NY Spurs Economic Growth by Spending $27.5 million to Change Font on Street Signs

The parable of the broken window was created by Frédéric Bastiat in 1850 (see his book Essays on Political Economy for more) to illuminate the notion of hidden costs associated with destroying property of others, and yet today uneducated and foolish Democrats ignore it and insist that economic growth can be stimulated in the United States simply by spending money. Democrats at every level point towards their insistence on government spending as a way of demonstrating that they know how to revive the economy, but most of that spending involves the destruction of something in society which is then rebuilt at a large cost.

For example, my Democratic Congressman pushed to redo a bunch of roads in my area, roads which were still okay and only showed slight signs of deterioration, and then he campaigns about how he is reviving the economy through actions like that. Tearing up a road and rebuilding it does not revive the economy and more so than breaking someones window does. The destruction of property followed by its reconstruction with only marginal improvements might seem like you are marginally improving society, but to pay for that destruction and reconstruction you need to take money from people who are putting it to considerable productive use (investing it, buying products, saving it in the bank, buying services, etc). The trade-off is a loss for society as a whole. It isn't really that complicated, and yet the wise and intelligent Democrats don't seem to get it.

Via memeorandum comes this story from The New York Daily News "New Yorkers outraged as bureaucrats order city to change lettering on every single street sign":

The city will change the lettering on every single street sign - at an estimated cost of about $27.5 million - because the feds don't like the font. Street names will change from all capital letters to a combination of upper and lower case on roads across the country thanks to the pricey federal regulation, officials said Wednesday.

By 2018, MADISON AVE. will become Madison Ave. and will be printed in a font called Clearview, the city Department of Transportation says. The Federal Highway Administration says the switch will improve safety because drivers identify the words more quickly when they're displayed that way - and can sooner return their eyes to the road.

Still, several city residents were OUTRAGED.

The government under the Democrats continue to break windows and destroy the economy, and every day that they are in power our country and society gets a little worse off, in hundreds of little ways.

UPDATE: Apparently Democrats broke window's all over the nation, as the law that forces NYC to change its signs is a federal unfunded mandate that requires that all traffic signs in the entire nation be of a certain minimum size and be made of a more highly reflective paint to make them easier to read, particularly at night. It also dictates that street names be printed in a combination of capital and lowercase letters rather than in all capital letters. There is no money to support this mandate, and it falls on local communities to implement this change or face lawsuits.

As of now, local communities all across the nation are deciding to layoff policeman and fireman in order to comply with this federal mandate.

Dukakis Gives Advice to Obama: Obama Gets it?

Bizarro world strikes again! From the Boston Globe, via memeorandum:

Former Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis, the failed 1988 presidential nominee, recently visited the White House and delivered his strategy for the midterm elections: pound key precincts across the country with the message that Republicans want to implement the same policies that led to the Great Recession.


Asked if the White House aides were receptive, he said, "I think they certainly get it." He declined to name the aides he met at the White House.

Nope, this isn't a story pulled from the Onion- this is an honest case of a clear loser telling another soon-to-be loser how to run a losing campaign. Oh, and Obama gets it- the Democrats in general are now all running on the 'blame Bush' strategy, even though they've controlled Congress for 4 years and the White House for 2. I'm rather optimistic that voters won't fall for this sort of garbage in the coming elections, and the result for Obama and the Democrats will be similar to what it was back in 1988.

Time-travel back to 1988 by going to The Living Room Candidate. If you haven't checked out this website before, it is an excellent repository of all of the campaign commercials the major candidates ran on television during their campaigns for the President. As you can see by clicking on the 'Election Year' and '1988' tabs, Dukakis ran one of the worst campaigns ever, by sounding a message that was both negative and boring. Not sure if you have been paying attention to old BoBo the Clown, but that's what he increasingly sounds like too.

Many people foget about Micheal Dukakis when discussing politics, but he was the nominee for President for the Democratic Party in 1988 and as such he shouldn't just be dismissed. His record as Governor and his campaign for President both are enlightening, and I've written about them before on this blog. As a curiously, 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.

But then as I thought about it further, I realized that Barack Obama is Micheal Dukakis, which I elaborated on in my post Obama is Dukakis? Smack JSM's Campaign Manager Around!

Both Obama and Dukakis are 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? George H.W. Bush 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.

Yup, back then GHWB knew how to hammer away at a candidate like Obama running a negative 'blame the guy before me' campaign. Hopefully the next GOP candidate for President will learn that lesson too.

UPDATE: The code of conduct on Bizarro world is "Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!". In one episode of the comics, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: "Guaranteed to lose money for you". Yup, sounds like Dukakis advising Obama on how to run the United States of America.

9th Congressional District Debate Review

Democratic Incumbent Congressman Gary Peters flew back from Washington DC on Monday night to debate his challenger, Republican nominee Rocky Raczkowski, and the lively debate did a great job of contrasting the two opponents.

Over a series of questions on 'don't ask, don't tell', 'campaign commercials,' 'tax breaks,' 'illegal immigration,' and other issues, the two candidates contrasted their styles and hammered away at their strategies to win the upcoming election on November 2.

Gary Peters hammered at Rocky through a series of personal attacks, questioning his honesty, integrity, and motivation. He seized on jokes, mischaracterized Rocky's positions, slandered him, and frequently referred to the frivolous lawsuit by the cocaine addicted customer that provides much of the information that Peters is campaigning on. At every opportunity, he dodged his votes and his stands on issues, and promised that if you give him another two years in Congress, he will continue to work hard and make sure that he does nothing other than vote the Democratic party line. At one point he even accused his lack of production on legislation on the Republicans, who are the minority party (by large numbers) in Congress, hoping that voters wouldn't realize how lame that excuse is. Peters campaign is going to be 'Rocky is a birther, Rocky is being sued, Rocky had someone controversial at an event he was at, and Rocky is corrupt.'

Rocky Raczkowski hammered at Peters through frequent references to Peters votes on issues, questioning his votes on cap-and-trade, Obamacare, budgets, and the stimulus bill. He argued that residents of the 9th district need better representation in Congress than what Peters is providing, and was critical of Peters votes on those issues, which Rocky felt have harmed the middle class and have contributed to turning a recession into a job-killing debt-orgy depression. At every chance, he talked about how he would fight for Michigan families and not be a partisan hack beholden to the GOP or the Democratic Party, and that if he were elected into office, he would listen to the people of his district and take their views into consideration when voting on important issues to them. Rocky's campaign is going to be 'Peters voted wrongly on many bills, Peters isn't a good legislator, Peters is a solid liberal Democrat, and we need to put in place someone that will listen to the voters of the 9th District.'

Don't take my word for any of this- watch the debate yourself. You will see.

My favorite part of the debate was when Congressman Peters argued that employers should never hire anyone who is being sued for anything, since people need to 'put their personal house in order before working for any sort of company.' Lawyers can sue and sue and sue, and have their lawsuits dismissed and proven without merit, but as long as someone is being sued, they shouldn't have a job and shouldn't be working at all, because they may have to defend themselves, and that will take some minor amount of time away from the job. I would imagine that this will be called the 'Peters Full Employment for Lawyers, No Employment for the Sued' Act, and would probably be passed by the Democratic Congress, which sports a rather large number of Democratic Congressman who are being sued on various corruption and ethics charges.

Oh, I also liked when Congressman Peters said that Rocky couldn't be trusted because he was a politician and had run for office 6 or 7 times in the past. This is the kind of logic you get from a politician who has run for office 6 times and is trying to make the campaign into one of trust. Voters don't have to worry about that with Peters- we already know that Congressman Gary Peters takes the word of a cocaine-addict who has had his frivolous lawsuits dismissed already and therefore can't be trusted.
 
One other thing I'd like you to chew on from this debate. If you haven't read The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs in a while, you should. Peters really hates Wall Street and the stock market because it's had a really bad downturn lately. He doesn't want you to put any money into those. That kind of philosophy is a good way of killing the Golden Goose.

