SoS, but doesn't strike me as the best candidate for the job.

Michelle McManus has a BA from CMU, is the former director of Gov. John Engler's northern office., was a State Representative from 1997-2002, and a State Senator from 2003-present. She has been involved with the Tea Party movement from the very start and strikes me as being a good conservative option for SoS, but she has no experience as an election official and doesn't excite the crowd. She would also be a good SoS, and I can see why she leads in both polls and fundraising, but I still feel there is a better candidate out there.

Ruth Johnson has a Master's Degree, was on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners from 1989-1998, was a State Representatives from 1999-2002, and since 2003 has served as the Oakland County Clerk. She's an able and nice clerk, but I think she like Mike Bouchard in that she is a state-wide election loser- I am bothered by her inability to run away with her last several Clerk elections here in Oakland County, and she was the lieutenant governor running mate for Dick DeVos in 2006 when he was hammered by an unpopular and inept Granholm. Also, she seems to be approaching the SoS position more as a legislator and less as an administrator. She's a good clerk and her experience running elections and ballots is a good plus, and she is raising a lot of money, and everyone in Oakland County is a homer for her, but I think that there are several candidates for SoS who bring a little more to the table.

Anne Norlander has a BA in Education from MSU, is a former kindergarten teacher, served as Calhoun county commissioner from 1984-1988, and has served as Calhoun County clerk from 1989 to present. Out of all the candidates running for Secretary of State, she has the most experience, and every time that I've seen her talk or debate, that experience has showed- she knows what the SoS office does better than any candidates, she knows the rules and regulations better than the other candidates, she knows exactly what's going on in other states and what the controversies are around the nation with regards to voting and elections, and clearly would run the SoS's office with command and ability. In any other year, I think she would be the best choice of candidates, as I feel the Secretary of State's office should be as un-political as possible and run by the best possible executive administrator, which I feel Norlander is. But I'm bothered by her lack of fundraising, her lack of support at events that I've gone to, and her poor polling numbers. I'd like to recommend her, but this election I'm going a different direction.

Paul Scott has a MA in public policy (from Harvard, and I'm not sure if that is a plus or a minus) and a law degree (from UofM, and again I'm not sure if that is a plus or minus), worked as the former deputy director, Gallup Organization's World Poll Division, and now is in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2009 to present. He lacks experience as an administrator and executive in elections and voting and he at times demonstrated a lack of knowledge about what the Secretary of State's office could do. But experience and knowledge can come quickly. Scott hasn't been active in the Tea Party movement that I know of, but in debates and speeches he expressed solid conservative values and struk me as the most game-changing possibility for the Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian element of the GOP. He is a great speaker and debater and has charisma. Some people are going to hold his age against him- he is only 29 and is rather young, but contrary to what some of the old-timers in the GOP think, talent should be rewarded over 'paying your dues'. Scott is going to be controversial, he is going to upset a lot of people, and when the Democrats turn the SoS election ugly he likely is going to have some things that he said that rubbed people the wrong way, but I'm feeling a little reckless and annoyed with the traditional establishment in the GOP and don't want Brooks picking Johnson for me or other old-timers telling me to go with Brown, so I'm going to be recommending that you vote for Paul Scott.

A Conservative Teacher recommends that you vote for Paul Scott as the GOP nominee for Secretary of State. Let's roll the dice on this wild card and buck the traditional GOP establishment by going with a young and energetic conservative who could be the next great Secretary of State for Michigan.

(source information on degrees and experience came from the AP)

UPDATE: After another week of research and discussion, I'd like to add a few more things. First, a considerable amount of the 'vote for Ruth Johnson' stuff is coming from people who Ruth knows and has worked for- it's homer-type stuff. Second, most of the criticism leveled at Paul Scott continues to be of the 'he's too young' variety, and I consider that to be bogus criticism. Third, Anne Norlander seems to be switching her focus from winning the campaign to running up support for her doing other things in her political future. Fourth, Cameron Brown continues to exist. And last, Michelle McManus has impressed me more and more whenever I have met her.

So, that being said, I recommend that if you are feeling a little crazy and want to shake things up, go with Paul Scott. If you want a more solid and sensible pick, go with Michelle McManus. See you at the convention!

OT: Original Tea Partier

Over at Doug Ross I saw this term used, and I wanted to elaborate a little bit further on it for the benefit of those who read my blog. There is a war going on in the Republican Party right now, as this is still the nominating and convention season, between those people who call themselves "Tea Party people" and those who refer to themselves as 'the establishment.'

