Obama Waited Too Long on Libya- Opposition Down to 1K Fighters Now

Via memeorandum I came across this story- In the Arena: Libyan opposition has less than 1,000 fighters:

During "In the Arena," Jon Lee Anderson, staff writer for The New Yorker reporting from Benghazi, Libya, tells Eliot Spitzer that the number of opposition fighters on the front lines are fewer than anyone would think and that they are poorly armed and badly trained. Anderson says, "Effective number of fighting men, well under 1,000. Actual soldiers, who are now in the fight, possibly in the very low hundreds on the opposition side."

If Obama is correct and the situation in Libya is a humanitarian crisis which demands that the United States act, then the United States needed to act while it was still possible to act, or else resign itself to the humanitarian crisis which would result. But Obama did not act while it was still possible to act, and the reason for the delay was his own incompetence and ignorance, for which he, and he alone, is to blame.

Obama is ignorant that it takes real people to fight wars and real hardware to engage in a revolution- and his delay in acting meant that Qaddafi was able to kill many fighters and retake many weapons- Obama has no experience in the military and has shown little familiarity with military subjects and is ignorant that battles are fought with people and hardware and are not simply chess pieces to move around a board. Obama is incompetent in that he does not recognize his own ignorance on this issue and instead of acting on advice from those smarter than him he instead worried about his NCAA bracket or jetted down to Brazil or hosted fancy dinners and events with celebrities.

Early on in the conflict (February 27) I wrote this:

(Obama's) failures resulted in a longer, more drawn out, less sure conflict, one in which the moderates saw the President of the United States doing nothing and so decided to support the established powers, one in which the revolutionaries saw their morale drop due to lack of support, one in which the established powers in Libya believed that is was okay to use deadly force and hire international mercenaries to keep control.

Several weeks later I had become disgusted with Obama's handling of the crisis in Libya and wrote this:

...I have no problem blaming Obama for the ensuing humanitarian crisis that is going to unfold in Libya. It was okay to wait a bit, because the US shouldn't just jump willy-nilly into every conflict, but the minute the rebels stalled, the math was pretty simple- either jump in now in support and knock Muammar Qaddafi out while building goodwill with the rebels who would then march to power and restore order, or stay out of it and watch Qaddafi retake his nation and punish the rebels and build goodwill with him and his son...

...But President Paintywaist instead anguished about the decision and tried to hide and ran around yelling 'present' on the issue while issuing empty rhetoric and throwing pixie dust at the situation. I don't care how hard he tries to re-write history on this one- he sat around, watched the rebels get pushed back, watched them lose their best fighters and leaders and most dedicated freedom fighters, watched Qaddafi take back cities and kill and rape everyone who was against him in those areas, watched both Qaddafi and the rebels get weaker, and then when the French and British said 'screw you, we're doing something' he fled to Brazil and let Hillary make the call....

Let me be clear- President Obama waited too long to commit the United States to this conflict, and his waiting let Qaddafi forces kill too many revolutionary fighters and recapture too many revolutionary resources, and now the outcome of the situation in Libya is more uncertain. His address this week did little to explain why this critical and increasingly important delay happened, in spite of his efforts to retell the story, and he should be held to blame for the now greater cost that it will take to avert a humanitarian crisis in Libya.

Genocides piss me off and I hate it when people die when they shouldn't, and the blame for this situation should be put squarely and fully on Democratic President Barack Obama.

UPDATE: This does not cause me to become less angry- according to the Jawa Report, there are now less opposition fighters left in Libya than there are members of the 501st Legion, a group of Star Wars fans who dress up like stormtroopers and other characters from the movies, prompting him to ask the important question "Are There More Actual Stormtroopers Than Libyan Rebel Fighters?"

UPDATE II: RedState's Caleb Howe has produced an awesome graphic comparing Obama's war in Libya with Bush's war in Iraq. Check it out, via Doug Ross.

Michigan's Smoking Ban: One Year Later

In June 23, 2009 I wrote a post against attempts to regulate smoking, but apparently at that time I did not write a post stating my views on the local Michigan smoking ban. I did call in to some local radio shows then and express my view that the smoking ban would likely lead to less patrons visiting bars and resulting less tax revenue and more unemployment, but most of the radio hosts and other people in the state ignored that sort of advice, and so our Democratic Governor and Democratic Legislature went ahead and passed a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

One year later the results are coming in, and like most attempts by Democrats to govern our society, the result is a society that is less richer, prosperous, and free (and although the data would be hard to come by, I would also contend that since smokers now are forced to smoke in their own homes now, there are more home fires caused by smoking and so more losses of life). And as business has fallen and sales of food and liquor have fallen due to this smoking ban, that has meant less revenue to the state to support police, fire, education, and libraries, all things that liberal Democrats pretend that they support.

From story Bar Owners Plan Smoking Ban Protest -- With Taxes:

...the group Protect Private Property Right in Michigan is proposing some pretty drastic measures to get lawmakers to take a second look at it. They want bar owners to stop paying taxes completely until the smoking issue is brought back up. And some bar owners TV5 spoke with didn't think that’s a bad idea...

“It's hurt us. I don't know anybody in the small bar industry that it's helped,” said (Co-owner of the Red Horse in Saginaw Chris) Adams. Just down the street from the Red Horse, bar owner Jerry Baleck at Patty Flemings feels the same way.


“I’m against it. I think it's private property here, and I should be allowed to say whether I want to smoke or not,” said Baleck.

That’s why a growing number of business owners are taking matters into their own hands. They love their bars and hate the smoking ban law, so some are trying to get Lansing’s attention where it hurts -- right in the wallet. A group of Michigan bar owners said they'll set up private escrow accounts and hold off on paying their taxes. “Maybe they ain't got enough money to pay their taxes in the first place with the smoking ban,” said Baleck.

“If we're not making money, why should we give them money?” said Adams. At least 200 bar owners have pledged to stop paying their taxes. It's a drastic step and owners TV5’s Liz Gelardi spoke with aren't sure if they're ready to go that far. “I don't know. I’d have to know the ins and outs and know all the particulars before I would jump in and do something so drastic,” said Adams. “But yeah, I probably will consider it.”

“Are you going to keep paying your taxes?” Gelardi asked Baleck. “Well, yeah, [I] don’t need no tax problems,” responded Baleck.

“Hopefully we can get more numbers,” said Adams. “Hopefully we can double that, you know, so we can get twice as many people together and make a statement to the state and tell them we're tired of being pushed around.”

On one hand, you have someone who provides a service to society (a restaurant or bar where people can smoke) that people freely engage in and harms no one except others who freely choose to go to those bars and restaurants. This person works hard and pays your taxes. On the other hand, you have a government official, usually a Democrat or liberal, who wants to control this person and make him make his bar or restaurant non-smoking so that he can go with his happy rich family and not have smoke in their faces, and so passes a law that results in a society that is less prosperous and free. That's the story of Michigan's smoking ban in a nutshell.

UPDATE: Thank you The Daley Gator for linking to this story!

Obama's Libya Speech

For those of you who missed Obama's speech last night, here is a replay of it:

To be super serial for a moment, I thought it was a great speech as long as you had little knowledge of the actual order of events or his past leadership on Libya and just went along on the whole hope and change wide-eyed ride of fun. My favorite part was where Obama became the medium through which the world communicated legitimatacy- at some point, he sensed the Libyan leader had lost legitimacy and then sprang to action by flying down to Brazil and saying nothing- the very definition of boldness! Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a seond time.

When I Met Obama's Biographer

The revelation again that Democratic President Barack Obama's biography Dreams from My Father was supposedly written by Bill Ayers reminded me again of the time that I had Bill Ayers come into my classroom. Since I have a lot of new readers who haven't likely taken to the time to go through my excellent old posts, I thought that I'd take you all on a trip down memory lane and repost on it below. Enjoy!