UN Denial of 'First Contact" Rings Hollow- They Believe Aliens Should View Them as Your Leader

The United Nations wants to be the one who aliens get taken too. Mazlan Othman, the head of the U.N.'s little-known Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa) was recently named  "Chief Alien Ambassador". In this role, she will lobby for funding and assistants and office space so that if aliens ever do land on our planet and ask to see our leader, the UN can claim that it has in place the bureaucracy to handle the negotiations. She will set out the details of her proposed new role at a Royal Society conference in Buckinghamshire next week.

The United Nations has denied the story, which was first told by The Sunday Times over the weekend and then subsequently re-reported by numerous other media outlets around the world. "The mandate of the Office for Outer Space Affairs is defined by the United Nations General Assembly and there are no plans to change the current mandate," Jamshid Gaziyev, a spokesman for Unoosa, told FoxNews.com.

The truth of the matter is that your tax money is going to the United Nations who have people working diligently on how they can take power and voice and authority from you and your elected Representatives and rule over you. Don't forget, the UN is in reality a collection of despots and tyrants with only a few truly elected and limited executives scattered in, and one has to be very careful about ceding to that body future negotiations with alien races. The UN gave Iran the chair of the Council on Human Rights- they'd probably select North Korea to negotiate with the aliens because Kim Jung Il is a moonbat.

The good thing is that in all likelihood this plan will just siphon money from hard working people and give it to appointed academics who will sit around living nicely on your income. I highly doubt it will be the blunder that will end the entire human race. Rest safely- if aliens do land and plan on destroying us, the Lightmaker will part the seas and save humanity with the musical sounds of himself.

UPDATE: If movies are accurate, it is unlikely that aliens will land somewhere where residents recognize the United Nations as any sort of authority on anything- they tend to like trailer parks (see The Last Starfighter) and stuff.

Walls of Schools Decorated with Artwork Praising Internationalism and Give Peace a Chance

Yesterday as I as walking through the halls of my school, it suddenly occurred to me what was on the walls. Oh, I know I look for liberal bias in textbooks, in breakroom conversations, and in different educational practices of teachers, but for some reason I never noticed before yesterday that the art work on the walls of the school are liberally-slanted.

Most of the art in our school comes from students, who have been inspired by and whose direction was shaped by some sort of contest for artwork. Of course, everyone is a winner, since in a liberal world everyone is a loser, and each piece of artwork that was made is proudly displayed on the wall. Were the contests based around doing something profitable or demonstrating some sort of school? No- not surprisingly in an institution dominated by the liberal leftist agenda, these contests are ideologically based around the values and beliefs of the liberal left-wing agenda.

In my school, the walls are covered by students who studied and worked long hours trying to bring to life the themes ‘give peace a chance’ and ‘internationalism’.  The goal of these contests is to get young children thinking about and building and strengthening the liberal world-view, in particular the liberal views on foreign policy that I would characterize as global nation-building, weak national security, and puppy-dog and sunshine views of terrorists. On the other hand, students were guided into producing posters and drawings that show 'give peace a chance' and 'internationalism' in a more positive light.  In these posters, the only person who is allowed to use force or think independently is the king, who lords over the peasants, for their benefit, of course. You see, a liberal wants to be the king of everyone, telling them what to do, and therefore willingly supports a super-global king, as long as he is liberal. It's okay for the UN to come in and tell nations what to do (ie, internationalism) and it's okay for Obama to tell nations what to do (peace prize), but everyone else is to be contemned for fighting for life, liberty, and property.

These posters do have an affect on these young kids. Students are learning still, and the ones shaping the minds of our nation’s youths are these warped individuals with leftist liberal leanings. It is wrong when a kid is told that national security isn’t that important and that he should not draw guns and bombs, but instead should draw hearts and flowers to enter in the school wide and supported by taxpayers money ‘give peace a chance’ contest. It is wrong when a kids poster is rejected for showing a people enslaved to the UN because the teacher thinks that internationalism is the correct way to go.

Next time you're in a school, look around, and let me know if you see anything similar on the walls. In an institution dominated by liberalism, it won't be surprising.

Best Campaign Commercials of the Last Several Years

This campaign season is wild! As you can see by my past posts, I've been very busy, and even have hopes of turning my "Democrats Two America's" theme into a campaign advertisement. Here are the kinds of campaign advertisements that have been inspiring me- follow the link for some great fun!

Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

Nancy Pelosi, Wicked Witch of the West:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7jJI1cfEgc

Alabama Agricultural Commissioner Commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0

Carly Fiorina, Demon Sheep: Mutton on the Lamb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZxk_9GTHrs

Tim James “We Speak English”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEPh_KlTyII

A Beer With Steve Novik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2UesvrH-cs

Christopher Knight for School Board TV Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLi5B0Iefsk

Senate Candidate Freilich on a Cow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I9h2d8hw6g

"YUM! YUM!" - Jim Bender, Republican Candidate for US Senate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvd2fDsBos

Democrats' Two America's: Private Sector Ruin Juxtaposed with Public Sector Growth

On the north end of Democrat Gary Peters 9th District, the story of two different Americas is clearly visible for everyone to see. One America is the America of capitalism and private-sector jobs, and the other America is of corporatization and public-sector jobs. One America is the bankrupt ruins of a $2 billion shopping and housing development, and the other America is the road construction workers dutifully ripping up and rebuilding a major road right in front of it.

Democrats like Peters believe that the best way to lead our nation back to growth and prosperity is to have the national government lead the way by having the national government borrow money from banks in the US and from lenders like China abroad and then use that money to build roads, bridges, schools, and public buildings. In this America, there is job growth and pay raises, assuming that you have the correct political connections to get the jobs and you belong to the labor unions that do business with the state. In this America, there is little accountability to customers and little money to be made by taking risks, increasing efficiency, or cutting costs- in the Democrats America, there is always a job for everyone willing to do the bidding of the state.

This America is the road construction that you see in the pictures and videos, and is something that Democrats like Gary Peters can rightly take credit for.

But there is another America out there, an America where jobs are increasingly scarce, investment funds are nonexistent, and pay cuts are the norm. In this America, increasing taxes, increasing regulation, and increasing uncertainty caused by a growing state presence in the marketplace has caused it to be less profitable to do business, has scared customers and investors, and has led to high unemployment and low job growth. The government is borrowing funds for their projects, and so businesses find it increasingly difficult to borrow money for their projects. Efforts to cut costs and increase efficiency are met by political leaders publicly speaking ill about your company, and it becomes increasingly difficult to meet the bottom line when the government forces the bottom line up and talks profits down.

This America is the abandoned and bankrupt building project that you can see in the pictures and videos, and this is also something that Democrats and Gary Peters can take credit for.

The two Americas meet at the 93-acre site on Telegraph Road near Square Lake Road in Bloomfield Hills. Bloomfield Park was once the symbol of booming private America- a place where citizens could work, buy products, and live. It now lies abandoned, naked steel girders and half-built looming structures, some seven stories tall, crumbling and rusting in front of construction work to rebuild the public road that goes past it. Its marble foundations and ambitious scale are the risks that America once took on itself, but at its feet now scurry the workers of the America that now safely puts its power in the hands of government officials.

The Bloomfield Park Construction Project collapsed in November 2008. It is no coincidence that this also was when the Democrats increased their majorities in the House and Senate, when Congressman like Gary Peters took office, and when Barack Obama was elected President. Taxes, regulations, czars, and uncertainty followed, preventing the project from ever being revived. Now it lies dead, too damaged to ever be saved.

But work continues on Telegraph road. Signs boldly advertise that the project was paid for by stimulus dollars voted for and signed into law by Democrats. Democrats like Peters point to this as a sign that his plan is working, and wants to be returned to office based on public works projects like these. That's the America that Democrats ultimately want- an America that is dependent on the state for jobs and income and growth while the private sector dies.

All video and picture was taken by me from my camera phone, after I snuck past security and risked my life walking through the dangerous ruins of America's once glorious past (pre-2008).

UPDATE: Thanks for linking!