But there is an important fact that is being ignored in this war- many of the people who have been in the GOP for years and who are now 'part of the establishment' are in fact and have been Tea Party people for many years.

The Tea Party movement, according to wikipedia, is an American socio-political movement that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests. The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Bailout), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus or Porkulus Bill), and a series of health care reform bills (Obamacare). The Gadsden Flag has become an adopted symbol of the American Tea Party movement. Tea Party people have been shown to care about the constitution, want to stop cap-and-tax, want a balanced budget, want a simplified tax system, limit spending, reduce taxes, and increase transparency in government.

Tea Party people wear as a badge of pride that they are new to the political process and are proud of their ignorance of the rules and players in their local/county/state/national Republican parties. As an OT, I'm glad to see so many of my fellow brothers and sisters finally participating in the political process, but on the other hand I don't view their newness and ignorance as something to be proud of. They sat around and weren't Tea Partying for many years while me and many other OT's were. While they complained to their friends or silently stewed in anger over the political system, me and other OT's were busy getting involved, volunteering, learning the rules of the game, meeting the local partisan players, and becoming 'the establishment'. This is not meant to be criticism of those first-time Tea Party citizens who are now involved in the political process- rather, my intent is to educate those people and make them more aware that when they attack the Republican party establishment, they have to be careful, because the Republican party establishment has been infiltrated for years by Original Tea Parties.

For years, many of us OT's fought for the same principles and for the same agenda that the Tea Party is just now starting to fight for. I'm glad to welcome them to the fray, I only hope that when they enter they don't take people like me, Ron Paul, Rocky, Rush, and many others.

Fake Tea Party Group Exposed as Democrat Plot!

The Democrats came up with a neat little plot for the coming General Elections- run "Tea Party" candidates who are not in fact Tea Party candidates and hope to draw votes off of real 'tea party' candidates who are running as Republicans. It is a nice plot, and like most Democrat initiatives it is full of deceit and fraud, and like most, it was uncovered and exposed, in time for the election, and voters now have a chance to punish Democrats up and down the ticket for this outrage too.

From an email sent by Ruth Johnson, Oakland County Clerk and GOP Secretary of State candidate:

Oakland County, Mich. - Friday, August 20, 2010 - Ruth Johnson, the Oakland County Clerk/Register, said her office has uncovered apparent evidence of fraud involving the so-called "Fake" Tea Party and one of its candidates.

"We have a candidate filing with signatures we suspect are forged and an out-of-state high school teacher who says he never filed to run for office and has no idea what this is even about," said Johnson.

On July 23, 2010 a man calling himself Aaron William Tyler filed signed paperwork to run on the November ballot as a Tea Party candidate for the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, District 2 seat. The candidate also filed paperwork to form a campaign committee, Citizens for Aaron Tyler. He listed a Springfield Township address and gave his birth date as Feb. 26, 1983.

However, when Johnson's office notified Aaron Tyler, now living out-of-state, that he had a $30 late fee for failing to file proper paperwork for his committee, he told Johnson's Director of Elections, Joe Rozell, that he had no idea what they were talking about and that he had never filed paperwork to run for office. Tyler's signature on the apparently falsified candidate filing, which had been notarized, does not match his signature on file in the State's Qualified Voter File.

At a press conference Friday, Johnson read a letter she received today from Aaron Tyler. His signature on today's letter did match Tyler's signature in the state's Qualified Voter File.

"This letter is in regards to the elections filing with the Oakland County Clerk's office. I was shown a document that states my intention of being placed on the ballot for this fall. I have been in Phoenix, Arizona since July 27, 2010 for a new job. I did not sign this piece of paper. I have been receiving calls in regards to various aspects of this election process and have been confused as to why I was getting those. I figured it must have been some sort of mistake. I finally took the initiative to call the Clerk's office to investigate and they have helped explain the situation to me. I have no intentions of running for elected office. I believe a fraud was committed." - Aaron Tyler, Aug. 20, 2010

Legitimate Tea Party organizations across the state have condemned the state's new Tea Party as a "Fake" Tea party which does not represent them or their beliefs. Election experts have called the state's new Tea Party a ploy by Democrats to confuse voters.

"Here we have evidence that their concerns may be well-founded," Johnson said. "We must ensure integrity in our elections. This is a group that is trying to deceive voters and now it appears that they may have committed election fraud. Our state needs an Elections Crimes Unit to investigate allegations like this."

