10 Good Reasons Why Senator Stabenow Should Be Re-Elected

UPDATE: Just kidding. There is no good reason why Stabenow should be re-elected to the US Senate. She does a poor job advocating for Michigan, she is consistently ranked as one of the weakest politicians in Congress, and according to the National Journal Group she is the most liberal member of the Senate and thus more liberal than any of her constituents in this fine moderate state of Michigan. If she were a run-of-the-mill liberal who did a good job helping constituents and was chair of a powerful committee than I could see her winning re-election, but that describes Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), not her.

UPDATE II: According to the latest poll from RealClearPolitics, Stabenow uses the reasons listed above to surge to a 2 point lead over former US Congressman Pete Hoekstra. Expect her to wage a tough re-election campaign based on anything other than issues, votes, hard work, vision, responsibility, or reality.

My Editorial on Obama's Incompetence in Libya

Over the last two weeks in Libya, important events were occurring. There was an important revolt against a ruling power, a revolt that was inspired by events in nearby nations and that was driven by forces including a desire for more liberty, a desire for better protection of property from takings by the government, and a desire for more protections of life. Of course there are other forces swirling around too in Libya- the whole life, liberty, and property line also needs to have added to it tribal, religious, and other overtones- but the idea is that there is an important revolution occurring in Libya today.

Opposing the revolutionaries are those who like the status quo in Libya, those who are part of the tyrannical government system, those whose livelihoods are based on the looting of their fellow citizens, those who feel that elites and overlords and government agents should control what people do in their lives, and those who abuse human lives with cruel and unjust judicial systems. These people have important skin in the game too- if the tables are turned on them, they die and their way of life dies, and so they are going to fight tooth and nail and to the last bloody body to keep their unearned gains.

And then there is probably the most important group in Libya, that of the middle. Everyone always remembers the American revolutionaries and the British and Loyalist forces, but few ever think about the great percentage of people who sat out the opening rounds of the American Revolution and watched events before deciding which way to commit. There is a large number of people in Libya who are on the sidelines, watching- although they might agree with the revolutionaries, if the revolution is successful, they may not gain personally and they may have less wealth or power, or although they might agree with the established power, but they may live in an area where the revolution is doing well or may think that long term the revolution will be successful. There are a great number of people in Libya sitting on the sidelines- generals, political leaders, business leaders, and teachers- who are trying to figure out which way this whole thing is going to break so that they can be on the winning side.

The United States had the opportunity two weeks ago to put pressure on all three to achieve some sort of an outcome, and because of the incompetence of its primary political figure in charge of international events, the President, it has failed to do so and only now, several weeks later, is it finally making weak policy decisions on this important event.

This is an important event, you see- Libya is a significant oil producer, Libya has over 6 million people in it, Libya is in a strategic area of the world, and Libya has been a thorn in the side of the United States for years as an active supporter of worldwide terrorism. It is a nation that could be better- it could be a more reliable producer of cheaper oil for us, it could be a nation that has fewer human rights abuses and more political freedom and happiness for its own people, it is a nation that could serve as important source of stability and support in the region, or it could be simply removed from being a thorn in our side and stop supporting worldwide terrorism.

It isn't guaranteed, of course, that these positive events can and will happen- one must always weigh the possible positives of the future with the current situation- but as Libya was a 'bad' nation who wasn't our ally, it can't get much worse (this contrasts to my position on Egypt which was that it was a 'not totally bad nation who was our ally and could get worse').

When this revolution started up several weeks ago, there was every possibility for the United States to put pressure on all three factions working in Libya. Now, of course that pressure needed to be subtle and applied in the right manner by the right people, but I think my case has been laid out strongly that some action should have been taken in some way as soon as possible in this revolution in Libya.

All three factions- the revolutionaries, those in power, and the significant middle in between- could all have been acted on. The revolutionaries could have been provided with support- moral, international, actual arms and weapons, etc. Those in power could have been pressured through sanctions, embargoes, stern words, seizure of assets, or threats of more by moving military assets into the area, and this may have moderated its response and taken off of the table such actions as bombing civilians or hiring foreign mercenaries. And the moderates and those who hadn't decided which faction to support would have observed these reactions and made the call that the winning side and stronger horse to bet on in this revolution was the revolutionaries, thus swelling their ranks and leading them to quicker and less bloody victory.