Gary Peters Spits Out Teabagger

Democratic Congressman Gary Peters let his hate and disgust for the Tea Party movement show at an Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority candidate forum when he referred to his Republican opponent Rocky Raczkowski as a “tea-bagger.” He later went on to say that those who attend Tea Party rallies are "close-minded" and guilty of "creating a polarizing rhetoric." The forum was held at the Bloomfield Township library and most of the crowd were women.

Congressman Peters, talking in a library talking to a crowd of mostly women, called his opponent "someone who places his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner". Yep, if you use the word 'teabagger' as an insult, that's what it means (wikipedia actually has a picture). Peters, who speaks often about wanting to run a clean campaign, used as an insult a sexual term that means to squat on someones face and rub their genitals in their face.

I apologize about being so gross with this, and I really hate to explain the meaning of the term on here, but this election is for adults, and to have someone running for Congress who uses such an inappropriate term in front of a crowd like that at a setting like that demonstrates that Congressman Peters isn't adult enough to hold office any more.

Further, teabagging is more common in the homosexual community than it is in the heterosexual community, and found its way into usage several years back as a way of insulting heterosexual people by calling them homosexual. In other words, if you think gays are bad people and sick people, you call someone else gay by calling them a teabagger. Its usage is very similar to when people call something they think is stupid or wrong "gay"; this also is inappropriate because it is offensive. So Gary Peters obviously is communicating his feelings about homosexual behavior, and by using teabagger as an insult, he may be communicating that he views gays as insulting. For them to turn around and vote for him after this sort of message would be wrong.

Lastly, let's take a look at exactly what Gary Peters find so distasteful that he'd result to using vulgar and offensive terms to describe someone else. Peters thinks that people who like the US Constitution are sick and disgusting individuals- they're teabaggers. Peters think that those people who want a balanced federal budget are the kind of people who engage in deviant sexual acts- they're teabaggers. Peters thinks that citizens who want to reduce taxes are gross and vulgar and reduces them to simply teabaggers. He identifies those who believe in the Tea Party Movement as those who engage in teabagging. That demonstrates what Gary Peters believes at his core, which is proven too by his voting record- that Peters is a tax-raising, Constitution-hating, taxpayer money spending liberal.

For the record, I take offense when candidates use vulgar and derogatory terms to describe their opponents, and feel that in a republic like ours there is no place for these kind of disrespectful and offensive statements.

Democratic Congressman Gary Peters has a solid conservative opponent in this election who will fight for the citizens of our great nation and maintain the respect and honor of the office. I suggest that anyone who is offended by Peters donate to Rocky Raczkowski's campaign by going to http://www.rockyworksforus.com/.

UPDATE: Thank you readers of RedState, who have also picked up on this story.

UPDATE II: Welcome readers of Powerlineblog! Please feel free to look around my site and read some of my other stories- I'm sure you'll like them!

EPA to Fisherman- We Control You

The EPA has decided to exercise its authority granted to it by Article I, section 50 of the US Constitution, which says that "An unelected agency of bureaucrats shall have the power to outlaw lead weights and sinkers and bullets." Coming soon, a package of a dozen common lead fishing weights will jump from $7 to $20 for a dozen composite alternative weights, or if you use a common lead sinker which runs $0.05 it'll jump to $4 a piece for a tungsten sinker. The EPA says that it is going to considerably raise the cost to fish for both commercial and amateur fisherman this because it feels that too many fish and birds are dying of lead poisoning.

Right now if you snag your line deep water, you just cut it off and move on. Probably not the most environmentally friendly way to go. In the future though, cutting that line will cost you $5-$10 bucks, which might tempt you to go into deeper water to retrieve that line. My prediction- this ban by the EPA is going to increase drowning deaths in fisherman. But the EPA doesn't care- to the liberals who run that organization, one bird is worth ten human lives (for example, the EPA forces carmakers to build lighter cars of weaker materials, leading to a thousand-fold increase in car crash deaths each year, just to 'fight global warming'.)

This sort of overreach by a bureaucratic agency is increasingly indicative of a tyrannical government. Government exists to protect your life, to protect your right to live in liberty and freedom, and to protect your right to keep and own property. All proposed laws must be judged under those obligations. This proposed EPA ban on lead weights and bullets could lead to a loss of life to humans, it controls people and takes away their freedom to choose, and it prevents people from owning and using certain types of property. I understand that too many anglers and fisherman and hunters leave an occasional lead weight laying around, but an outright ban by the EPA is not correct action to this.

The EPA released as statement on August 27 saying that it thinks it has the jurisdiction to make a decision regarding the control of fishing tackle in the entire United States, although it did say that for now it doesn't think it has the authority to ban types of ammunition it doesn't like. This is no longer a republic of laws when a bureaucratic agency decides what sorts of powers over the people of America it thinks it has or doesn't have- those actions are more strongly associated with two-bit tyrannical dictatorships.

Lawmakers, duly elected members of our country, should meet and discuss this in an open environment, and after considering all the options and hearing all the arguments, pass a law then. And it shouldn't be federal lawmakers either- this isn't a federal issue and the federal government has no constitutional power in this area, so since this is a state issue, state lawmakers should be the ones discussing this.

This discussion on the banning of lead weights in fishing is indicative of the larger battle that is going on in our nation today- a battle between unlimited government that violates life, liberty, and property, and those who want a limited republic of the laws that protects life, liberty, and property. Make sure in the coming election you put the correct bunch of people in power.

John Dennis' "Nancy Pelosi is the Wicked Witch" Campaign Ad

Whenever I come across a great campaign commercial, I always enjoy passing it on (see my posts Alabama Agricultural Commissioner Commercial or Campaign Ads Getting Better). Via theblogprof, here is a very funny campaign ad from John Dennis, the Republican who is running for Congress against Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Do I think that John Dennis has a realistic shot of taking out Pelosi? In any other year, I'd say no, that Pelosi is going to do everything 'legal' possible in terms of fundraising and advertising and uses of political favors and pressure to win. But this isn't a usual election year, so perhaps the guy has a shot. You have to give him credit for pulling out all the stops and swinging for the fences- I hope voters reward a guy that is obviously hard working and creative like this.
UPDATE: If the above video is broken, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJWu6El-QLw

Democrats Cast Their Greedy Eyes on Gold, Regulation of Sellers and Buyers Soon to Follow?

Democrats and liberals are correct- individuals buying gold does represent a grave threat to their vision of a communist United States that piles up debt obligations and lives a dangerous unreal existence of welfare, give-aways, and fanciful projects. Via Future Of Capitalism through PowerLine:

Just as the government is trying to prevent people from investing in anything other than T-Bills by raising taxes on taxable interest and dividends to confiscatory levels, it's also trying to prevent you from parking your wealth in assets, like gold, that compete with the paper dollars issued by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner's Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman's Commerce Committee) will focus on "legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who's [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television."

From the press release: "Under Rep. Weiner's bill, companies like Goldline would be required to disclose the reasonable resale value of items being sold." That's great. Are Mr. Weiner and Chairman Bernanke also going to agree to print on every dollar the reasonable expectation that its value will be eroded by inflation? ...

Mr. Weiner's regulatory push seems as much aimed at conservative journalists as at the gold-dealers. The press release says, "Goldline employs several conservative pundits to act as shills for its' [sic] precious metal business, including Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, and Fred Thompson. By drumming up public fears during financially uncertain times, conservative pundits are able to drive a false narrative. Glenn Beck for example has dedicated entire segments of his program to explaining why the U.S. money supply is destined for hyperinflation with Barack Obama as president."

Imagine the uproar if a Republican-majority Congress started investigating and having a regulatory crackdown on big advertisers in liberal outlets such as the New York Times. The First Amendment freedom-of-the-press crowd would be marching in the streets.

The whole situation is amazing. If Mr. Weiner really wants to calm fears about hyperinflation, the last way to do it is to have a government hearing cracking down on the people warning of it.