My Experience Meeting Bill Ayers

Yes, I have personally met Bill Ayers. At some point in my career, I was told that he would be coming in to speak to my class. As I am a little young, I looked him up, and immediately discovered his past connections with terrorism and the Weather Underground (memo to Obama- it's kind of easy to find out that information- you have to be an idiot not to know that Ayers was a terrorist).

So I went to my principal, and told him that I didn't want to have this guy come in to speak to my students. I am repelled by him- I don't want to be in the same room as this unrepentant terrorist. I wasn't even alive when he attempted to murder innocent and decent Americans, yet I don't want to be associated with him (unlike Obama, who wants to associate with terrorists).

My principal told me to just let him come in and talk. I guess the parent who was bringing in this terrorist was influential in the district, and had some pull with the administration. So I took my class in to hear him speak. He talked about the usual communist drivel.

Mr. Ayers gave me the impression that teachers should primarily be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. He said that teachers should be promoting radical, leftist, communist values. My brother forwarded me this link where he elaborated more on this stuff, and this other link too. This link talks about Obama's association with Bill Ayers.

Before my students met him and heard him speak, I wanted to talk to them about his ideas and discredit him; and after my students heard him speak, I wanted to talk to them about his ideas and discredit them. But I was told I was not allowed to do this. So I just pretended it had never happened and that that day was a snow day.

But it wasn't in reality. The students were given the impression that it was okay to be a terrorist, that it was okay to believe in communist ideas, and that Bill Ayers vision of the world was an accepted one. They were given the impression that being an Obama voter was okay. And personally, this day marked a turning point for me.

Months later, the administration let me go, and the union worked to make sure that I wasn't brought back. I was quickly grabbed by another district, where I have proven to be an exceptional teacher. One of the factors that led to my release was my disgust and verbal protests over having people like Bill Ayers come into the classroom. So that's my experience with this terrorist scumbag.

UPDATE: Several people have emailed me about this post, suggesting that if my new district ever finds out that I thought badly of Bill Ayers, I could be fired, and I would be wise to remove this post. But I refuse to be intimidated! They can not control my thoughts! Our nation may be turning towards fascism, but I am going to fight as long as there is fighting to be done. You can't stop the signal!

GE Schools Kohn Brothers in How to Game the System and Use Government Connections to Pay No Taxes

When I was in college, the toughest class that I had was a class called Political Economy. The reason why I had such a difficult time with this class is because I opposed on a moral and intellectual level everything that it taught- it taught how to use the power of the state to guide and control companies. We learned all of the great ways and reasons for unelected bureaucrats and corrupt elected officials to deny freedoms and choices to individuals and businesses and use the power of threats of force to create an economy that protects and rewards those with political connections. Oh, of course the class never stated these aims, but they were the aims of the class regardless, and at the end of the year, the real aims of the class were revealed when we were asked for our final exam to write an essay detailing one political system that could best guide and shape an economy that was fair for everyone; I wrote an essay on the beauties and joys of the most brutally oppressive and corrupt and controlling communist system of government, and earned a 4.0 for the class.

Under Democrats like President Barack Obama, Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Congressman Gary Peters, our nation is fully embracing a 'Political Economy', which is an economy that is ruled over and controlled by those connected to the political process. In this sort of economy, those industries that political elites do not like or understand are to be taxed and controlled and driven out of business, and those companies that donate to the correct political elites are to be rewarded and given tax breaks. It is an economy where the guiding principle is not how efficiently can a company or industry produce a good that is most valued by citizens making free choices, but rather the guiding principle for these Democratic elites is whether or not you donated money to them to help them get in office and gain more power and wealth. It is only the right-wing nuts and crazy tea-party people that restrict these people from becoming completely corrupt; even still, the evidence is piling up that the best way to become wealthy in our nation is to get a job as a low-paying Congressman and than retire a millionaire several terms later (the millions all being earned 'under the table'), or donate to these sort of Congressman so that your company can be given loopholes and tax breaks so that you pay nothing in taxes.

Let us to perfectly frank here- there is little to no money to be made by supporting Republicans or Tea Party candidates- they push for limited government and free choices. Even the whole 'George Bush took us to war in Iraq to reward his oil buddies' rhetoric only reveals that those uttering that rhetoric have no idea what they are talking about since most of the oil contracts in Iraq went to non-US companies. Nope- the real money to be made is in donating to and supporting Democrats, who will then give you waivers for healthcare or create tax breaks so that you pay no taxes.

A great example of what I am writing about is GE. General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010, in spite of the rest of the nation struggling. The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, with $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States. The United Stats has a progressive corporate tax rate that punishes companies that are increasingly successful with higher and higher taxes, and for companies making more than $18 million, the corporate tax rate is 35%. So, one could reasonably assume that GE's tax bill in 2010 was $1.785 billion, but they would be wrong.

You see, GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama. GE-owned NBC recently joined Hollywood in inserting environmentally-friendly messaging into network programming. Furthermore, NBC promotes two annual campaigns — “Green Week” and “Earth Week” — that focus on environmentalism. GE recently found a loophole and became the biggest benefactor of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, a federal bailout initiative. Over $192 million was recently given to GE in government-sponsored projects. GE has created a new “joint venture” called Greenhouse Gas Services (GGS).  GGS invests in and seeks to manage greenhouse gas credits, and without the government stepping in to restrict greenhouse gases, GGS cannot turn a profit.

After doing all of these things, the reward is that GE does not pay any taxes. Yep, zero. GE not only didn't pay over a billion in taxes this year as you'd assume, but it actually was given an additional tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Koch brothers eat your heart out! That's how you game the system and screw American tax payers- not be supporting limited government, libertarian, freedom of choice, and constitutional powers, but by backing good old-fashioned done-a-hundred times crony capitalism and government corruption of power.

Oh, and no, this never happened under George W Bush, and George W Bush hasn't been our President for several years either, so I doubt even deranged leftist liberals can pin it on him.

UPDATE: Today my youngest kid was watched, fascinated, as my wife smoothed cold cream on to her face. 'Why do you do that, mommy?' he asked. 'To make myself beautiful,' my wife said, and then began removing the cream with a tissue. My kid watched for a second and then said 'What's the matter mommy, are you giving up?'

UPDATE II: Powerlineblog has a powerful post that is perhaps even better than mine- I suggest you all go read John's post Free Enterprise vs. National Socialism:

GE strikes us as a "modern" company, in that its business strategy consists largely of exercising political influence. In truth, however, the concept is not new: the virtual merger of Big Government and Big Business has long been a hallmark of national socialism.

One can hardly resist comparing GE with another American company--one that has steadily increased its American workforce, rather than cutting it. One that has never gone to the federal government for a bailout. One that lobbies out of self-defense, as all companies do, but not to secure special privileges for itself at the taxpayers' expense. One that pays lots of taxes. One that not only advocates free enterprise, but lives by it, competing for business with superior products and services.

A number of companies would fit that description, but I have in mind Koch Industries. Koch is smaller than GE, although not radically so--$100 billion in revenues vs. $150 billion--but it pays a whole lot more in taxes. One might think that a company like Koch would be honored and respected compared with a company like GE, but that is not the case--not on the left, anyway. On the contrary, it is Koch's very integrity that makes it public enemy number one for the Democratic Party.

So the questions are posed rather starkly. Which company should Americans respect, the company that lays off more and more Americans, or the one that keeps hiring them? The company that dodges taxes, or the one that pays them? The company that makes money by partnering with government to force uneconomic products on an unwilling public, or the one that sells top-notch products that consumers want, without any compulsion from Washington? The company that stands for a Big Business-Big Government partnership, or the one that stubbornly defends, and practices, free enterprise?