But Democratic President Barack Obama did not act quickly, surely, or strongly. Other nations did- the British seized assets, the Chinese moved warships into the region, the French acted diplomatically- but not the world's greatest superpower and the one with the most capacity to act in a positive manner. Instead, Obama did nothing, he dithered, he went to basketball games and concerts, and he did not exercise the leadership that was so critical during this timer period.

His 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.

The fact that Obama is acting now to issue weak international language condemning Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi does not improve my regard for him or his actions; it instead makes me regard him worse. If Obama was going to oppose Qaddafi, he should have opposed him- if Obama was going to support Qaddafi, he should have supported him- but instead it appears that the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the greatest military force ever was a confused, unprincipled, weak, inept, and incompetent moderate who is simply waiting on the sidelines trying to look good in the end rather than being a strong, principled, competent leader who takes action, even if that action is a strong no-action.

President Barack Obama must be removed from office sooner rather than later because he is not a good leader and is incompetent and his failures are leading to a world that is less free, less secure, and more dangerous to the living. He may be a fine father and a good person and a great community organizer, but it was and continues to be a mistake to have him as President of the United States.

UPDATE: Something about this subject must inspire deeper thoughts about the President and what sort of person should occupy that office, because Richard Fernandez over at Belmont Club has also penned a great editorial on this very subject titled The Root of All Evil- check it out!

Graph of the Amount of Oil Production Affected by Crisis

Although Obama might not view what is happening in the Middle East as all that important- he is going to basketball games and concerts and instead directing attempts to riot in WI- I think it is very important because the Middle East region sits on a very important resource- oil. So for fun, I put together a graph this morning to demonstrate the amount of oil production that is affected by the crisis in the Middle East. The graph shows oil production by country based on the most recent data I found in the CIA World Factbook, and shows each nation currently in crisis or about to be in crisis, and then the gray area represents all other nations not currently affected.

Any change in oil production likely will cause the price of gasoline to go up, and as you can see, a large percentage of the world's oil comes out of this affected region, although if Saudi Arabia stays stable, then the percentages is considerably less although still significant. In my amateur opinion, gas prices are going to rise, the economy will dip again, and Obama will react to this all by supporting our enemies and lowering our oil output. Here is the graph:

My Conversation with Karl Rove on the Three Requirements to be President in 2012

Today as I was waiting to catch a plan to DC to talk to some people about education policy I ran into Karl Rove waiting to catch a flight. He was in town recently for the Livingston County Republican Party' Lincoln Day Dinner, which also attracted such notables as Attorney General Bill Schuette, State Senator Joe Hune, State Representative Bill Rogers, State Representative Cindy Denby, blogger Wendy Day, and many others.

Knowing that Mr. Rove is a friendly and verbose guy, I sat down with him for a minute and asked him his thoughts on the upcoming 2012 race for the President. According to Karl Rove, in order for Republicans to beat Obama and retake the White House the GOP will have to nominate a candidate who can do 3 things:

1. Write a narrative- articulate their vision of the world, their views on policy, where they have come from and where they see our nation going, and explain why voters should vote for that person over anyone else
2. Seize the moment- there will time a come in every campaign when the candidate will have to stand up and take command of the situation- Reagan did it in a debate with HW Bush, W Bush did it in a debate with McCain, Obama did it in a debate with Clinton- at some point the candidate will be challenged and will have to rise to the challenge and show voters that they can fight
3. Unite the nation- this election will not be about Republicans turning out to vote but rather about getting Democrats and independents to cross over and vote for a Republican who strongly articulates Republican views. Obama campaigned as a moderate force of change and bipartisanship and won (turns out that was a bold faced lie though) and Reagan had Reagan Democrats- our next President needs to be a uniter and not a divider.