Regulation of gold sales (likely with taxes to follow), and investigations and witch-hunts for anyone selling gold. Is this the America that you all dreamed about when you were young? Is this the America that voters wanted when they voted for Democrats and Obama in 2008? What kind of a tyranny will this nation be when the government tries to control what sort of assets you personally put your wealth into? And just what do you think is going to happen when the government is left sitting on a massive amount of worthless US currency and you're sitting there with any amount of valuable gold? Better get a gun too when you buy that next once, because you're gonna need it now that the Democrats in Congress have cast their greedy eyes on the little yellow metal that you own.

Rocky Surges to Lead in Michigan's 9th! Will 2010 Really be a Conservative Landslide?

Last month, most commentators and national election rating groups had Michigan's 9th District pegged as "Likely Democrat". This race pits incumbent Democratic Congressman Gary Peters vs challenger Republican Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, and if Republicans are going to win back control of the House and really put in place some real conservative changes for our nation, this is exactly the type of race that needs to be won.

We all know that Republicans are going to have a good night on November 2nd, but we need to make it a historic one, and that's why national pundits and commentators need to start paying attention to this race. Rocky is a real conservative, while Peters is a liberal who pretends to be a moderate, and to put in place real conservative policies- lower taxes, balanced budget, less regulation, smaller government, no cap-and-trade, no Obamacare, protected borders, strong national defense, etc- we need to have races like this one move from "Likely Democrat" to "Likely Republican." And that's starting to happen.

RealClearPolitics recently changed the rating to "Lean Democrat", and that's a good sign. But an even better sign has come from the Oakland Press, which somehow let a balanced article slip past its usual pro-Peters editors. The article is U.S. Rep. Peters trails in latest tracking poll, and this is exactly the sort of information that should really get you excited that conservative values are going to make a come-back this election and once again set our nation back on the path to greatness:

Republican challenger Rocky Raczkowski has the lead over first-term incumbent U.S. Rep. Gary Peters in the 9th congressional district, an independent weekly tracking poll released Wednesday indicates.

The automated poll conducted Sept. 13 of 300 likely voters in the 9th congressional district and 400 likely voters statewide has Raczkowski at 45 percent and Peters at 40.7 percent with 10.3 percent undecided. The poll was conducted by The Rossman Group in partnership with Team TelCom.

The two greatest threats to Rocky is the perception that he can't win, which polls like this help dispel, and the fact that Peters has received massive amounts of money from special interest groups from around the nation, and he is going to use that money to run a dirty campaign full of thuggish tactics. You can help combat that too, by donating a couple bucks to Rocky through his website.

Thank you to other blogs out there that have also linked to this story, including Michigan's 9th Congressional GOP and Rotti II.

Romney-Palin in 2012!

Today for some reason I am very hopeful for our nation. The Republicans are going to win and take back the House and Senate, and then will lower taxes, slash the size and scope of government, and work to repeal job-killing bills like Obamacare. This will cause our economy to begin to recover. Then 2012 will roll around, and Mitt Romney will emerge as the Presidential candidate and choose Sarah Palin as his VP. He'll win, the economy will strengthen, go through a slight swoon, and then boom during his second term. Sarah Palin will then be elected President in 2020 and by then, the damage of Obama being President for one term and the Democrats running Congress for 4 years should be cleared up (yes, it'll take that long to recover from the body blows delivered by the Democrats over the last several years).

This prediction might sound kind of far-fetched, but no more so than the recent speculation that I've read over at Powerlineblog:

Most of the reasonably well-informed Repubicans I know think the race for the Republican presidential nomination is wide-open. They see a field of high-profile candidates consisting potentially of Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich, along with a few successful governors such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, or Chris Christie. This sort of clash seems particularly intriguing because the potential candidates can be viewed as representing establishment/country club Republicans (Romney), evangelical Republicans (Huckabee), Tea Party Republicans (Palin), the spirit of 1994 (Gingrich), and good government Republicans (the governors).

But, as I've suggested before, there's another way of looking at 2012 that I find at least as plausible: the nomination is Sarah Palin's to lose. This view is based on a series of assumptions, all of which I consider fairly strong, though certainly subject to question.

The first assumption is that Palin will run. Her decision to quit during the middle of her first term as governor of Alaska can be viewed as evidence that she does not want to hold office. But it can also be viewed as reflecting her sense that the Alaska job wasn't big enough for her. In any event, her behavior during this election season demonstrates that, at a minimum, she's keeping the option of a presidential run open. I think there's a good chance she will exercise that option.

The second assumption is that the Tea Party movement will back Palin and that she will capture most of the Tea Party vote. Her reception at Glenn Beck's rally convinces me that this assumption is sound. Moreover, Palin and the Tea Party Express have been on the same page in most (but not all) of the hot primary contests this year. Finally, where else is that vote going to go? Romney instituted a program of mandatory health insurance in Massachusetts. Huckabee was not a small government governor. Gingrich was a Washington insider. Governors who actually served out their terms probably made some tough decisions that won't appeal to Tea Party purists.

The third assumption is that, backed by the Tea Party movement, Palin can win between 30 and 40 percent of the vote in many of the early multi-candidate primaries and caucuses. This doesn't seem like a reach, given the vote count for Tea Party movement candidates this year. In Nevada, for example, Sharron Angle (unfancied at first) won the Senate nomination in a three main candidate race with 40 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, across the country, Christine O'Donnell, who has never made a mark in prior campaigns, seems set to ride Tea Party support (plus that of Palin) to a strong showing and possible primary victory, albeit in a field devoid of a true conservative option.

The fourth assumption is that Palin can ride a vote count of 30 to 40 percent in crowded early primaries to the front of the pack and then increase that count to 50 percent plus as the field narrow in the later primaries. John McCain's campaign in 2008 supports the view that a candidate can get out front by consistently winning 30 to 40 percent of the vote in the early, multi-candidate field. What might happen once the field narrows is anyone's guess. But unless Palin self-destructs along the way, I question whether anyone in the likely field is capable of defeating her head-to-head.

By now, I've ventured further into the realm of speculation than even I'm comfortable going. But you get the idea: if Sarah Palin seeks the presidential nomination, it will be quite plausible to view her not as one of many or even "first among equals," but as the clear front-runner.

Rich Americans Fortify Banking System with Tax Cuts

According to data from Moody's Analytics Inc, when taxes were cut under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, the rich responded by increasing their savings, putting more money into the banking system, helping investment in small businesses, homeowners get more affordable houses, and banks become more profitable and stable. On the other hand, when tax rates were raised under Bill Clinton, savings rates fell, and instead of these good things happening, government officials used the money that they took from the rich and productive to instead give to their political supporters and spend on their pet causes.

According to Bloomberg, somehow this is going to weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say drastically increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will prompt them to reduce their spending, further harming the economy. For example, Democrat President Barack Obama wants to pick and choose who he thinks should have to pay more in taxes, and wants to arbitrarily establish that anyone who earns more than $200,000 deserves to pay more in taxes, simply because they earn more and the government can take it from them, and he thinks that this will make encourage job growth and productivity.

According to the Bloomberg article, Obama, at a White House news conference on Sept. 10, said the push by Republicans to extend cuts for the wealthiest Americans is a “bad idea” because it would cost $700 billion in government revenue at a time when he is spending trillions of dollars in record budget deficits on various schemes and projects that his government officials hatch up. He instead has the "good idea" to raise taxes on the rich, take billions out of their pockets, cycle it through hundreds of government officials, and send it to labor unions and special interest lobbyists, in the failed theory that this type of stimulus will somehow not increase the unemployment rate and depress economic growth in this nation.

The truth of the matter is that progressive tax rates discourage hard work and investment, take money from the most productive members of our society and transfer it to the least productive members of our society (government officials), and are at their very heart immoral, punishing people with higher taxes simply because they or their parents were more successful in satisfying the wants and needs of the good people of this nation. There are few moral or economic arguments in support of increasing taxes on those who earn more- in reality, the government increases taxes on the wealthy because it can, because these people have things that the government can take, and because there are fewer 'rich' than there are 'poor', especially when Democrats run things.