Johnson said the alleged false Tyler paperwork was notarized by a Jason H. Bauer. According to Michigan Capitol Confidential.com, a Jason Bauer has registered twice to run for office in Oakland County, once as a Democrat in May of this year. Mr. Bauer notarized paperwork for eight Tea Party candidates running in the November election.

Johnson called for election officials across the state to examine all candidate filings by "fake" Tea Party candidates, especially any and all candidate affidavits notarized by the same individual who notarized the Tyler paperwork.

Johnson said the documents have been turned over to the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office and she will hand-deliver the documents to the Michigan Attorney General's Office for investigation On Monday. Johnson said she will also be testifying about the alleged fraud before the state Board of Canvassers Monday on Monday.

Cost of Government Day 2010

Via Americans for Tax Reform:

Every year, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and the Center for Fiscal Accountability calculate Cost of Government Day. This is the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at the federal, state, and local levels.

In 2010, Cost of Government Day falls on August 19. Working people must toil 231 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government - 8 days later than last year and a full 32 days longer than 2008.In other words, in 2010 the cost of government consumes 63.41 percent of national income.

Whenever you get into any argument with any liberal or Democrat about tax rates and the size of government and government finances, you need to ask that liberal or Democrat how much of a person's work and labor and investments in time and money and effort (referred to in the future as income) should the government take from them and give to someone else (government bureaucrats, connected interest groups, politically favorable charities, etc)? How much is too much?

You'll get two answers- that we are at the perfect rate right now (as if 63% is some sort of magical number), or that the rate is too high on the liberals and Democrats but not high enough of the conservatives and Republicans (or as they'll call it, the 'government-subsidized poor' pay too much, but the 'working private rich' don't pay enough). The magic number for liberals and Democrats is that they want 100% of your hard work to go to what they want to spend it on- they want to turn you into a slave of their interests and their desires. That shouldn't shock you- out of the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have been around, slavery has existed and thrived all but 150 of them (although slavery continues even today for women in Muslim nations and there is sex slavery in Africa and Southeast Asia). The real goal for Democrats and liberals is to make you a slave once more to the state, and have you work longer than 231 days out of the year for the state's interests.

Myself, I'm increasingly resenting the fact that I work 231 days out of the year for someone else- I consider that a violation of my life, liberty, and protection of property on which this nation was founded. Even if the Republicans can retake the House and the Senate and the state governments and the Presidency, at best they can only hold the line at this point, which is not good enough for me. The Revolution is brewing.

UPDATE: Just to educate some of your liberal rubes who read my blog, the solution to these high taxes on individuals for being productive is not to tax businesses instead. A business has costs to run and sells goods and services, and if they sell those goods for more than they cost to produce, they make a profit. If taxes are increased on businesses, several things could happen; one, the business owner will pay for those increased taxes out of profits that he earned, which will give him less money to buy goods and services from others, will give him less money to reinvest in his business, and will lessen his desire to make profits by being efficient; two, the business owner will pay for the tax by raising the cost of the goods or services, which will cause overall inflation on everyone as goods and services become more expensive to consumers, lowering economic activity and inflicting harm on everyone; three, the business owner will raise his prices to pay for the tax but be unable to have customers buy the goods at the increased prices and therefore will go out of business; or four, the business owner will keep his prices the same, no longer make money on the business, and eventually be unable to pay his bills and his business will go under.

Those of you who see 'increase taxes on businesses' as a solution to tax woes are indeed idiots, or fools with radio shows named Tomm Hartman.

Obama Begins to Outlaw Guns

Via The Volokh Conspiracy:

According to The Korea Times, the Obama administration has blocked efforts by the South Korean government to sell over a hundred thousand surplus M1 Garand and Carbine rifles into the United States market. These self-loading were rifles introduced in 1926 and 1941. As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use.

According to a South Korean official, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.”

Regarding the second objection, any firearm lawfully imported into the United States would eventually be sold by a Federal Firearm Licensee who, pursuant to the background check system imposed by Congress (and endorsed by the NRA) would have to contact federal or state law enforcement to verify that the gun buyer is not prohibited from possessing firearms. Accordingly, the risk that the South Korean surplus guns might fall into the hands of gangsters or other bad people is exactly the same as with the sale of any other retail firearm in the United States. Notably, neither the M1 Garand nor the M1 carbine are concealable, and the M1 Garand is long, heavy, and bulky. Accordingly, the criminal utility of such guns is relatively low.