Karl Rove is a pretty smart guy and came to these conclusions after talking with many other pollsters and consultants, so let's run with these ideas for a minute. Let's take a look at the top contenders for the GOP nomination and speculate if they meet all three criteria:

• Sarah Palin- she is writing a narrative (TLC show, book, etc) and is tough and strong, but is just too divisive (because strong women who love life and liberty represent a threat to many on the left and lingering sexism in other groups)
• Mitt Romney- he is trying to write a narrative (he has a book out- anyone read it?) but his vision is muddled by his support for Romneycare, he was unable to seize the moment last time he ran for office and looked timid and unsure at times, but he does have the potential to be a uniter (competent, moderate, measured, experienced, etc)
• Newt Gingrich- he has a narrative and a vision, he has been able to sieze moments in the past (1994), but he is not a uniter- his personal life, his writings, and his personal style divide people too much
• Rudy Giuliani- he needs to develop a narrative and a vision- yes, we all remember him from 9/11 and from his work in New York, but he needs to move beyond that and become something more, and I don't know if that is possible, he obviously can seize a moment (9/11), and he could unite America around the memory of 9/11- but can he do more than that, I wonder
• Tim Pawlenty- he needs a national narrative and vision, something that will catapult him to the Presidency, he probably could stand up and be tough and have a moment, and I get the feeling that he could unite America behind him if only he could tell a better story- he comes off as cold and distant
• Donald Trump- he doesn't have a vision, although he will have moments of toughness (you're fired!) and America could unite behind him (change and hope and stuff)
• All others- I simply don't know enough about them, which means they haven't articulated a strong vision, they haven't had a moment, and I have no idea if they can be a uniter

Let me know your thoughts- who do you think meets Rove's criteria for being the next President of the United States?

Obama's Transparent Game for America

As Admiral Ackbar once famously said "It's a trap!"

2012 isn't that far away, and it is becoming one of the most important elections in American history. In one direction America will continue to travel down the road to the gray mass of the rest of the world, losing its exceptionalism and becoming a Europe of favored ruling classes and slaves working for them. In the other direction, regardless of the nominee the Republicans choose, will be tough choices and grown-up decisions that are sure to anger and upset a lot of people but years from now grandchildren of an exceptional America of freedom and liberty will look back on and thank. Until recently, I could not imagine any way that Obama could be re-elected to the Presidency, but via memeorandum, I read this on Powerlineblog:

Obama's game is transparent, isn't it? He is playing a game of chicken. He puts forward a series of proposals that he knows are more or less insane; but he also believes that Republicans will come to his rescue. They, not being wholly irresponsible, will come up with plans to reform entitlements--like, for example, the Ryan Roadmap. Ultimately, some combination of those plans will be implemented because the alternative is the collapse, not just of the government of the United States, but of the country itself. But Obama thinks the GOP's reforms will be unpopular, and he will be able to demagogue them, thus having his cake and eating it too. Is that leadership? Of course not. But it is the very essence of Barack Obama.

This game is getting more transparent each day- the Republicans cut a measly $100 million from the budget for the coming year and Democrats are making noise about some sort of government shut down, Obama sends his minions and allies to Wisconsin to trash the capital and wave disgusting signs, all while the Middle East collapses and Obama is left steps behind admiring pictures of him shaking hands with these former dictators whose regimes are collapsing. Obama has got a game though- more elaboration on his game over at Chicago Boyz (please read the full thing- this is only part of the analysis):

Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Obama is setting up a confrontation and he plans to win.

Obama is betting that he can force the GOP to make their proposed cuts, which he can blame them for, which he can truthfully say he does not support. Then he can attack the Republicans for making the cuts. He will appeal to the people who are suffering from the cuts, and strip away GOP support. They will be angry and mobilized. Obama then plans to force the GOP into a funding crisis just as Clinton did. Obama plans to destroy the GOP reform wave of 2011 just as Clinton destroyed the GOP reform effort in 1995.

Obama’s team attempted to use the Tucson massacre in the same fashion that Clinton used the Oklahoma City bombings, to discredit the GOP. Obama is acutely aware of the Clinton playbook. This is another re-run.

If Obama wins, then the GOP / Tea Party effort is over and the Democrats have won the whole ball game. Obama gets reelected, the GOP is finished as a political party, and we have a mess for some number of years while a new party forms. But odds are it will be too late by then. A majority of people will be dependent on the Government.

It is that serious.