The Bush tax cuts should be extended, forever, and further more, since they were successful in both improving the economy and boosting government revenue (which could then be sent to the poor and the needy and education and defense of our nation and all the things that liberals and Democrats pretend to want), a new round of tax cuts should be enacted, for both the poor, middle-class, and the rich. Equality, freedom, liberty, life, and protection of property was what our nation was built on- if we return to these principles, our nation will once again be prosperous. But if our nation turns away from these ideals and embraces the Democrats and liberals vision of inequality, tyranny, control, death, and destruction of wealth, our nation will continue to suffer the consequences.

Democrat AG: It is Okay to Break Law and Disenfranchise Military Voters

Shortly before the Presidential Election of 2008, I felt that it was important that I highlighted the fact that Members of our Military are Being Disenfranchised. Several personal cases were documented in my posts, and I became more uneasy about the disenfranchising of military voters, who usually vote Republican and whose votes are usually not counted by Democrats. No accusations were made, but I did feel important questions were raised.

I returned to this theme in January of 2009 with my story Soldiers Deprived of Right to Vote, which discussed that according to a Pew study, Michigan doesn't allow soldiers fighting bad buys overseas enough time to get their votes in, and that in 2006, about two-thirds of the estimated 1 million ballots distributed to military voters were not counted because they weren't returned on time, came back too late or had other problems.

So it is with great anger that I read the story on Pajamas Media BREAKING: DOJ Undermines Pentagon, Allows Wisconsin To Ignore Military Voting Protections:

Today the Department of Justice effectively rewrote the 2009 MOVE Act designed to protect military voters. In a settlement reached with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the Holder Justice Department allowed Wisconsin to mail ballots to overseas military voters only 32 days before the election, instead of the statutorily mandated 45 days.

The Pentagon had denied Wisconsin’s application for a waiver from the 45-day requirement: “The states granted waivers presented thorough and comprehensive plans to protect the voting opportunities for military and overseas voters,” Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, said in a statement. Wisconsin’s waiver application didn’t even come close to compliance with the MOVE Act. They wanted to send ballots only 29 days before the election. The folks at the Pentagon rightfully denied the waiver request.

But instead of aggressively suing Wisconsin immediately after the waiver denial, the DOJ engaged in secret negotiations. An immediate lawsuit would have strengthened the negotiating position of the DOJ as well as preserved various equitable legal arguments, including the argument DOJ waited too long to commence litigation. Instead of doing the right thing, the DOJ did the easy thing and reached a settlement with Wisconsin that undermined the Pentagon’s denial of Wisconsin’s waiver request.

The tough negotiating stance of the Holder DOJ extracted a whopping additional three days out of Wisconsin. Ballots will mail 32 days before the election instead of 29. A consent decree filed Friday will reflect this quisling agreement.

This is a disgrace, plain and simple. Military voters, their families and veterans organizations should be outraged at the Holder DOJ.

Democrats often say that they care about democracy and pretend like every vote matters, but again and again have demonstrated that when it comes to the votes of the members of our military, they couldn't care less. They work to shorten the length of time that military voters have to vote, they quibble about spending additional money and time putting together alternatives or mailing ballots overnight, and they break the law and then have Democrat AG's agree with the breaking of the law. It is a disgrace, and they need to be held accountable.

Democrats=Higher Poverty

One reason that I am a conservative and not a liberal is that I believe that conservative values, beliefs, and policies create a better world for everyone, including the poor. When you cut taxes, cut regulation, decrease the size of government in people's lives, encourage marriage and child-rearing, and protect the nation from threats from within and without, then everyone benefits. Not just the rich, not just corporations, not just the middle class- but everyone. Conservative policies benefit the poor, because when you unleash humanity on the problems of humanity, humanity wins. And to unleash humanity, you have to remove the chains and bonds and control over us- you have to let humans be free from government influence, to live a life of life, liberty, and property so that happiness will be available for all.

So it is with great sadness and at times anger when I see liberal policies enacted, because I know the result of those policies will be greater unemployment, greater breakdown in morals in society, greater exposure to threats from abroad, and greater poverty. The unemployment numbers have been well-document (see my post Democrats in Congress= High Unemployment). I've discussed how liberal policies have resulted in the expansion of possible threats from abroad (see my post Why Iran Getting the Bomb is Bad: The End of International Law and Decency?). And so it is with sadness and a touch of anger that I now note that liberal policies have now resulted in a dramatic expansion of the number of people in this nation who are considered living in poverty.

Under liberal policies, pushed by Democrats in state and nation government, the poverty rate in America has increased from around 12% in 2006 to 13% in 2008 to 15% in 2010 (see the graph here and the latest AP report on Census Bureau data to be released):

The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty. ...

It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase--from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent--would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.

In summary, as Democrats increase in power, especially liberal Democrats, the poverty rate increases and more people live in poverty. Wrap your minds around that, oh puny humans- Democrats=Higher Poverty

Obama Government Officials: There Will be Consquences if Private Businesses Disagree

Via Memeorandum I came across this story over at the Volokh Conspiracy called "Administration Tells Regulated Industry That There Will Be “Zero Tolerance” for Alleged “Misinformation” in Industry’s Statements About Government Policy":

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.... "There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases," she wrote "I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes..."

The precise nature of the threat — as with so many threats — is not made entirely clear, so the legal analysis of the threat is also unclear.  But if the Administration is threatening to use its considerable regulatory power to retaliate against insurance companies that, in the Administration’s view, are conveying “misinformation” — for instance, because their financial analyses disagree with the Administration’s financial analyses — that strikes me as quite troubling.

Quite troubling indeed. You really need to ask yourself and your friends and your family whether or not they believe anymore that everyone (both individuals and private companies) have the right to be free, to earn and keep property, and to protect others lives, or if they believe that the government exists to control others (both individuals and private companies) based on what they think is right. The very fundamental nature of our nation is being threatened by Obama and Democrats who support him and his agenda, and using the instruments of the state to force (or in this case vaguely threaten to use force) others to follow what they believe in is tyranny, and all tyrants must be overthrown. The evidence is piling up, in bits and pieces- just like Democrats hammered on George Bush for supposed faults and problems and all those little blows took their toll and idiots then voted Democrats, we must continually guard our freedoms and liberties and call out Obama and the Democrats when they exercise their power in unjust, immoral, and illegal ways, such as was done above.

A Tale of Two Inflammatory Stunts: Comparing Koran Burning to the Ground Zero Mosque

Not sure if you followed this recent story, but a Reverend Terry Jones, the leader of a tiny Florida church, had been planning to burn a bunch of Quran's on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, extremist Muslim terrorist attacks. He has a tiny congregation of only 50 people and is not considered to be a leading authority or leadership figure in the wider Christian church. When word got out that he planned on doing this, a lot of people decided to write about it and advise him not to, including President Barack Obama, who urged him to listen to "those better angels" and give up his "stunt." Liberal bloggers and Democrat activists jumped out of the woodwork to condemn this pastor, and liberal talk radio was filled with criticisms and caricatures of him and 'crazy nut Christians'.

Reverend Jones prayed about what to do and probably listened to what people were urging him to do, and after all that the crazy nut decided that it was probably a better decision to not go ahead with the Koran burning. In the end, he made the correct decision and did the right thing for society. One other reason that he gave though was that he was promised that be calling off this inflammatory stunt, another inflammatory stunt would also be called off- that be cancelling his Koran burning, he says he was promised that the Ground Zero Mosque would not be built on Ground Zero but would be moved somewhere else.

Let's connect these two events, and compare the building of the Ground Zero Mosque to the Burning of Korans.

Liberals, Democrats, and liberal talk radio was filled with people defending the building of a mosque on Ground Zero because it was 'someone's legal right to do so' and that by Americans letting it be built would be a good demonstration of how tolerant our nation was. And yet those same radio stations, Democrats, and liberals were criticizing, mocking, and rejecting Jone's plan to burn the Koran, even though that is an even more clear example of First Amendment Freedom of Speech and that by letting him burn those Korans, it would be giving Muslims a great chance to demonstrate their toleration. It appears that these people pick and choose who they feel should get First Amendment rights, and they choose the opposite people than I would choose (if I could choose, which I can't). It appears that these liberals and Democrats are all about forcing America to show that it is tolerant and nice and welcoming to Muslims, but fearful and afraid that if Muslims are given the same chance that they'll demonstrate that they aren't tolerant, peaceful, loving, or welcoming in turn. The difference in liberals and Democrats feelings on these issues was striking.