UPDATE III: Koch Industries is clearly the good guy and GE is clearly the bad guy if you look at the world through the lens of life, liberty, and property protection, and yet as is typical now of the bizzaro world of the left, right is wrong and wrong is right. Today via memeorandum I saw two more posts attempt to make light dark- Adam Sewer at the 'American' Prospect takes a couple drive-by shots at David Koch or Politico's The battle to define Charles and David Koch which tries to redefine good as bad.

Outsourcing the Superintendent?

Public school districts are facing a major budget crisis in Michigan after almost a decade of disastrous fiscal management and poor policy decisions and school budgets are now facing considerable pressure. Almost every school district in the state is looking at cutting teachers salaries and benefits and many are also considering outsourcing or privatizing support services including custodial, food service, or transportation. Although these options likely do need to be considered, very few districts are looking at another potential source of savings- outsourcing school administration services.

In our district, our administration building supports teachers in many important ways, including budgeting and financial reporting, taking care of accounts payable and accounts receivable, managing the payroll, taking care of grant reporting, keeping track of banking and investments, and service the debt in the district. Administration runs the human resources office, which hires employees, keeps their paperwork current so they remain highly qualified, manages benefits, and provides other services to employees in the district. We have a purchasing office which oversees purchases in the district, whether they be big or small, and we have a technology department to provide technical support to teachers and staff. This whole operation is managed by an expensive and highly paid Superintendent, who works with the community and school board and manages the whole operation.

All of these jobs can easily be provided by private businesses that may possibly cost the district less money or provide them with better services.

Private management firms are out there, providing these sort of purchasing, payroll, HR, and management services to small businesses in our nation so that those businesses can focus on doing what they know best. These firms have many clients and because of the large numbers of clients they can provide more efficiency based on economies-of-scale, lowering the costs of providing these services to a district. They also can draw on substantially more experience and resources than found in school districts, potentially providing better services than would be found in-house. And because these firms would be hired by the district, they would always fear losing their contract and thus be more responsive to the concerns and pressures of the district, perhaps more so than the districts own employees, many whom view their jobs as virtual lifetime guarantees.

If teachers and custodians and bus drivers are being asked by administration to consider all options and are being looked at to see if they can be outsourced, administration also needs to know that there are companies out there that can do what they do and that they do not have some sort of monopoly on job security and pay. If I were a union official in a tough bargaining fight, I'd make sure that I brought to the table this line of thinking, because perhaps a district could save vital dollars by privatizing or outsourcing its school administration and spare cuts to teachers and other support staff who actually work with students.

This post was inspired by something that I read on Pamela Hornberger's blog, Pamela Hornberger for L'Anse Creuse School Board, which itself was inspired by a report from the Mackinac Center. One possible company that I found that may provide the sort of services I imagine is The Leona Group.

7 Good Reasons to Be Critical of Obama's Handling of the Libya Crisis

Liberal talk radio and liberal bloggers are all pretty much using the same talking point over the last couple days- that Republicans are wrong on Libya. They feel that Republicans should have been against US involvement early and supportive of Obama's involvement of the US in Libya late, and see current Republican criticism of Obama as just opportunist hypocritical games. But, as is usual, they are wrong, and there is a good article on National Review counting all the valid and good reasons for conservatives and Republicans to be critical of Obama's recent actions in Libya.

From Let Us Count the Ways...

1) Timing: If the administration believed this monster should have left, it should have acted when the rebels had the momentum, and not issued threats and demands for Qaddafi to go without commensurate efforts to follow such saber-rattling up. Fairly or not, the administration established a goal that it now seems to be backing away from, as it talks of toning down the operation before it is even a week old. We boasted about storming Vienna, pulled up at its outskirts, froze, and are now bewildered that someone inside actually is fighting back.

2) Approval: To start a third war in the Middle East, the president should have first gone to Congress, especially since he and Vice President Biden have compiled an entire corpus of past speeches, some quite incendiary, equating presidential military intervention without congressional approval with illegality to the point of an impeachable offense (cf. Biden’s warning to Bush over a possible Iran strike). And why boast of U.N. and Arab League approval but not seek the sanction of the U.S. Congress?

3) Consistency: Why is meddling okay in Libya but was not okay in Iran when dissidents there were likewise making headway? Is there any rationale that determines our response to unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, or Libya? It seems we are making it up ad hoc, always in reaction to the perceived pulse of popular demonstrations — always a hit-and-miss, day-late-dollar-short proposition.

4) Aims and Objectives: Fact: We are now and then bombing Libyan ground targets in order to enhance the chances of rebel success in removing or killing Qaddafi. Fiction: We are not offering ground support but only establishing a no-fly zone, and have no desire to force by military means Qaddafi to leave. Questions: Is our aim, then, a reformed Qaddafi? A permanently revolutionary landscape? A partitioned, bisected nation? What is the model? Afghanistan? Mogadishu? The 12-year no-fly-zone in Iraq? A Mubarak-like forced exile? Who are the rebels? Westernized reformers? Muslim Brotherhood types? A mix? Who knows? Who cares?

5) Hypocrisy: This Libyan war is transpiring in a political climate where, for the last ten years, Obama and his supporters have lectured us that it is not only amoral and unwise but illegal for America to attack an oil-producing Muslim country that does not threaten our national security, a sin magnified if committed without congressional approval. It also follows similar demagoguery on Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detentions, etc. — measures blasted as near-criminality under Bush but embraced or expanded under Obama. In this regard, the prior rhetoric of an Eric Holder or a Harold Koh bears no resemblance to their present action — a hypocrisy that follows from the president himself.

6) Means and Ends: The monthly federal budget deficit now exceeds the yearly deficit prior to when Bush went into Iraq — at a time when we are engaged in two other Middle East theaters, gas is soaring, inflation is back, and we have borrowed $5 trillion since this administration took office.

7) Leadership: This is a Potemkin coalition, far smaller than the one that fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq, notwithstanding loud proclamations to the contrary. We are not even done with the first week of bombing, and yet no one seems in charge: What body/country/alliance determines targets, issues communiques, or coordinates diplomacy? The U.K. goes after Qaddafi, and we plead “They did it, not us”? Again, fairly or not, the impression is that Obama dressed up preponderant American intervention under a multicultural fig leaf, earning the downsides of both. A loud multilateral effort could be wise diplomacy, but not if it translates into a desire to subordinate American options and profile to European and international players that are not commensurately shouldering the burden — and not if all this is cynically used to advance a welcomed new unexceptional American profile.

When we talk of “European leadership,” we mean the U.K. and France, not Germany, Italy, or most of the EU. When we talk of the “Arab League,” we mean essentially zero military assets. And when we talk of the “U.N.,” we mean zero blue-helmeted troops. So, like it or not, there is a level of understandable cynicism that suspects Obama’s new paradigm of multilateral, international action is simply the same-old, same-old, albeit without the advantages that accrue when America is unapologetic about its leadership role, weathers the criticism, and insists on the options and prerogatives that a superpower must demand in war by virtue of its power and sacrifice.

These are all valid criticisms of Obama's involvement on the US in Libya, and he should be made to answer for them in 2012.

Nuclear Power and Manned Space Flight: Victims of Democrat's Progress Backwards?

Today I watched the movie Apollo 13 for perhaps that hundredth time. As I watched that wonderful movie, I grew a little emotional, but it wasn't because of the drama of the movie- it was because I am upset and angry and sad that America has abandoned manned spaceflight in my lifetime, and seems to be abandoning the larger future too, a future where man would harness the power of an atom splitting and travel among the stars, a future of dreams and inspiration. America instead is collapsing on the weight of promises made to generations past, ruled over by elitist politicians who seek only to control us, and everyday our nation moves farther away from living a prosperous life in the stars in freedom and liberty, however preposterous or unlikely that future may have been.

The current leadership of our nation speaks of 'progress,' but they are abandoning nuclear power and manned spaceflight in favor of providing healthcare insurance to people who are encouraged not to purchase it and spending money they don't have to support railroads and electric motor carriages and windmills. The future that Obama, Democrats, liberals, and Republicans that go along with them is not a future full of cheap safe energy and man roaming freely in the stars- it is a future with man going backward, remembering that once, long ago, before I was born and before my students were born, man built generators that were powered by the atom splitting and man walked on the moon.