This is the game, people. It is a serious game with serious consequences. Recent polling in Wisconsin shows that 48% of the people of that state support liberty and freedom and private property rights and 38% support the rights of the privileged few to demand more benefits from taxpayers. Although the good guys are winning in that poll, it is not a majority- the day is fast approaching when democracy will rule and those who have political power will outnumber those who do not and will use the power of the state to steal from others and bring tyranny and injustice to America, as it is in every other nation in the world. This is a serious game- you all better be up for it. Obama is, and he won 2 years ago, and now our nation is trillions more in debt and weaker internationally, politically, and culturally because of it. Can we afford another 4 more years? I doubt it.

Congresswomen Baldwin Spins Usual Junk about Workers 'Rights' and a 'Hostile' Bargaining Table

On my drive home from work today I listened to an interview of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (Democrat, Wisconsin) on the Ed Schultz Show (1310AM in Detroit). The good Congresswoman described what was happening in Wisconsin as an attack on the rights of workers that was beyond the pale of what is acceptable politically in America. She said that this was an attempt to silence workers at the bargaining table and make it so that they would be treated with disrespect at the bargaining table. Let's address both of these questions by asking two important questions.

What is a Right?
According to natural rights philosophy, on which our nation is based and built on, rights are claims that we as people have to certain things because those things have always existed and will always exist, no matter which state governs us. Even without states, in a state of nature, people would still have the right to live, the right to live in freedom, and the right to keep and own property. These rights could not be taken away by any government, although they could be violated, because government does not provide these rights or create them- rather, these rights are created by God and given to everyone since we are all made in God's image. Or in other words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Note that rights are clearly not privileges that are granted to certain groups in society by government. If that is the case, than these privileges could easily be taken away, in which case they were never a 'right' but rather a 'grant'. Clearly this is the situation in Wisconsin, where the government granted to certain groups in society certain grants of power which it now can no longer afford to give and so is taking those grants away. This situation is nothing at all similar to any sort of patriotic fight, but is instead just selfish and short-sighted angry grabbing after power that was once granted but now is being taken back.

Even when discussing rights, Congresswomen Baldwin had trouble because she knows on a deeper level that she doesn't know what she is talking about. She jerks back from any mention of where these 'worker' rights come from or how they are in reality 'rights' and not just privileges granted to politically favorable groups by government. She instead just repeats that they are rights and that these rights only belong to government-approved union workers and that everyone should stand with these favored groups and protect their rights. It is surprising that voters put her in office when she has clearly failed to study or think about these important issues, even though she went to college and law school where natural rights philosophy should have been taught. It appears all she learned from her law school was how to go about suing people and spin falsehoods.

Who does Labor sit down with at Bargaining Table?
Public labor unions like those in Wisconsin who would lose their special privileged rights that they had been given by Democratic governments of the past would be forced to sit down in the future with elected officials and taxpayers and determine what their future benefits would be. Congresswomen Baldwin and Ed Schultz both talked about the need for unions to negotiate with evil businesses who did not care about working conditions or workers pay because they were only after profits for their shareholders- but this is clearly not the case when public employee unions negotiate with elected officials and taxpayers, who are not driven by profits, who are responsible to voters if they mistreat workers, who would be liable to large lawsuits if they had poor working conditions, and who are put into office by citizens to represent citizens to hire those people to work for citizens. They are not 'hostile' any more than the average public would be 'hostile' to unions, and if the average voting public is 'hostile' to unions, that is an indication that unions have been 'hostile' to the interests of the average voting public.

When it comes down to it, when pushed and goaded by the fascist thug Ed Schultz, Congresswomen Baldwin fell back on class warfare and tried to argue that what had put her state in such financial trouble were not the generous salaries, pensions, and benefits that workers had bargained from the state over the last several years, but rather tax cuts to the rich or tax breaks to job creators that were given in the last month, and that her state should have just continued to pass the bill on to future generations and papered over the debt with trickery and shell games. After all, that's what she encourages the national government to do with her votes in Congress- she votes in favor of massive deficits that are passing huge debts and liabilities and obligations down on our children and grandchildren, and she does this all while pretending that she is not selfish and short-sighted and a tool to Big Labor.

For more information on natural rights philosophy, check out Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration.

Obama vs Snyder and Walker: Politician vs Patriots?