The second Obama administration objection is accidents. But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents. In 1948 there were .36 guns per person. (That is, about one gun for every three Americans.) By 2004, there was nearly one gun for every American. In 1948, there were 1.6 fatal gun accidents per 100,000 persons. By 2004, the rate had fallen by 86%, so that there were .22 fatal accidents per 100,000 persons. (For underlying data, see Appendix B of my amicus brief in Heller.)

Legally, it is indisputable that the guns are importable. Being over 50 years old, the rifles are automatically “Curios and Relics” according to federal law. 27 CFR section 478.11. Accordingly, they are by statutory definition importable. 18 USC section 925 (e)(1). Notwithstanding the law, the Obama administration has the ability to pressure the South Korean government to block the sale of the guns.

President Obama was elected on the promise that he supported individual Second Amendment rights. His administration’s thwarting of the import of these American-made rifles is not consistent with that promise.

Obama, if he could, would take your guns out of your bitter-Bible-holding cold dead hands. Good thing the laws that he opposes prevent him from doing so. Sadly, as President, he is able to illegally put pressure on other nations and manufactures in order to lower the supply of guns and ammunition.  This is not a surprise, because there are primarily 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.

Obama has tried to dismantle the soap box (attacking Fox News and his Fair Net Use garbage), he has tried to stuff the ballot box (see my post on the SoS project), he has rigged the jury box by putting in place illegal laws judged by 'empathetic' judges, and now he is going to work to take away your ammo box and guns. He is a threat to liberty, and thus marks himself as a tyrant.

Manhattan Community Board 1 Approved Ground Zero Victory Mosque: Details Here!

Over my years as an active citizen, I've been to many Zoning Board meetings at several different towns and townships. I've seen Zoning Boards reject business owners who want to build a sign promoting their business because the 'sign was too green-colored' or 'the sign distracted from the overall ambiance of the area,' I've seen ZB's reject building permits for buildings that 'were not environmentally friendly enough' or 'didn't have the right amount of parking,' I've seen ZB's reject decks and docks and lamps for reasons ranging from 'too bright' to 'too big' to 'too close to neighbor' to 'not right vision for area.' I've seen churches, religious groups, gun sellers, and cell phone operators all rejected.

Anyone who is an active citizen in their community has probably seen similar actions by Zoning Boards all over America- Zoning Boards frequently reject and deny buildings for all sorts of reasons, regardless of 'separation of church and state' or 'Muslims have the right to building anything they want anywhere.' So let's back up a little bit on this Ground Zero Victory Mosque and ask the question "What in the world was the Lower Manhattan Zoning Board thinking when it approved this building 29 to 1?"

First, to be more accurate, the group that approved the Ground Zero Victory Mosque (or as it is sometimes called the Cordoba House Initiative Project, or Ground Zero Mosque, or Celebration of the Thousands Killed by Extremist Muslims, or Cordoba Initiative) is really called the Manhattan Community Board 1. CB1 is one of New York City's 59 community boards, covering most of the southernmost part of Lower Manhattan below Canal Street. Community Board members are appointed by the Borough President and make recommendations to government agencies about significant matters affecting the district. CB1 is reportedly concerned with quality of life and the delivery of services to the district and advocate on behalf of those who live or work in the district.

After a little bit of digging, I found the Resolution itself on the Cordoba Project, passed in May 25, 2010. You can see the Resolution yourself by looking at this page.

One shocking thing is that this Resolution was adopted by such large margins. One wonders who exactly was on this Board and who these people are who approved the Project- again, I've seen many local boards in many communities, and am shocked that this Resolution passed with only one objection. I'm going to continue to do some more digging on this issue, but I suggest that you do the same- Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation into who is behind this, so let's figure out who these people are who approved the building of this mosque and make them answer for their actions.

Sean Hannity's Discussion Board's suggest one way to contact the City of New York over this issue, but I don't think that's right course of action. The people to contact are the people on Manhattan Community Board 1, which you can contact by going here.

One of the main reasons used by liberals and Democrats in defense of this project is that "the project was approved in a non-political and non-religious and purely objective way." I reject this premise, as man is by nature a political animal, and this particular project was is a political and religious statement and anything but objective. This boards approval of the mosque was not an objective decision based on separation of church and state- no, this was a political statement by a group of radical liberals. Look up these people and see for yourself.

UPDATE: Welcome Doug Ross readers! Thank you for checking out my post- I hope that you all can do some legwork yourself on this issue. While you are on my blog, be sure to check out other recent entries like I Knew I Was Different From Liberal Teachers When..., Reflections from High School World History Students, Are 340K/year 'Anchor Babies' Too Many?, The Coming Tax Assault I: 2011 Destroyed by Tax Increases on Everyone, or Catailine = Obama?