Man once walked on the moon! Nuclear power plants were once built! Say it- and then realize that these are events of the past- that the new normal and likely new future of America and the world is a long, slow slide backwards into tyranny, injustice, and confiscation of property by elites. Oh, I know it is 'nice' to give out healthcare to anyone who asks and that we all want teachers to be paid a million bucks and that no job should be insecure and that energy should be provided from dancing on the suns rays or blowing gently on flowers, but that is not reality! The reality is that the future is slipping away, and much like the greatness of Rome was the standard for centuries or the might of Britain was to be envied for generations, ours is a time that is slipping away, slipping away based on the policies pushed for by Democrats like Obama, Granholm, Stabenow, Levin, Rogers, and others. Modern day liberalism has failed to move man into the future- rather, man has been moved backwards through its policies of standing in the way of human liberty and freedom, by embracing the killing of life and babies, and by stealing other peoples property.

The reality of the situation is that Obama and the policies of Democrats in Congress and in the Senate are stopping the development of nuclear power, which is safer and more environmentally friendly than any other power generation, even with the worst case events of Japan factored in. By moving away from nuclear power, especially in the way that we are moving away from nuclear power, we are retreating from what made and makes our nation great enough to get to the moon and beyond.

Here is part of my post from 2009 called Yucca Mountain, in which I wrote:

But this is not a nation built on laws from our legislative branch any more- our nation is turning into a dictatorship of tyranny under Obama. Obama declared that the policy will change, that the Yucca Mountain facility will no longer be considered as a site to store our waste, and that from now on, he is calling the shots in our nation, not Congress. He openly defied Congress and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, has mocked efforts by Congress to have him follow the laws of our nation with regards to this issue.

There is no real backup plan advanced either- Obama in all his brilliance is putting together a 'blue-ribbon' panel to produce a report on what to do with the nuclear waste that is piling up in our nuclear facilities, but nothing will come of this effort and 4 years from now, we'll just have more nuclear waste building up in temporary on-site storage's that were never designed or meant to house spent nuclear material for long periods safely. Obama's policies will hurt the security and environment of our nation, and he is putting these policies in place in clear violation to the laws and policies that Congress has legislated this very year.

The absurdity of the situation is that Obama and the Democrats are spending trillions of money that they don't have, spending more money and accumulating more debt than any other administration ever before, and yet they are actually cutting and blocking real programs that will take us into the future! Blocking funding and support for nuclear power is just one part of this retreat backward.

Here is part of my post from Feb of 2010 called Obama is No Visionary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether it is retasking NASA to build Muslim self-esteem or being too busy playing golf to get around to appointing an administrator to run NASA or cancelling our manned space programs, Obama's vision, supported by Democrats and liberals, is one that drags our nation back into the barbarian past and not to the glorious future.

I still want my nuclear powered jetpack to take me to the moon and back, but thanks to Obama and Democrats and their liberal policies, every year this dream becomes less a possible future and more a crazy dream of hope and change.

Support Local Teachers Unions, Question State Teachers Unions, Oppose National Teachers Unions

All around the state of Michigan, when teachers aren't talking about their NCAA brackets, the conversation is the coming teacher's strike. These conversations are getting tougher and tougher on me, because I have a unique position among government employees- whereas most teachers support 'their union', I make a distinction- I defend and support my local union and its actions, but disagree with the actions of my state union, and attack the actions of my national union. You see, there are important differences between local, state, and national teachers unions- differences in who is in them, what they do, and what they are fighting for- and those differences are important enough that my position on each level is clearly different (as should yours, if I make the argument successfully).

My local union is composed of the teachers in my district. These people are my colleagues; I know them, they know me, and more importantly, we both know what the reality of the situation is. We know what funds the district at the local level- whether we have a rural town, a big city, a shopping mall, an important factory, etc- and we know where that money is going- what buildings have to maintained, transportation costs, new stadiums, fancy administration buildings, teacher salaries, etc. At the local level, my union serves a vital and important service- collectively organizing and bargaining on behalf of all the teachers for salaries, benefits, and working conditions in the district with the local administration and school board. They bargain tough and fair, we bargain tough and fair, and society is the winner. We represent the community and are part of the community, and so we don't try to take advantage of the community and they don't try to take advantage of us (or if that does happen, it gets real ugly and everyone is a loser).

My state union (MEA) is composed of people who derive their salaries and pay and benefits on the backs of the teachers who are working hard to teach children. These people work in the state capitol mostly, although there are mysterious field offices too scattered about the state, employing people who do something or other. They have intermittent contact with the districts that they serve, meeting with teachers every now and then or walking through a building, but they do not know the districts or the teachers, and so don't know where the money is coming from or where the money is going. Oh, they know they want more money- they hammer away at funds and balances trying to move numbers around, but the numbers mean nothing to them since they don't actually represent anything. And they really don't know why they want more money- they know more money is good because more money means more union dues and so they get a higher salary and more benefits- but they don't actually know where the more money they fight for actually goes- whether it is to repay a furlough day, to reinstate a step increase, to create a longevity bonus, to cover some sort of health benefit, to pay disability pay for a sick colleague, or anything else. They just know it is more money, and so they fight for it. The state union has little incentive to maintain the communities that they do not know, and the state government has little incentive to maintain the union that they do not know, and so the two fight ugly and dirty and society is less so because of this.

My national union (the NEA) is composed of people who derive their salaries and benefits from dues paid by teachers in the classroom working hard, and they resemble in many ways the state union, except that they are even further removed from teachers and the communities they serve and so care less about them. The nation union blows money sponsoring experts who talk about sexualizing children at earlier ages, recommends books to teachers like Rules for Radicals, and spends its time going to fancy dinners to lobby the national government to transfer more of societies wealth to 'education', even though the national union is now so far removed from 'education' that it knows not what it speaks about. Conferences sponsored by the NEA are far disconnected from the reality of the situation that teachers experience and focus on topics and subjects that are of only marginal importance to them. Since the national union serves only one purpose- redirect wealth from the national government- and this purpose is rather corrupt, it pretends it is something more, and its pretentiousness shows. Society suffers with the existence of the NEA, and this is yet more reason why the NEA, the Department of Education, and national funding for education all need to be done away with- they are all too disconnected to the local community.

Our lunch room conversations inevitably dissolve into me trying to dance the delicate dance of defending the actions of my local union while calling into question the actions of my state union and harshly criticizing the actions of my national union, and that dance is a tough dance that I shouldn't have to perform. My local should be the focus- teachers should be the focus, and everything else should support and assist them. But like most government workers, the MEA and NEA is now part of the entitled class, which feels that others exist to serve them, rather than the other way around. Changes need to be made.

My 'Disgusted with Obama's Policy on Libya' Post/Rant

After a month of watching a revolution to overthrow an evil dictator stall and reverse and almost lose, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in disgust finally convinced US President Barack Obama (Democrat) to do something, even if it interrupted his busy vacation/goodwill trip in Brazil, where he is sunning on beaches and giving speeches to roaring crowds and still struggling to watch his NCAA bracket that he put so much time and thought into.

Although I'm no expert in this stuff (I've only got a tiny BA in International Relations from a major university), I have no problem blaming Obama for the ensuing humanitarian crisis that is going to unfold in Libya. It was okay to wait a bit, because the US shouldn't just jump willy-nilly into every conflict, but the minute the rebels stalled, the math was pretty simple- either jump in now in support and knock Muammar Qaddafi out while building goodwill with the rebels who would then march to power and restore order, or stay out of it and watch Qaddafi retake his nation and punish the rebels and build goodwill with him and his son. Either option would lead to a quick change in the power in Libya and either option would build goodwill between the US and Libya.