For example, look at the reaction of the leader of the Democrat Party, Barack Obama, to the two planned events. Both building a mosque on the site of Ground Zero and burning Korans on 9/11 are inflammatory stunts designed to bring publicity and raise intense feelings. Both were destined to turn out badly- tying the mosque to 9/11 by building it on that location will increase anti-Muslim feelings in our nation, and burning the Koran will make Christians look intolerant and could lead to increased casualties in our War on Extremist Militant Islamic Terrorists. But Obama and the Democrats came out and supported the building of the mosque, but tried to put a stop to the building of Korans. This difference in reactions is troubling- why is Obama and the Democrats willing to cause damage to our society and inspire bad feelings in one situation, but unwilling in the other situation? I'll let you answer that question in your own mind.

And in the end, it was the crazy nut small time Pastor of some backward town in Florida who made the correct decision and decided not to go ahead with his plan, and it was the well-respected and esteemed Imam who is being paid by the US State Department to travel around the world as a spokesman for tolerance or something who is rejecting as 'radicals' the 70% of the nation who feels it would be wrong for him to build his mosque on that location in spite of the consequences. This demonstrates something else- one person made the correct decision and decided not to inflame the situation further, and another made the wrong decision and decided to inflame the situation further. Both of course had the legal right to inflame as much as they wanted to, both had the right to demonstrate which religion was more tolerant and accepting, but in the end, only one person decided correctly that just because you have the legal right to do something and just because it could send a message, that doesn't mean that you do it.

Pastor Jones eventually made the right choice, the Ground Zero Imam is making the wrong choice, and anyone who supports anyone who believes otherwise needs to really think about the choices they are making in their own lives.

A Patriot Day Lesson Plan

This is a reprint from last year, but I want to make sure everyone reads it again, especially conservative teachers in the classroom... I'm going to post it today, so that you teachers can read it over and run it on Friday (9/10)...

One of my readers emailed me to ask me what I do as a teacher on 9/11, and I responded to him, but I should have let you all know what I do on 9/11. I know that there are some teachers who read my blog, and might be interested in my lesson for that day. Here is what I do as a teacher, every year on September 11.

First, as a teacher you will need to lay out why it is important for students to remember what happened in 9/11/01. It is a teachable moment, so does have educational value, especially for social studies classes. Our nation changed on that day- there is a pre-9/11 mentality and a post-9/11 mentality, and post-9/11 our nation is proactive about our security by passing legislation, engaging in wars, and having more aggressive interrogation techniques. Our nation changed that day because we lost so many people, people who might have cured cancer or invented the flying car, and because the terrorists hit us so hard in our homeland, destroying our innocence and naive beliefs that they couldn't do that.

Next, review what happened for those students who are not fully aware of all the details. Make sure that your review is short - who did it, what they did, the number of deaths, the impact of those deaths, the impact on the US, and the lasting impact on the US. Also address at this time the heroes of 9/11- the leadership of Mayor Giuliani, the firemen and police, and the average people who were also heroes.

Also at this time, address conspiracy theories and 'truthers,' and dispel those myths in no uncertain terms. Don't go into the myths and do not leave any doubt in students minds that these conspiracy myths and 'truthers' are wrong- they dishonor the deaths of those who died, they dishonor those who worked hard to stop something like this for happening again, and they dishonor you by insulting your intelligence. Students need to in the future confront 'truthers' the same way that they would confront a Holocaust denier. This introduction portion should take no more than 5 minutes.

9/11 is not part of history- it is a part of these students' present. It affects their lives, their world, and their government. These students are becoming adults and joining the world as educated people, and in order to join it fully, they need to experience what 9/11 was in order to fully understand it. It is important for students, especially those who were too young to remember, to feel that day. They need to feel what our nation felt on that day- they need to face the emotions and see the sights that we all saw, so that they can fully be a part of this world we live in today. This event has to be personal to them, an emotion that they feel, just like we all did. It can't just be worksheets and videos'- the teacher needs to have them discuss their feelings before and after the event.

For the next 5-10 minutes, discuss with students what they remember from that day and get them thinking about where they were, what they were doing, and how it impacted them. Try to encourage them to remember not just the events of the day but the emotions and feelings that they felt. For older students, they might still remember a bit of this, but the younger students might only remember vague impressions. That's okay- after today's lesson, they will remember it better.

Before showing the video, make sure that you ask students if they had any family members who worked in New York City during these events or lost anyone on 9/11. These students can leave if they become too emotional or if they feel they can't handle the lesson. Tell all the students that it okay to be moved by this video, and that if they feel moved to tears, they can step out of the room. All they have to do is say they have to use the restroom or something- if they really have to use the restroom, they can say that too- and the class won't know if they are leaving because they have to use the restroom or because they have to cry. Students need to feel safe and that it is okay to express emotions- many people openly weeped on 9/11 and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

Next, show the video. The video that I show is In Memoriam - New York City, 9/11/01 (2002). I choose this video because it does not have political commentary, it does not sugarcoat the events, it does not try to soften the events, and it is not edited for language or violence. It is the best video I found that simply shows the attacks on New York City, over and over again, from different angles, with pictures and video both mixed in. There are several interviews that are heart-breaking, but not too many of these to overwhelm the pictures from the attacks themselves. This video is disturbing- as was 9/11 itself. The video is bursting with tenacious and inspiring humanity- as was 9/11 itself. And the video provides an appropriate balance too, as it is narrated by the wisdom of New York City's then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani. This video in particular makes it virtually impossible to forget the 3,047 lives lost to terrorist brutality. This is not a journalistic endeavor, but a potent visual reminder that 9/11 was a day of unity, transcending the horrors witnessed here.

For a 60 minute class, only show about 30 minutes, or up to the part where they begin to look for survivors, and then down the volume and tell the students that they only found 11 people in rubble. For a 90 minute class, show the whole video, and afterwards just let the room remain silent for a minute or two before you begin the next portion of this lesson.

For the last part of this 9/11 lesson, you as a teacher will need to spend about 10 minutes asking students how they feel. First ask them if this was how they remembered it- if their memories or what they have seen since matches with the feelings that they have right now. Most students will be shocked and stunned by what they just saw- you will need to gently ask students or call on a couple that look like they are not too shaken and can get out an answer.

Then ask the students to try to describe some of the feelings that they have now. Explore these feelings and ask students to try to verbalize what they are feeling. Do they feel shock? Are they sad? A lot of students may feel angry, or be scared, or full of pride about the heroes, or determined, or confused, or feel like they want to help, like they want to lash out, like they want to do something to stop it from happening again. All of these feelings are okay- validate these students and let them know that it okay to feel these ways, since this was how we felt as a nation.

After each feeling is talked about and explored, follow up with the students and ask them what possible policy responses there might be to those emotions- ask them how they can translate their feelings into action and rise above the situation without losing sight of it. This part of the lesson is a great time to teach- spend a minute after each feeling talking about how America felt that same way and what we as a nation did and are doing about that emotion. This will help the students to understand why our nation responded the way we did to this event.

America was angry and wanted to punish those who attacked our nation- and not only those people directly involved, but those people who cheered when we were hurt so bad, those nations who supported terrorism or encouraged it, those peoples who helped those who attacked us. That's why we started the War on Terror, that is why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and after seeing the video, students will understand better these things. America was scared, and is still scared, and that is why the Patriot Act was passed and security procedures were stepped up, and we should still be scared as a nation and vigilant about our security. America felt like it wanted to do something, anything to help, and that is why this day to many becomes a day of service, and students can help out even today by giving blood or donating items to our troops. America felt like it had to do something to prevent this from happening again, and part of that is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if students want to help this effort, they can join the military or the CIA or the FBI. America was confused, and that is why we are making more of an effort to understand what may have motivated these people to do this to us, and students need to learn about other cultures and try to understand them better. America was sad, and are still sad today, and students can attend local vigils and remembrances around the area and express their sadness.