Democrats Healthcare Policies May Block Cancer Treating Drugs

I'm on record as opposing Obamacare, which is one of the major policies that Obama and the Democrats in Congress (including Gary Peters) pushed through, because, as I wrote in Tyranny: Healthcare Reform Threat to Life, Liberty, and Property, Obamacare is a threat to my life, liberty, and property. As time passes, I'm documenting many of these threats, such as the fact that there was a Calorie Count Mandate in Obamacare Bill where the national government orders restaurant chains and convenience stores and vending machine operators to post calorie counts on menu boards and drive-through displays and everything else, costing businesses untold thousands in additional costs. Or in Death Panels Are in the Healthcare Bill I wrote about how Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation", authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare where a government bureaucrat will tell these senior citizens how expensive they are to keep alive and work to get them to die.

Today I'm going to point out yet another way that Obamacare, that piece of legislation pushed for by Obama and passed using dirty tricks and phony counting methods by Democrats in Congress (including Michigan's Gary Peters), attacks your life. Under Obamacare, the FDA will apparently pull drugs off the market because those drugs are too expensive to give to citizens.

That's right, part of the whole 'cost containment' package that the government is bringing to the table is going to be the outlawing of expensive drugs that could possibly help you live longer and healthier. Under Obama and the Democrats, we are going to increasingly live in a society where medicine and help is blocked to ordinary citizens by government, where the government will prevent you from living a longer and better life, and where the government will be the biggest barrier to your life. Of course, government employees and politically connected groups like labor unions will be able to get these medicines, as they are exempted from Obamacare.

From The Washington Post (H/T theblogprof and HotAir):

Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope.

The debate over Avastin, prescribed to about 17,500 women with breast cancer a year, has become entangled in the politically explosive struggle over medical spending and effectiveness that flared during the battle over health-care reform: How should the government balance protecting patients and controlling costs without restricting access to cutting-edge, and often costly, treatments? …

The FDA is not supposed to consider costs in its decisions, but if the agency rescinds approval, insurers are likely to stop paying for treatment. “It’s hard to talk about Avastin without talking about costs,” said Eric P. Winer, director of the Breast Oncology Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “For better or worse, Avastin has become in many ways the poster child of high-priced anti-cancer drugs.”

According to wikipedia, Avastin is an effective (and expensive) drug that is useful in extending the lives of people who have cancer. Imagine your grandparent or mother or father has cancer, and there is a drug available to them which will prolong their life by years and years. What would you do and how would you feel if you found out that the drug was being withheld from your loved one by a Democrat because he/she thought it was too expensive? How would you vote in the coming election if you found out that your loved one was forced to die years earlier because a Democrat official didn't think they were worth spending the money on?  That's Obamacare, and we're already seeing its results.

The Gipper Reminds of What We are Fighting For

People email me from time to time with kind words about how good my blog is, how strong my writing is, and how much they find that my words really speak to them. I'll be honest- what I do is simply echo the writings of our Founding Fathers- some of my most powerful posts have been mere updatings of our Founding Documents- Federalist 10, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc. Our Founding Fathers were great people, because what they articulated like no group before or after was the human condition. And it falls to us today to try to live up to their ideal, which is to fully enable the human condition as much as possible through freedom and liberty.

The great Ronald Reagan, who was mocked throughout his Presidency as uneducated and unsophisticated, demonstrates how far our political elite has fallen in education and sophistication. The Republican Study Committee made the following video, contrasting clips by Ronald Reagan with today's leaders of the Democratic Party. It is timely and a good reminder of what we fight for.

McSweeney's Account of His Little Daughter's Randian Objectivism

One of my middle kids is perfecting the art of going to the bathroom in the bathroom, and when he does we're using standard Pavlovian techniques of rewarding him with a gummy bear for each success. Another of my younger kids saw the gummy bears and wanted one, and I told him nope, and then explained to all the kids that you only get what you earn in life and nothing more. It is a rough lesson in this 'everyone gets a prize' world, but it is an important lesson if I want my children to be a positive for society. Sometimes I think I'm going a little too far with the raising of my kids, talking to them like that and reading them the Bible weekly and stuff, but then over at Pundit & Pundette I read a similar account from Timothy McSweeney. I suggest you read the whole post, but here are my favorite parts:

When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him. The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

Since the day Johanna was born, we've worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you've earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we've started socializing her a little bit, we've been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn't have asked for a better daughter.