But President Paintywaist instead anguished about the decision and tried to hide and ran around yelling 'present' on the issue while issuing empty rhetoric and throwing pixie dust at the situation. I don't care how hard he tries to re-write history on this one- he sat around, watched the rebels get pushed back, watched them lose their best fighters and leaders and most dedicated freedom fighters, watched Qaddafi take back cities and kill and rape everyone who was against him in those areas, watched both Qaddafi and the rebels get weaker, and then when the French and British said 'screw you, we're doing something' he fled to Brazil and let Hillary make the call. Roger L Simon sums it up with his article Jets over Libya as H. Clinton Assumes Presidency.

Now the US is shooting expensive missiles into Libya, killing people and destroying things, but it still isn't clear that this will check the momentum that Qaddafi has built up or whether it will inspire a depleted and on the run rebellion. Oh, perhaps after greater effort and loss of life, the US will destroy extensive oil reserves and industry and kill enough people that Qaddafi leaves, but the end game now is less certain, as the surviving rebels will be weak and annoyed at the long delay in response by the US.

That's assuming the Commander-in-Chief has an endgame- his address is a lot of summary of news events that he was always behind combined with statements about how we're clearly not the leader of this humanitarian and leadership effort with several 'I'm aware of' statements thrown in to make it appear like he is actually meaningful in any way about world events. Don't swallow my analysis though- read it yourself by clicking here.

A clearly better and more thought out analysis comes from the Belmont Club- here are the best parts:

Yes, if it can impose a blockade lasting several months, is willing to risk to risk the destruction of Libyan oil, and can eventually deploy UAVs over Libya. But the the worst thing they can do is let the fighting drag on, because it will almost inevitably lead to a humanitarian crisis in Libya. The major problem facing NATO is that the rebels have been driven too far east to secure the facilities and the pipelines which take the product to the coast (see map below). To avoid permanently splitting the country along some kind of No-Man’s Land, it is not enough for the rebels to stop Khadaffi at the gates of Benghazi; they must drive west far enough to take the infrastructure from the Duck of Death. Only then can Libya be reconstituted as a single political entity....

Read the rest of that post to read what real analysis and leadership and decision and thought looks like. Watch Obama chant "da da da da" by following this link (at 55 seconds in).

Oh, one more point- remember how for the last decade liberals and Democrats have been so convinced that Bush had no authority to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the Congress gave him that authority- out of curiosity, what resolution or bill authorized Obama to do anything at all in Libya, and how come I don't hear all those hypocritical dishonest liberals and Democrats saying boo now?

General Strike Planned for Michigan: This is No Joke

My sources in the MEA indicate that the MEA is preparing for a teachers strike in May and will ask that other unions also join in this strike. The Michigan Education Association (MEA), which is the largest teachers union in Michigan, has asked all local affiliated teacher unions to approach their membership and ask the membership to authorize the MEA to take all and any actions necessary to put pressure on Michigan's state government, including going on strike. Michigan's striking teachers would be supported and joined by all union workers in the state of Michigan, from government employees, police, fire, and private labor unions like the UAW, with the intent on putting such pressure on the elected officials of Michigan that they would be forced to bargain and deal with the MEA.

After years of the MEA backing the Democratic Party and using its campaign finances and manpower to hammer Republicans and conservatives and tea party supporters, they have no supporters and allies in the GOP dominated legislature or the Governor's office. Because the MEA has been so heavily attached to the Democratic Party (especially the liberal/communist wing of the Democratic party) and yet only a third of the MEA members are Democrats, Republicans around the state are convinced that the MEA does not represent the legitimate interests of teachers and so there will be little backlash against them for their attempts to balance the budget and maintain fiscal solvency for our state. After years of the MEA disrespect and hostility towards the GOP, they can no longer expect respect and kindness towards them in the bargaining process- they burned too many bridges for too long.

This is not to say that teachers, represented by the MEA, could not find many areas of common ground with the GOP, the conservatives, and the tea party members, on a range of issues- for example, tax cuts for teachers or forcing local districts to use rainy day funds or pushing more power to the local level. This is to say that the MEA instead has decided to engage in a pissing match and it's going to get very messy.

The MEA will be authorized by locals over the next month to threaten a strike, which they will begin to do in late April. The GOP will respond by calling their bluff and passing bills that weaken tenure, strengthen districts in the bargaining process, remove health care benefits for teachers, expand the power of emergency financial managers, or require more money for retirement accounts. This is sure to make the MEA beyond angry and it will threaten the strike, but once it comes time to pass a budget, a budget that will absolutely destroy local school districts budgets, then the strike will be called.

The strike will likely occur in May. The locals won't give the MEA the authority until April and the school year is done and the state budget needs to be put together by June, so it will likely be in May.

You heard it here first.

UPDATE: Welcome readers of Michigan Capital Confidential! While you are here, please take a moment to look around my site and read some of my other posts, comment with your thoughts, learn a little something new, and have fun!

End All Energy Production?

On Wednesday, August 6, 2008 I wrote:

As I listened to Obama talk about his energy visions for the future, I imagined what it would be like to live in a world that is cured of it's oil addiction- a world where there is no power generated by fossil fuels, and instead water and wind power the world. Ahh, indeed- the change we need... windmill from ancient Rhodes, waterwheel from Roman Spain...

After two years of an Obama Presidency and Democrats in Congress, it appears that the world’s chief sources of large-scale energy production — coal, oil and nuclear power — all are becoming increasingly unsafe and unproductive, possibly moving us back to the future of windmills and waterwheels. Liberals and Democrats have seized on the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion in West Virginia, the Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the unfolding nuclear crisis in Japan, to dramatize the dangers of conventional power generation and push for more regulation, taxes, and government control over these industries while simultaneously diverting large amounts of taxpayer money to politically-connected companies who dutifully pray at the alter of the Green God.

The winners of this war on coal, oil, and nuclear are the Al Gore's of the world, who make big money selling government false promises and inefficient power generation, and every set-back or disaster in the coal, oil, and nuclear world are met with happy glee from the government agents transferring wealth from productive, job creating energy businesses to unproductive, job killing green energy politically-connected firms.

The continued support for Democrats marks the beginning of the end of energy production and the voluntarily suicide of a nation's ability to power itself, on a level not seen since the Xhosa Prophetess Nongqawuse convinced her tribe that it must destroy all their crops and kill their cattle so that they might progress as a society and be more powerful and happy. Sadly, much like Al Gore, following the advice of Nongqawuse only resulted in a calamity of staggering proportions for the Xhosa people, as it will be in our nation if we don't continue to drill for oil, mine for coal, and build nuclear reactors.

The 'woes of Japan' are a wake-up call for our nation- a nuclear reactor that was built 40 years ago can withstand a 8.9 earthquake, tsunami, and electrical problems and still keep generating power- surely we can build better, more efficient, more safe nuclear power plants here in America to power our nation and improve our national security. The biggest barrier is liberals, Democrats, and their uneducated unwashed mass of interest groups who in their ignorance and foolishness would drag us back to less prosperous times, if we let them.

Big Energy Corporation Guarantees $10 Million to Democratic Party; Kickbacks and Corruption to Follow?

Duke Energy Corporation is going to be guaranteeing a $10 million line of credit from Fifth Third Bank to the Democratic National Convention, which is apparently the first time such an arrangement has been used by any Democratic convention organizers and which has never been done ever by Republican organizers.

By extending a line of credit, Duke is either currying favor or looking for a particular kickback, both of which are even more evidence that the America of the modern-day Democratic Party looks a lot like despotic governments of the past or (Detroit of the recent past) in that it is pay-to-play and a gangster economy out there, and you get benefits and advantages not by producing a better product more cheaply and efficiently, but by bribing Democratic officials. It is either one of these explanations, or a third possibility, which is that rich Big Energy executives are using a company that they don't own as collateral against loans from a Big Bank to support a political party that their company does not necessarily support. That would be wrong too. There is no other explanation that I can think of.