Validate the students emotions and then connect them to what we did as a nation and what the students can do now. When students are out of emotions and you have made all your teaching points, walk away from the students and just let them talk among themselves for the last couple minutes of class. Students will recover from their shock and gather themselves again before going back out into the world. Many will remember this lesson for a long time to come.

This is the lesson plan that I have for 9/11. Feel free to use it in your classrooms.

Gary Peters Wonders Why He Keeps Voting to Enlarge a Government That is Broke

U.S. Rep. Gary Peters’ campaign went on the offensive this past week, repeatedly questioning why it keeps voting to enlarge the size of government and empower it further when it obviously has trouble publishing something as simple as the mandatory financial disclosure statement that his Republican opponent, Andrew “Rocky” Raczkowski, filed twice.

Raczkowski said he submitted the statement disclosing his income and assets twice but he has no explanation as to why the Clerk of the House of the Representatives does not have it on file. The House is currently run by the Democrats, and Gary Peters is a Democrat, but apparently that does not explain the mysterious missing disclosure statement.

Some people feel that this utter lack of responsiveness and efficiency demonstrates once again why it is not very intelligent or wise to empower the federal government to make decisions about your personal life, such as healthcare, but others are so shocked that the government makes mistakes like this that they can not accept it- Dan Farough, campaign manager for Peters, a Bloomfield Township Democrat sputtered when asked about the situation “Rocky … needs to learn, just like the rest of us, that he is not above the law.”

Via The Oakland Press:

The disclosure law is designed to expose any conflicts of interest that a congressman may have, based on salaries, investments or other sources of income. Ironically, Peters’ disclosure statement provides far more potential conflicts of interest than the modest assets reported by his election opponent.


The incumbent’s most recent report, filed on May 15, indicates that his numerous assets — stocks, bonds, 401(k) accounts and other investments — are worth a combined value ranging from $147,000 to $2.2 million. A former stock broker, Peters’ congressional salary is $174,000.

Raczkowski provided a copy of a disclosure report, dated June 21 in his own handwriting, to The Macomb Daily. It indicates that he earned $161,300 in salary last year from Star Tickets and the Army. The federal documents provide a dollar range when reporting assets — not exact figures — and the Raczkowski report that was provided to the newspaper shows investments in the range of $165,000 to $400,000 and a bank account in the range of $50,000 to $100,000.

So, to sum up, Gary Peters has more conflicts of interest than his challenger, has voted to enlarge the size of government many times over, voted to spend billions of dollars and few know where it is going, supports a President who recently fired his "openness and transparency czar" when he got tired of pretending that the Democrats are even remotely open and transparent, and now is upset that government officials messed up and failed to report disclosure statements that were submitted twice. Gary Peters is now rumored to be thinking about giving more money to the government agencies that failed.

FYI: Shockingly, this post is more balanced that the stuff that passes for 'reporting' at the Oakland Press!

Advice to Students on Going Back to School

Walter Russell Mead gives some great advice to students going back to school. The whole article is filled with advice and suggestions, but for the sake of brevity, here are some of the best parts:

The real world does not work like school. Life in school is life in bureaucracy. You follow the rules, do what you are told, and rewards follow. That’s the old system; the new one won’t work that way. Creativity, integrity and entrepreneurial initiative will pay off; following the old rules and hoping for the old rewards is a road to frustration. You have to fight the tendency of the educational system to turn you into a timeserving baby bureaucrat, following the rules and waiting for the inevitable promotion.

Most of your elders know very little about the world into which you are headed. Most faculty members, especially the tenured ones, have worked and lived in a world that is passing away. In many cases it’s hard for them to imagine the kind of lives you will live, and you need to keep this in mind.

You are going to have to work much, much harder than you probably expect. Your competition is working hard, damned hard, and is deadly serious about learning. There’s nothing written in the stars that guarantees Americans a higher standard of living than other people. Those of you who spend your college years goofing off in the traditional American way are going to pay a much higher price for this than you think.

Choosing the right courses is more important than choosing the right college. Your generation can’t afford to throw these four years away; choose your courses carefully and seriously.

Get a traditional liberal education; it is the only thing that will do you any good. However, in times of rapid change, it is paradoxically more useful to immerse yourself in the basics and the classics than to try to keep up with the latest developments and hottest trends.
 
Character counts; so do good habits. Character and spiritual grounding are going to count much more in the tumultuous, uncertain environment that is approaching than in the more stable and bureaucratic world of the past. But in a world in which employment is less secure, competition tougher, and your reputation for integrity and productivity are the most important assets you have, character is going to count.

The one piece of advice I would add is that students, whether they be in high school or college, need to read on their own. They can't cede their mind to the institution- if only the government is putting information and thoughts and theories in your head, than that is a very bad thing. Students should always be reading a book they choose on their own, and should be rotating fiction with non-fiction or biographies. Don't let someone else have total control over your education- educate yourself on your own on your own time too.

Hezbollah Has 4 Times More Rockets Hidden in Schools and Hospitals Than They Did in 2006

From Powerlineblog's The wages of not finishing the job:

Michael Oren, Israel's stellar ambassador to the U.S., is warning that Hezbollah has amassed an arsenal of approximately 15,000 rockets in South Lebanon, near the border with Israel. That's about four times more than Hezbollah had in 2006, when it launched constant rocket attacks deep into Northern Israel. Moreover, according to Oren, Hezbollah's rockets can now reach every Israeli city, even Eliat in the South.

To make matters worse, this time Hezbollah has placed its rockets under hospitals, homes and schools. So, if Israel were to try to take the rockets out, it would face howls of protest from the "international community" including, I suspect, President Obama. Israel may well have to pay a steep price for its cautious approach to the 2006 fight against Hezbollah and for not finishing that fight.

Back in 2006 I began my attack on the MSM when I contacted the Managing Editor of the Detroit News, Dave Butler, to express my disappointment in their coverage of Israel's fight against Hezbollah in 2006. Now I know that pointing out that the MSM had a liberal bias was an exercise of pointing out the obvious, but back several years ago I was still figuring this out, and I wanted to know why the coverage was so one-sided. As I pointed out back then:

Every day there is a story about the number of Hezbollah and Lebanese civilians killed so far, and there are frequent stories in your newspaper focusing in an the specific deaths of these people, but I can not find any news reports focusing on the death count for Israeli civilians and defense forces, or a single in depth article on some poor Israeli mother who has lost her children to a Hezbollah rocket.

My point in writing was not just to point out the one-sided coverage- my fear was that by favoring a pro-terrorist organization like Hezbollah, the News would be siding with the bad guys, and everyone knows that when you side with the bad guys you always eventually lose (whether in this world or the next). In this particular case, I feared that by siding with an immoral and evil group that represents the worst in humanity readers would be driven away, which would result in less advertising revenue, which would result in cuts being made to the sports section and the comics- and I love my sports section and color comics.

In my conversation with Mr. Butler, he stressed that neither side was immoral or wrong- that this conflict was a nonpartisan affair between two combatants of equal morality, and thus he could defend his coverage of the conflict. To him, there was no difference between a terrorist non-state group launching random rockets into populated areas in Israel and Israel's response to kill those terrorists who were launching the rockets and to destroy those rockets. To him, there was no difference between a uniformed solider trying to kill an un-uniformed terrorist, and the un-uniformed terrorist who hid in schools and churches and launched his rockets from those locations. He saw nothing wrong in a free-thinking adult choosing to put women and children and the sick in harms way in order to defend himself from a retaliation attack as he launched weapons of random mass destruction (WRMD's?) at women, children, and the sick. The Managing Editor of the Detroit News thought that he was brave and fair and morally right in equating the two sides of this conflict. Clearly, he was wrong for doing so, and his paper suffered accordingly for choosing to equate evil with good and be 'unbaised and nonpartial' when covering a conflict that clearly had good guys and bad guys.