That's why, when Johanna then began berating your son, accusing him of trying to coerce from her a moral sanction of his theft of the fruit of her labor, in as many words, I kind of egged her on. Even when Aiden started crying.

You see, that Elmo ball was Johanna's reward for consistently using the potty this past week. She wasn't given the ball simply because she'd demonstrated an exceptional need for it—she earned it. And from the way Aiden's pants sagged as he tried in vain to run away from our daughter, it was clear that he wasn't anywhere close to deserving that kind of remuneration. By so much as allowing Johanna to share her toy with him, we'd be undermining her appreciation of one of life's most important lessons: You should never feel guilty about your abilities. Including your ability to repeatedly peg a fellow toddler with your Elmo ball as he sobs for mercy.

Look, imagine what would happen if we were to enact some sort of potty training Equalization of Opportunity Act in which we regularized the distribution all of Johanna's and Aiden's potty chart stickers. Suddenly it would seem as if Aiden had earned the right to wear big-boy underpants, and within minutes you'd have a Taggart Tunnel-esque catastrophe on your hands, if you follow me.

Johanna shouldn't be burdened with supplying playthings for every bed-wetting moocher she happens to meet. If you saw Johanna, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold aloft the collective weight of an entire Tot Lot's worth of Elmo balls with the last of her strength, what would you tell her to do?

UPDATE: Some people are saying that the above story is a joke. As in 'it's funny to even imagine someone trying to teach their children any values other than liberalism/socialism.' As in 'for someone to do this is hilarious, but for every day in schools around the nation to indoctrinate every child with liberal values and beliefs is totally okay.' Sad, how some in our society are okay with indoctrination and messing with people's minds and values (largely against the wishes of the parents), while they are totally unaccepting of parents teaching children different values and beliefs. Your opinion of the above post only proves whether you are a joker or not.

UPDATE II: You leftist morons who continue to link to this post to mock me are still missing the point. This particular story from McSweeney may have been a satire, but what makes the satire so funny and interesting is how close to the truth it strikes. Look through the archives of my blog and you can find dozens of true experiences documenting further attempts by the left that I've personally seen and wrote about- that's the point of this blog, that liberals have used the school systems to pollute the minds of children and indoctrinate them to become liberals. It is scary that I'm a radical conservative maverick in my school because I teach kids to love liberty and freedom, to respect property rights and law, and to love and enjoy life- and it is scary that many liberals want me to not teach children any more because of those values.

Puns for those with a higher IQ

Just to show that there is both still intelligence and humor in this world...

• A man's home is his castle, in a manor of speaking.
• Practice safe eating - always use condiments.
• A man needs a mistress just to break the monogamy.
• A hangover is the wrath of grapes
• Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
• Condoms should be used on every conceivable occasion.
• Reading while sunbathing makes you well red.
• When two egotists meet, it's an I for an I.
• A bicycle can't stand on its own because it is two tired.
• In democracy your vote counts. In feudalism your count votes.
• If you don't pay your exorcist, you get repossessed.
• The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered.
• Every calendar's days are numbered
• A boiled egg in the morning is hard to beat.
• A midget fortune-teller who escapes from prison is a small medium at large.
• Once you've seen one shopping center, you've seen a mall.
• Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses.

Is US Funding Mosque Building Around the World?

Do you want to take your hard-earned money and use it to build mosques around the world? Do you care if the federal government is actively supporting mosque building? Do you think that defending 'separation of church and state' on one hand while actively building mosques on the other hand is hypocritical? Sadly, with Democrats in charge of our government, it doesn't matter what you want or care about or think- under Obama, you could be working every day so that you can send a part of your salary to Washington so that he Democrats can use that money to build mosques around the world. According to an op-ed by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek:

Since (Obama's election), Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it (already).

That right- according to a Washington insider, someone familiar with our government's policies and BFF with the administration that is ruling us right now, your hard work is going to build mosques for Muslims around the world.

This policy will probably be blamed on Bush, because he had in place a policy of seeking out and supporting moderate Islam by helping to fund schools, institutes, and community centers that are encouraged more moderate forms of Islam. This is probably a fool's errand and a lot of that money that was going to encourage more moderate forms of Islam probably found its way to extremist terrorist Muslim groups, but it's an understandable national security policy experiment to try to encourage moderate forms of Islam so that we don't have to fight as many terror groups. But what Bush didn't do (or shouldn't have done) is use taxpayer money to build mosques, because that would (and is) wrong and probably unconstitutional.