This makes a mockery of the current attack on Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia for their votes on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Democrats (like popular leftwing blog The Blue Voice) whined and cried endlessly about how conservatives and Republicans support businesses being more involved in politics and how that is just so wrong and that they hate having businesses dirty money in politics- and yet, demonstrating their utter hypocrisy, they then turn around and welcome far more business money and involvement to run their very convention.

I wonder- is Obama going to bemoan corporate donations reading from a speech on a teleprompter backed by $10 million line of credit from Fifth Third Bank backed by Duke Energy Corporation?

According to experts, Duke's involvement can only help Duke in seeking energy subsidies from the Obama administration, although if the Republicans win the White House, it is all but guaranteed that such shady inside corrupt deals will not be rewarded with government contracts. Democrats though are hoping that Obama's ability to... to... to do something or other will win him a second term of office so that he can continue to spend my grand kids wealth so that the new normal of our economy continues and the world becomes a little bit more of a dangerous place.

This sort of behavior should not be tolerated in a free society, and by that I don't mean that Duke Energy Corporation did something wrong. They should be able to dump as much money as they want on any political party they want- it's a free society. But it shouldn't matter- factions should be checking factions, fighting over the abilities of a weak and limited government that has no powers to award contracts or give out favors in a free and prosperous society. Democrats and liberals have created a tyrannical government, the kind feared by our founding fathers, the kind that can be bought off, but more so, once bought off can use its connections with government to corrupt and subvert free peoples and their labor for their gain. Democrats and liberals need to be thrown out office, at every level, consistently for several decades, as Tea Party battles Republican in a battle to restore life, liberty, and protection of property to the free and prosperous people of America.

Stabenow, Obama, Peters, Fealk, and Organizing for America- Talk to Them All This Thursday!

The following was an intercepted email from Democratic Congressman Gary Peter's best friend Bruce Fealk (I've intercepted email from him in the past, and it is always interesting- see my posts Intercepted Email from Congressman Peters' Hired Thug or Representative Gary Peters Up to Same Old Tactics)...

Friend, This spring will provide some great organizing opportunities for communists around the nation, as we work together to help create jobs for politically connected supporters of ours and work to protect the progress we've made on nationalizing America's healthcare system. Our goals to bring and strengthen communism fit very well with the President's agenda, and so to make sure that we are all on the same page, we are going to be holding a volunteer conference call this Thursday, March 17th, at 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

And we'll be joined by a special guest -- Senator Debbie Stabenow. As you know, Senator Stabenow is connected at the hip with the most liberal of liberal supporters of Barack Obama, and represents the farthest left extreme of the Democratic Party. She rarely meets with constituents, but is making herself available to far leftist groups like ours.

To register for the call today, please go to this link:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/55c111bf/502d6cf4/17b48625c/11882284/751259261/VEsH/
Once you register at the link above, you'll be sent a phone number to call and passcode to use at 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday. This event will be a great chance to touch base with other volunteers, learn about upcoming events, and hear from Senator Stabenow.

RSVP for Thursday's call here:
http://mi.barackobama.com/Stabenow-Call

Talk to you soon,
Garrett Arwa
Michigan State Director
Organizing for America
A Personal Project of Obama and the Democrats, and tied at the hip with communists, liberals, leftists, Obama, Peters, and Stabenow

Have fun!

Rand Paul to Obama Officials: You are pro-choice on abortion but not on toilets and lightbulbs?

Via theblogprof I found this video of Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) questioning the Department of Energy's commitment to protecting consumer choice during consideration of Appliance/Light Bulb Energy-Efficiency Legislation. One word that he brings up several times and which I believe increasingly characterizes the liberal leftists who have seized control of the modern Democratic Party is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches- perhaps one advocates or preaches certain virtues but is unable to obtain those due to lack of self-control or strength or temperament- but rather, hypocrisy is play-acting or pretending to be something which you are not.

Let us be clear- a conservative cheating on his wife while preaching conservative values is wrong but is not a hypocrite, provided he recognized that he is weak and lacked strength or self-control. But a conservative who cheats on his wife but really doesn't think that it was wrong and yet then preaches conservative values, knowing that they are incompatible with his views, is a hypocrite.

Although the right and conservatives are not immune from hypocrisy, I believe it is found more so on the left and in liberals because increasingly they are the ones who are denying the truths of the situation and are employing double-speak to advocate for their political values. A good old-fashioned communist really believed in wealth-redistribution and the evils of capitalist pigs; a modern day liberal talks about 'spreading the wealth' and 'enhancing revenue on top earners'. A modern day liberal speaks of being pro-choice, but does not allow the baby to choose and doesn't support letting people choose their light-bulbs, toilets, or energy sources. A modern day liberal talks about and preaches being environmentally friendly, yet video after video demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that when liberals gather together, they trash the environment with their 'green concerts' or 'pro-union rallies'. Liberals tell us to do as they say but not as they do- but they see no problem in this because they truly do not believe in what they are saying so have no guilt or remorse about telling us to do things which they do not do. A liberal can give a press conference about how he has expanded energy production, all the time knowing that he has not and is actually working to lower energy production, because he believes that lying is okay because there is no real truths in the world. Of course examples can be found of conservatives being hypocrites, but the Democratic party today is increasingly a party filled with unbelievable hypocrisy.

Here is the video of Senator Paul exposing the hypocrisy of one of Obama's officials...

Government Action Causes Preemie Birth Preventive Drug to Go from $10 to $1500- Further Evidence that Evil Insurance Companies Must be Nationalized?

From the Associated Press:

The price of preventing preterm labor is about to go through the roof. A drug for high-risk pregnant women has cost about $10 to $20 per injection. Next week, the price shoots up to $1,500 a dose, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000.

That's because the drug, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot, has been made cheaply for years, mixed in special pharmacies that custom-compound treatments that are not federally approved. But recently, KV Pharmaceutical of suburban St.Louis won government approval to exclusively sell the drug, known as Makena (Mah-KEE'-Nah)....

...Doctors say the price hike may deter low-income women from getting the drug, leading to more premature births. And it will certainly be a huge financial burden for health insurance companies and government programs that have been paying for it....

....Ther-Rx and its parent company became involved about three years ago and acquired rights to the drug from a Massachusetts company named Hologic Inc., said Divis, who is also Ther-Rx's president.

To get FDA approval, the company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in additional research, including an international study involving 1,700 women, Divis said. The FDA last month signed off and gave Makena orphan drug status. That designation ensures Ther-Rx will be the sole source of the drug for seven years....

...Some doctors said they were happy getting the cheaper version from compounding pharmacies, and Aetna's Armstrong said she was unaware of any quality concerns. Still, doctors will use the Ther-Rx brand, in part because of legal worries. Not that they have a choice: Last month, KV sent cease-and-desist letters to compounding pharmacies, telling them they could face FDA enforcement actions if they kept making the drug....

Summary- There was a drug out there that helped prevent babies from being born prematurely and having all of the associated health problems with this. The drug was cheap and was frequently freely chosen by patients and doctors. Several years ago a clever company realized that it could use the power of the government power to make money, so bought up the rights to this drug and then lobbied the FDA hard to give them exclusive rights to selling the drug. The FDA did so, the company jacked up the price, and threatened government thugs on anyone that didn't buy from their government regulated monopoly. Children, parents, insurance companies, doctors, and society all suffered ONCE THE GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED. And now Obama and the Democrats in Congress want the government to be involved in every single decision regarding you and your health.