One other point- over the ensuing letters that Mr. Butler and myself exchanged several interesting points emerged, which I believe will come up again when Hezbollah once again attacks Israel and that good nation is forced to respond. The most important point that emerged is the MSM's reliance on outside sources for information- whether it be the AP or the Wire Service or something- the MSM is just like me- simply an organization that mostly takes news from other sites and filters it and rewords it and then passes it along, while doing a little bit of original reporting on the side (I do original reporting too). If conflict once again erupts in the Middle East, be careful that your news source isn't just recycling what some biased AP or Wire Service reporter wants to feed to you.

James Lee Thinking is Just Scaled Up Liberalism?

Usually I don't like to blog about messed up individuals that do messed up things- their isn't a whole lot to read into when a crazy person acts in a crazy way. But I do want to comment on the recent incident involving environmental activist James Lee, who was sadly shot and killed after taking over the Discovery Channel headquarters. Something about this incident bugged me, and I was unwilling to simply shrug it off as the usual 'crazy people doing crazy stuff means nothing'.  It took Richard Fernandez over at the Belmont Club though to articulate what I was thinking:

But one way to detect logical fallacies is to see what happens when you scale them up. Those harmless ideas when projected onto a horizon ten miles high and fifty miles wide are so awe-inspiringly crazy that either you say “what the f**k?” or “why not?” James Lee said “why not”.

Scale up all my harmless ideas about freedom, liberty, protection of life, protection of property, founding principles, etc, and imagine the world that you get. It isn't really that bad, is it? But scale up the harmless ideas of the liberal left- promoting birth control in Third World countries, abolishing all advanced combat systems, ridding the world of the Judaeo-Christian heritage, fighting Climate Change, building down the US economy, handing out subsidized housing, increasing the power of the state, etc- and you get James Lee. Here is what he wrote at a site believed to be affiliated with the suspect, Save the Planet, where he set forth his creed as the “sayings of Lee”. Some of his demands were

•All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infant.
•All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease.
•Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed.
•Immigration … Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US.
•Find solutions for Global Warming
•Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy.
•You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing.

These are simply scaled up versions of mainstream Leftwing notions. If you're going down that road, seeing what happened to James Lee should cause you to pause and reconsider.

The Six Principles on Which America Became Exceptional

A principle is a fundamental law of nature or a code of conduct that you should follow, and America was built on principles. In particular, our nation was built on six specific principles, which are sometimes called the 'First Principles' or 'Founding Principles', and throughout our history we have followed these fundamental laws of nature or codes of conduct. In no particular order, here they are, with some discussion and things to think about.

Popular Sovereignty. If you have trouble remembering what popular sovereignty is, first think to yourself "What does the word “popular” mean?" (people) and then think to yourself "What does the word “sovereignty” mean?" (king). Popular sovereignty (or sometimes called the sovereignty of the people) is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will of its people- or in other words, that the state needs the consent of the people to rule, because the people of the state are the source of all political power. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." Our Preamble begins by specifying that the power for our government comes from "we the people." But it is important to ask whether America still follows this principle today? Do government officials today behave as if they are working for you- or you are working for them? Does our government still do the will of the people? Who is the servant and who is the master in America today?

Limited Government. This is an easy one to figure out- limited government is a government where any more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not allowed. Also called constitutionalism- government must limit itself to the constitution on which it is based  Another way of thinking about it is that in a limited government, government can ONLY do those things which it is specifically given the power to do. Our nation wasn't based on 'weak' or 'strong' government, or 'active' and 'inactive'- it was based on a limited government that can only do those things that are given to it to do. If it isn't a limited government, that means it is an unlimited government, and an unlimited government is a scary thing. This principle was so important, our founding fathers built in many features of our government to promote it- checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and even the Bill of Rights. Does America still follow this principle today? If you said yes, show me where in the Constitution the government is given the power to....make schools take assessment tests? Regulate and control healthcare? Regulate companies in the name of fighting global warming? Control banks? Buy stock in housing companies? Punish baseball players for taking steroids? Make someone join a labor union? Speculate on windmills? Tell an executive he/she is making too much? You can debate whether these things are desirable or not, but it is much harder to debate whether or not a limited government has the power to even do these things.
 
Federalism. Self-government was important to our founding fathers, so they put in place a federal system of government, where the power is shared between the national and state governments. Think about it yourself- who should control your behavior- your local township/city? Your state? Your nation? The world? Who should be telling you what you should and should not do? Our Founding Fathers (correctly) believed that your local friends and family and coworkers in your state know best how to run some aspects of your life, yet other aspects should be run in Washington DC- and yet other aspects of our lives should only be run by ourselves. So they put in place a federal system of government to reflect where power should properly lie. Does America still follow this principle today? Do you ever hear this principle mentioned by any government officials, especially national leaders? Do they ever talk about letting states decide major issues, or do they always push for the national government to decide everything? Who should decide (state or national)…healthcare- who is covered, how much, etc? Education- what is taught, what standards, etc? Transportation- where roads, speed limits, etc? Natural Resources- parks, drilling, etc? Before any discussion can be attempted on what to do, you need to ask 'who should be doing it'.
 
Separation of Powers. One of the ways of preventing tyranny is to set up government so that one branch or one person doesn’t have all the political power. So the basic powers of government are distributed among three distinct separate independent branches of government- the legislative (who makes laws), executives (who executes laws), and judicial (who judges laws). In the US, this is Congress, President, and Supreme Court. There are problems with this system- by putting political power in 3 branches, it takes political power from the branch closest the people- the legislative- and give it to branches more prone to tyranny- the executive and judicial. It also creates an inefficient government that can never seem to get anything done, and some people doubt whether or not we have the luxury of following this principle in in times of war? Because of this, this principle has been under attack for years. What do you think- does America still follow this principle today?

Checks and Balances. Although it is important to create three separate and distinct branches of government, you don’t want them to be totally separate or else there will be no way to check them and balance their power. So, in reality, the branches are not completely separate or independent of one another. Each branch is subject to another of restraints, or checks, on it by the other branches. These restraints work to balance the three branches, so that one branch does not become more powerful than the others. The good thing about this principle is that our founding fathers spelled these checks out pretty clearly in the Constitution, and it is rather tough to get around them. But one does wonder- does America still follow this principle today? Are all the branches still balanced? If not, which branch of government has emerged as the most powerful branch today?
 
Judicial Review. One check is so important to our political system, it is elevated to a founding principle soon after our nation was created. What if Congress or the President uses their power in a way that the Constitution does not allow them to do? Or, who decides if everyone is following the Constitution? Judicial review is the idea that the judicial branch can review laws of Congress or actions of the President and judge whether they are following the Constitution. Careful though- judicial review doesn't mean that judges get to decide whether Congress and the President are 'right' or 'wrong'- only whether they are in fact following the Constitution. Is it right that the Supreme Court (9 unelected old lawyers with lifetime terms) get to decide what our Constitution says- shouldn’t the Congress or President do this? What if judges decide to read things into the Constitution that are not there- do we have to follow what they say? Who rules America- judges/lawyers or elected officials? Does America still follow this principle today?

These questions and these thoughts are important, because for some reason, America grew from thirteen little tiny poor states crowding the Atlantic to conquering a continent, and then dominating the world in a way that has never been done before. A lot of nations have a lot of different advantages, but for some reason, America is strangely more powerful then any nations before or after, whether you judge by military power, economic power, cultural impact, or anything else. Why is America Exceptional? What is it about America that makes it different from any other country in the world- different from any other country ever- that makes it exceptional. What is it that makes America exceptional, and not just another country? Is it religious- are we blessed by God? Is it genetic- racial traits or brain drain? Is it environmental- fertile lands, mild climate, rich natural resources? These may play a role, but I would advance that what makes America Exceptional is our our continued belief in the basic principles on which our nation was established. Popular sovereignty, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial review, and federalism- our ancestors fought and died to build a government based on these foundational principles behind our Constitution, and by following these codes and fundamental laws, our nation has become the greatest ever.

One last question to leave you with today- what will it mean for our country if we stray from these principles?

You've all been great! Class is over.