And yet, under Obama, according to this Newsweek journalist (and during the Bush years, the word of a Newsweek journalist was good enough for all liberals and Democrats), your taxpayer money is building religious buildings for Muslims around the world. If this is true, and I caution you that this needs to be looked into (although the Obama administration is probably the least transparent and most closed of any in our history), then this policy is very wrong and anyone associated with it (both President and Congress) need to be thrown out of office for supporting it.

H/T to Gateway Pundit and American Thinker.

Movie Review: The Expendables

Minus: Realism factor was zero. Plus: Pure sweet awesomeness factor was 5000. Walking out of the theatre, I echoed others who commented that "this movie oozes testosterone," or "I think I grew a third ball," or even "if all the most kick-butt guys in the world pooled their DNA into one pure kick-butt kid, this movie would be the story of his life." I'm not kidding- this is the best guy's guy movie I've seen in years, just pure out fun, laugh out loud in sheer delight at how incredibly and unapologetically manly it is.

Of course it is all the actors who make it that way- Sylvester Stallone is a man, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis face off with him, Dolph Lundgren has been beaten with the ugly/cool stick, Mickey Rourke is the soul of the Expendables, and Jet Li looks like he was born for that part, Jason Statham is a touch of new age, Terry Crews is scary sweet, Randy Couture is an MMA guy, and Steve Austin is a WWE guy. I'm not going to spoil the movie by telling you the plot, but there are a couple scenes that stand out- the duel between Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren, the duel between Steve Austin and Stallone, the duel between Gary Daniels (a kickboxer) and Jet Li, the blowing up of everything, the shooting up of everything, the knife work and knife throwing, and maybe the sweetest use of a AA12 shotgun ever.

This movie isn't the most realistic and won't push any sort of message on you (unless you consider killing third-world dictators and drug dealers some sort of message), but is the funnest ride you'll have in under 2 hours this summer. I can't wait for the sequel! Go see The Expendables today!

Barack Obama, Defender of the Muslim Faith

As memeorandum is reporting, it appears that United States President Democrat Barack Hussein Obama has changed his vote from 'present' to 'strongly supportive' of the "the right (of Muslims) to build a place of worship" on Ground Zero. This 'victory mosque' will be built with on the site of the most successful attack ever on America by Muslim extremists by Muslim extremists, all with the Democratic President's blessing.

There are so many people discussing this, I don't even know where to begin, so for now, I'll just direct you to some of the best commentary on this issue, over at Powerline, theblogprof, Protein Wisdom, No Sheeples Here, and Doug Ross.

Obama Officially Abolishes Transparency and Ethics

Oh, if only I was making up that title... via the Washington Examiner...

President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians.

Obama transferred "ethics czar" Norm Eisen to the Czech Republic to serve as U.S. ambassador. Some of Eisen's duties will be handed to Domestic Policy Council member Steven Croley, but most of them, it appears, will shift over to the already-full docket of White House Counsel Bob Bauer. Bauer is renowned as a "lawyer's lawyer" and a legal expert. His resume, however, reads more "partisan advocate" than "good-government crusader."

After this, the article goes on to document all of the evidence that the guy Obama now has overseeing ethics and transparency in his administration in fact is against ethics and transparency- notably blog posts by Bauer that mock openness, brag about doing things in secret, advocate naked uses of power, and openly suggest avoiding laws.

So, this should officially dispel yet another myth of his campaign. Overcoming racial divisions was destroyed by his playing the race card and playing racial politics virtually all the time. Instilling hope was destroyed by his policies which contributed to preventing a recovery and extending a recession. Bringing change was proved to be scam when he pushed hard for policies that had been pushed hard for by Democrats for over 60 years- he even brags about how he has finally done things that FDR wanted done- that's not change. Bridging the partisan divide was proved to be a mockery when he pushed legislation through without any votes by the GOP and had conferences with them for the pure intent of lecturing them.

And now he has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his administration does not even care about ethics and openness, and instead is all about passing bills in secret (healthcare bill, stimulus bill, etc were all passed mostly sight-unseen and unread and were advanced behind backroom dealing) and shrugging off ethics concerns (ie, not looking into the myriad of corruption charges related to selling offices, managing GM, etc). Obama has closed the door on Transparency and Ethics. Let's open the door to the White House and kick him out ASAP.

Looking to Make it a Movie Night?