UPDATE: I love http://www.opensecrets.org/. A quick search on donor lookup of employer 'KV Pharmaceutical' shows that FRANKLIN, JOSHUA (KV PHARMACEUTICAL/DIRECTOR OF MARKETING) donated $300 Clinton, Hillary (D) and HATTEN, SANDRA (KV PHARMACEUTICAL/VICE PRESIDENT OF ??? donated $300 Obama, Barack (D). All other entries are from 2000 or previous and not as relevant. Again, this does not demonstrate that those donate to Democrats always get an executive agency a contract to market something exclusively that was on the market for many years they just recently acquired, but it does make you wonder why those who are getting special benefits in our government are almost always donating money to Democrats and rarely to Republicans.

Evidence that Obamacare Waivers are Going to Obama Donors

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, there have already been 729 waivers issued to companies that lets them out of Obamacare. It goes without saying that a large number of these waivers have been issued to unions and local governments, which are heavily Democratic, but I was curious about some of the other companies on the list.

So I took a couple minutes to look up some of these companies in google, wrote down the names of the companies Presidents and Board members, and then searched in OpenSecrets.org to see who these people donated money to. This is by no means an exhaustive list of evidence that Obamacare and the waiver process is yet another corrupt system set up to favor certain groups, but I think I have produced some pretty fair anecdotal evidence:

• Crystal Run Village, Inc, 1350 employees, waiver approved 12/30/2010, The Crystal Run Village, Inc. Board Of Directors President Donald Green and VP Susan Kennedy, both major donors to Barack Obama.
• GC Harvesting, Inc., 2500 employees, waiver approved 12/30/2010, CEO Gustavo Garcia, major donor to Barack Obama.
• MVP (Healthcare), 21548 employees, waiver approved 12/30/2010, donor lookup by employer 'MVP' revealed large numbers of employees donating to Barack Obama plus a sizable amount given to a lobbying group called MVP, which lobbied for Obamacare
• Sieben Polk Law Firm, 3 employees, waiver approved 12/30/2010, search 'Sieben' and you'll see that he has given large amounts of money to various Democrats, including several donations to Barack Obama
• Euromarket Designs, Inc., d/b/a Crate and Barrel, 3452 employees, waiver approved 12/29/2010, founded by Gordon Segal, who is a big time donor to Barack Obama
• Alfred P. Sloan, 41 employees, waiver approved 12/23/2010, CEO Richard Bernstein, big time donor to Barack Obama
• MJ Soffe, 270 employees, waiver approved 12/30/2010, this is a subsidiary of Delta Apparel, who also got a waiver (67 employees, waiver approved 12/30/2010), whose President gave a small donation to Democrats years ago, whose Vice-President Deborah Merrill is a big Obama donor, and another VP who is a big Democratic donor (Martha Watson)

My point has been made, I believe, that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. This is corruption of the highest order.

UPDATE: I continue to be ahead of the news cycle- memeorandum has a story about this today!

The Blue Voice Attacks Conservative Judges with Stupidity and Incivility: Why Does Obama Read that Blog?

Now that far-left liberals and the party that they have seized control over (Democrats) have lost the debate on a whole range of issues- spending, taxes, tax cuts, national defense, morality, family values, the economy, etc- they are starting to play small ball and attack on smaller issues, issues that they feel they can gain political traction on and distract voters from the reality of the situation. They're hoping that by going after little issues they can stop people from voting them out of office because their policies- Democrats have controlled our legislative branch since 2007 and the executive branch since 2009 and it is now 2011- have set in place a new normal of high taxes, high regulation, low job growth, low economic economic growth, bitter partisan politics, decreased national security, and loss of face around the world.

One of these small ball little issues that the Democrats are hoping to gain traction on is making Clarence Thomas into a bad guy. They're hoping that if they can make an influential intellectual and moral giant of the opposition into a 'bad guy', it will help them, since liberals and their Democratic allies build only by tearing down (strip rich people of money to build up the poor, make other nations feel better by lessening our power, giving healthcare to others by taking money from others, etc).

One influential blog on the left is a blog called The Blue Voice, and it is a good representation on the kind of stupidity and incivility that increasingly characterizes the left, liberal, and Democratic side of our nation- a side which does not represent the majority or even a large portion of voters views in our nation. Reputably, President Barack Obama reads this blog for ideas and advice on how to run our nation- as if we needed any more evidence of his unfitness for office. You see, The Blue Voice is of such low intellectual and moral value that few should willingly read it.

From a post called Why don't the Democrats demand impeachment hearings on Justice Clarence Thomas?:

Rightwing Republican Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have both been involved in partisan activities of a kind that, to put it mildly, is highly questionable for a Justice of the highest court in the US. Both Thomas and Scalia voted for the majority decisions in Bush v. Gore (2000) and Citizen's United (2010), two of the worst decisions in being destructive to democratic government that the Supreme Court has ever made.

The Democrats no longer have a majority in the House, which would have to make an impeachment vote. But the Dems can certainly use a push for impeachment hearings against Thomas and/or Scalia to raise a stick about the crass partisanship of those Republican Justices.

Let's pause here and see what we see. As evidence for Thomas and Scalia's 'highly questionable' partisan activities, they voted in favor of two court cases the left does not like. Quick history recap.

Bush v Gore: the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also went father and asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature. The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. The left does not like this decision because they don't like equal protection, the Constitution, the law, democracy, and George Bush.

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission: The Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts (such as a non-profit group airing a film critical of those who it opposes) cannot be limited under the First Amendment. This is not liked by the left (and Obama, who is a tool of the left), because they want to be able to silence speech of those who they disagree with (except terrorists, who they feel have the right to say whatever they want). Starting in 2002, for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions were not allowed to broadcast “electioneering communications,” but now these groups can once again fully engage in the political process and contribute their voice to the political debate.

The Blue Voice calls these two decisions "the worst decisions in being destructive to democratic government that the Supreme Court has ever made"- one decision which upheld the 14th amendment and the constitution and the other which upheld the 1st amendment. In The Blue Voice's world (and Obama's world, if you give him another term and elect Democrats at any level to help him), counties should be able to selectively recount ballots using whatever system of counting they want until they get the winner they want and corporations and unions should not be allowed to broadcast their views on candidates even if these corporations and businesses feel that these politicians views will be damaging or destructive to them. I would contend that the views supported and argued by The Blue Voice are a lot more destructive to a democratic government, unless The Blue Voice made a typo and meant to write "Democratic government", in which case they are right, those two decisions did damage a Democratic government in favor of supporting a democratic government.

The Blue Voice feels that voting for two court cases that the majority passed are on the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' enough to initiate impeachment cases against these two justices, and that now that they don't really have to do it, now is the perfect time. When the Democrats actually ran the House and had to be on record, they would never have considered even thinking the silly thoughts The Blue Dog advocates, but now that they have been thrown out of power by voters, they are encouraged to go off the deep end and think all sort of silly thoughts and fantasies. It is surprising to me that voters would support that kind of 'work' by returning them to power in 2012 or by voting for politicians that survived the beat-down of 2010 (like Gary Peters).

The Blue Voice pretends that it is the right that is being divisive and uncivil and partisan, but if you read blog posts like this one, you'll walk away with a different impression entirely. The Blue Voice speaks with stupidity and incivility, and if this is the kind of thoughts and ideas and discussion that the liberal left that controls the Democratic party is engaged in, it is even more evidence that voters should not vote Democrat at any level in 2012.

UPDATE: Looks like I was in on the game plan earlier than most- there are major stories now on this larger attack on conservative justices by liberals- memeorandum has a link here and yahoo has a link here.

NEA Speaks: Children Need to Be More Sexualized and Exposed to Graphic Sex Earlier

Diane Schneider represented the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US and an organization which the Michigan Education Association (MEA) is a part of, at a recent United Nations Commission on the Status of Women meeting. She did not represent herself or her own views- she spoke for the NEA, and since she has not been promptly fired or otherwise publicly reprimanded, the NEA must then support and agree with her views. This means that when she speaks, she is speaking for most of the teachers in our nation. Via memeorandum, I read that she said:

“Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education,” Diane Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia. Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated for more “inclusive” sex education in US schools, with curricula based on liberal hetero and homosexual expression. She claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt-out.

Comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” Schneider proclaimed, “and we must make these issues a part of every middle and high-school student’s agenda.” “Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum,” she explained, and said that those opposed to homosexuality “are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”

To sum up, students and parents should have no choice in the matter, religion and family are outdated old ideas that need to be dropped, and every student should learn their science and math and social studies through the lens of liberal and homosexual expression.

Furthermore, as a panelist speaking for the NEA, she further advocated for increasing sexualization of youth, a more liberal approach to sex, approval of masturbation, and exposure to children of graphic content in their youngest years. This panel will shape policies of the United Nations, which receives a large portion of its funding on the backs of US taxpayers.

Of course she needs to be fired, the NEA needs to reevaluate its hiring practices, the MEA needs to reevaluate its association with the NEA, the United States ambassador to the UN needs to issue a statement disagreeing with this agenda, and the US needs to seriously consider whether the UN is appropriately spending US taxpayer money. Those are all givens. But we- you and I- are also going to have to start devoting more time to fighting communism, since it appears that they actually are winning the Cold War (although long after their economic, social, and military system has collapsed because of communism and its perverted ideology).

Via theblogprof:

For the record - actually the Congressional record - here are the communist goals from 1963:

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

UPDATE: Thank you Freedom is Just Another Word for linking to this post!

Movie Watch: Ironclad and Solomon Kane

Through the beauty of wikipedia I recently went on a journey from reading about the movie Top Gun to Val Kilmer to Tombstone to List of Historical Drama's to spotting a movie called Ironclad. It is one of these movies which we in the states might not be able to see but quite honestly is likely better than most of the garbage that will be in the theaters here.

Ironclad is an upcoming historical drama and action film that is soon to be released in the UK.  It is about a ragtag group of Knights Templar who hold out for months against the hard-fought siege of Rochester Castle by King John in the thirteenth Century. Set in the time of signing of the Magna Carta treaty, the group struggles against the King to defend the freedom of their country. Judging from the trailer, it looks like it is going to be a bloody good time! The cast includes includes Paul Giamatti, James Purefoy, Brian Cox, Mackenzie Crook, Jason Flemying, Derek Jacobi and Kate Mara.

Here is the trailer:


The overseas market was also treated to a great movie on Solomon Kane, which I wrote about earlier:

Solomon Kane is a fictional character created by the pulp-era writer Robert E. Howard. A late 16th / early 17th century Puritan, Solomon Kane is a sombre-looking man who wanders the world with no apparent goal other than to vanquish evil in all its forms. His adventures, published mostly in the pulp magazine Weird Tales, often take him from Europe to the jungles of Africa and back.

In the world of Solomon Kane there is Evil. People do evil things (thieves steal and murderers kill), there are evil empires (decadent and peopled by barbarous people), and there are evil spirits present (ghosts and such). Solomon Kane has but one purpose in life, and that is to fight evil, going wherever God's will draws him. A hunger drives him forward, an urge to right all wrongs, to protect those weaker, and to avenge all crimes against right and justice. Wayward and restless, he roams from place to place consistent in one respect only- that he will be true to his ideals of justice and right. Such is Solomon Kane.

Although Solomon Kane is not my favorite Howard character (my favorite is El Borak), I enjoy the stories, and find myself, as I always do when I read Howard, transported back to some sort of primordial time, some sort of time-before-time, perhaps a time period in my childhood when dreams and reality where closer together, or maybe Howard just awakens some sort of ancient stirring in my soul. All I know is that it is very fun reading, and if you haven't picked up a Solomon Kane book yet, you should.

Thus I was very excited to stumble on this trailer, for the Solomon Kane movie. It came out in Europe back in February of 2010, but has not yet made it to the States yet, and there is no DVD available yet for it, but hopefully there will be soon, because it looks like a sweet movie.

It never got into the theatres here yet, but I did notice that you can buy a DVD of it! Follow these links and buy your copy today of the Soloman Kane movie!  SOLOMON KANE [2009, UK] for the movie, The Savage Tales of Solomon Kane for the book!

Did you miss it? Obama is No Longer Going to Defend Marriage

There was something buried way down in the news, under Libya going up in flames, the Middle East collapsing, oil exploding in price, budget battles in DC, a looming Democratic-government shutdown, rioting and protesting in Wisconsin, pirates shooting American citizens off Somalia, and the economic forecasts being seriously downgraded. You probably missed it, and that's probably exactly what Democratic President Obama wanted you do to, because if you found out that he had just abandoned another important campaign promise and decided to let special interest groups legalize gay marriage at the federal level, you and many other moderate voters might be a little upset.

Via The Fix, I read Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. The DOMA, for those of you who don't know, is an act of legislation that was passed in 1996 by the Republican Congress with considerable support from the Democrats and then signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. It is an important act which candidate Obama said he would defend, but now President Obama is no longer going to. Although he himself is married to one woman and his wife would likely get pretty mad if he re-defined marriage to allow him to marry other men and women or animals or whatever, he is abandoning his stated principles and has decided to no longer fight in court for his views and beliefs.

In a practical sense, it means that lawsuits will soon go forward, unchecked by the executive of our nation who is supposed to execute and defend the laws of our nation, that will work to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA in courts that are favorable to liberal views.

In my humble opinion, Section 2 of the Act is clearly constitutional- it excludes same-sex marriages from the Full Faith and Credit Clause in language that quotes from the Constitution itself, which is important because otherwise one liberal state could have a single judge make it legal and thereby make it legal over our entire nation, while Section 3 is also constitutional, in that it defines the word marriage to mean a legal union between one man and one woman, which is the accepted definition of marriage since the beginning of time. In my opinion, there isn't a whole lot that lawsuits could attack, unless they feel that the language in the Constitution itself is 'unconstitutional' (only a matter of time until liberal judges start arguing that) or that the word marriage doesn't mean the union of one man and one woman and perhaps means anything at all (one rock and one man, three women and one man, one man and one man, three man and three dogs, a million men and a million women, etc).

Obama's stance on this issue is one more indication that when you put someone in the White House who believes in everything, you put someone in the White House who believes in nothing. He is an empty suit of a man, weak and unsure of his own beliefs and unwilling to defend or fight for that which he believes is right. America deserved to be punished for the mistake of electing him, it's just too bad that my kids and grandkids are also being punished too for voters stupidity in electing him President.

Video of Niall Ferguson Schooling and Educating MSNBC Hosts, to their horror

According to Niall Ferguson (a British historian who teaches at Harvard), the defining characteristic thus far for Obama's foreign policy is "not just a failure to prioritize, but a failure to recognize the need to do so." In other words, Obama has no foreign policy, is making it up as he goes, is reading the polls to try to figure out what the right thing to do, is behind the curve on world events, and doesn't know up from down, and the saddest thing is, he doesn't even know it. He is in way over his head, dangerously incompetent, damaging our foreign policy the mere fact of his presence, like Jimmy Carter, except without Carter's work ethic or willingness to seek out help. He has surrounded himself by few foreign policy experts, few business experts, and no conservatives, instead preferring to surround himself with liberal Chicago politicians who can hold his hand and tell him everything is going to be okay as long as he fools you or your husband or your wife or your kids or your friends into voting for him. This Niall Ferguson fellow is a whole lot smarter than me, and he agrees with my points- watch him tear the old media liberal types up on this enjoyable and informative clip:

Originally via theblogprof, where I commented "I love how uncomfortable the MSNBC people look during this video- it is like reality is intruding in on their happy-nice sunshine naive idiot view of the world. Fergusan pounds on them, and they are stunned by how easy it is for him to do so. Towards the end the MSNBC hosts desperately turn to the 'yeah, but Bush was worse' meme- that's classic too!"

Fore more on Fergusan, check out The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, or Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.