Why not make tonight a movie night? If you are looking to go out to a movie, I highly recommend "The Expendables"- this action/adventure about a group of mercenaries is hired to infiltrate a South American country and overthrow its ruthless dictator would fit right into the action/adventure movies of the 80's, and for good reason- it stars some of the best stars of the 80's! With Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, and even Dolph Lundgren, it is sure to be a smash of a fun movie! Go check it out tonight!

And if you want to stay home and rent something good, Big Hollywood has put together a nice list of the Top Five Conservative (Fairly) New Films On DVD, including The Road, From Paris With Love, Dear John, Book of Eli, and Brooklyn’s Finest. Go ahead and rent one of those movies and have a great time tonight!

Oakland County GOP Convention August 2010

The Oakland County Republicans held their first convention of 2010, and it was a wild one. From the rousing speeches given by the candidates to the wild candidate selection process, this convention was considerably different than the slower-paced conventions of the past. As the local media was likely at the far smaller Democratic county convention being held at a far smaller venue, I'll do their job and report on what took place at this well-attended event.

Over 1400 precinct delegates were elected to the GOP convention, which was held at the massive auditorium of a nearby school- for comparison, the Democrats had maybe 400 (that's all their venue holds) attend their convention. The delegates were joined by all the GOP officials running for election this cycle and other noteworthy GOP officials, and were treated to speeches by Supreme Court Justice Robert Young (who pointed out that he is being stalked by Democrats full-time, who are hoping to catch him getting sleepy so they can run ads about him being a sleepy judge too, although even if they don't get footage of him, they'll just hire an actor and outright lie again), your next Congressman from the 9th District in Michigan Rocky Raczkowski (who pointed out that he is a patriot and not a politician, donate to Rocky by clicking here), Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Michael Warren (who recited the Declaration of Independence for us all), Attorney-General candidate Mike Bishop (who again was solid), Secretary-of-State candidate Paul Scott (again impressive), and many others. These speeches were rousing and entertaining, and anyone who thinks 'all Republicans are boring big-government RINO's' should really take some time to listen to the real conservative Reagan Republicans who run from Michigan's Oakland County.

After the speeches, delegates broke up into sub-caucus groups according to their city. It was here that things got interesting for the delegates. Before the convention, for the first time in my experience, delegates were organized into two competing groups- traditional conservative Republicans and first-time Tea Partiers (big government Republicans, liberal Republicans, and moderate Republicans were generally excluded by both groups). Seizing the initiative and the rules, the Tea Party groups tried to control the proceedings and force their candidates to be chosen as the state delegates, and in some cases, they were very successful in doing so. They understood the rules of order and had considerable numbers, so it is quite understandable, but the process upset many delegates, especially long-time Republican supporters from Troy, Farmington Hills, and Rochester. One can only hope that the infighting in the GOP doesn't sap support for candidates up and down the ticket- this reporter thinks that it won't.

Oh, out of curiosity- will one of my readers email me and let me knowif the Democratic County Convention was similar? I'm curious if they say the pledge, have an invocation, recite the Declaration of Independence, have speeches about rule of law, freedom, liberty, and how to grow the economy like I saw at the GOP convention. Did they have debates about representation, the nature of government, the role of government in people's lives, life, liberty, property, etc? I'm guessing not but I'd really like to find out.

The next step for all delegates is to work hard to defeat liberals and Democrats up and down the ticket. Some delegates were chosen to go to the State Convention, and perhaps I'll pick up a guest pass and go myself and check it out.

UPDATE: Apparently the GOP State Confirmation Committee or something invalidated the state delegate lists that were submitted by several townships and cities, including Rochester, Rochester Hills, Troy and Waterford Township. While there is discussion of this being some sort of plot, it is fact because those lists were submitted improperly, with parliamentary procedure not followed and rules violated. Some of the lists that were submitted included delegates who were not elected as precinct delegates or who were not present at the county convention, and thus according to the rules (which were unchallenged at the convention), those lists should not have been accepted. While the Detroit News spends most of the article on discussions of plots and stuff, it really is just a simple matter that some people did not follow the right process when they voted in their groups to approve certain lists.

This issue should have been decided at the County Convention and thus a considerable amount of blame must be directed at the sub-caucus chairs of those townships and also at Glenn Clark, who oversaw a County Convention that was apparently run so poorly that a 'do-over' is needed. The convention ended at a decent time (11:00 pm)- other conventions ended later than that, so there was time to figure things out. It was confusion, laziness, and lack of leadership that led to this 'do-over', and now I'm going to have to read all these emails and stories about how it was some sort of plot by some group or something- how annoying!