There is currently a major battle going on in Wisconsin between the moderates who are working for fiscal sanity against the extremists who are employing shameful tactics to hold on to their government-enforced privileges. But this battle is only yet another battle in this larger war, a war of ideas and ideals and policies and beliefs that needs to spill on to the battle for the White House in 2012. Obama and his latest budget is a double-down on promises to continue to provide taxpayer privileges to his supporters, and those who oppose this corrupt government-big business-labor are going to need to rally around someone who is going to have to fight tooth-and-nail against those who would do the future of our nation harm.

Here in Michigan, we quietly are having our own budget battle, where behind the scenes work is being done to put our own financial house in order by making drastic cuts to everything that everyone is concerned with. After the childish amateur governance of Democratic Jennifer Granholm, who destroyed Michigan's economy and passed on massive liabilities and debts and problems to the next Governor, new Republican Governor Rick Snyder was shocked at how bad Michigan's finances were and so was forced to come up with a tough budget.

But at the national level, the joke still continues, and Obama continues the childish and amateur policies that destroyed the finances and solvency of multiple states like Michigan and Wisconsin and which now will require much hard work and hardship to recover from. Rather than finding a budget reeling with deficit and wars and outstanding obligations and working hard to overcome those problems and reign in the deficits, he has instead extended the US finances further with more obligations and more debt and more problems and done it all while demonizing and politicking against his enemies.

Nolan Finley has written an excellent article on this issue. Here are some of the best parts:

...For those interested in comparing bold leadership to the wishy-washy variety, the release today of Gov. Rick Snyder's first budget is perfectly timed, coming as it does just four days after President Barack Obama gave the federal deficit disaster another big kick down the road.

Obama's budget is a fraud. It continues manic deficit spending. The cuts it contains are mostly pretense, while the tax hikes are real and destructive. It avoids the two major threats to the nation's fiscal stability, Social Security and Medicare.

And it leaves most of the tough decisions to Republican lawmakers, who will be demonized by the president and his political allies if they dare to make them.

It's the work of a president who lacks the courage to lead. It also exposes the reality that Obama's objective is to increase the size and reach of the federal government, not shrink it, and nothing that happened in the November elections will move him off that mission...

....Snyder also is showing far greater faith in his people than is the president. For weeks leading up to today's budget unveiling, the governor talked honestly to citizens about the precariousness of the state's finances and the shared sacrifices required to repair them.

Obama, by contrast, keeps spinning like a top, pretending to austerity while allowing spending to soar and demanding sacrifice only from the evil rich and greedy corporations. This week, his minions are out on the stump hailing Obama as a great job creator, even in the face of employment reports that grow grimmer each month.

What we saw with Obama's budget release is a politician in full re-election mode. He's going to say what he thinks the voters want to hear, but keep pursuing his discredited agenda.

Snyder is exactly as billed. He told voters he would put an end to business as usual in Lansing, and today he will. He told them he wouldn't flinch from the difficult decisions demanded of leadership. Today, he'll keep that promise. And he assured them that if they'd follow him, he'd lead them to a more prosperous and hopeful Michigan. Today, they'll get a look at the course he's charted.

Meanwhile in Washington, a president who promised those same things two years ago continues to wander in the wilderness.

BREAKING: Barack Obama Time Travels from January to Scold Barack Obama of February of his Lack of Civility in Wisconsin Budget Battle

BREAKING FAKE NEWS: In an unusual move for a sitting President of the United States, Democratic President Barack Obama time traveled from January of 2011 to February 2011 in order to to scold Democratic President Barack Obama for his political finger-pointing and lack of civility and honesty regarding the public discourse over the budget situation in Wisconsin.

January Obama reportedly said to February Obama "(We should all) strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents... more civility in our public discourse... only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."

In reply, February Obama said to January Obama "Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions..." and then DNC's Organizing for America arm -- the organization and people who were behind Obama's 2008 campaign -- began playing an active role in organizing protests.

At that point, early February Obama also time-traveled to today to sit down and talk with January Obama and what we will call Late February Obama. Early February Obama then said to Late February Obama that civility and cooperation are necessary to achieve policy goals like cutting government spending. “The only way you make those tough decisions is if you’re willing to cut the other side a little bit of slack,” he said.

Late February Obama replied by pulling out his Blackberry and ordering his political machine to begin working closely with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals and to organize additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana.

It was at this time that June 2008 Obama also time-travelled to offer his support to Late February Obama "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." He then left and supervised his supporters and organization produce signs that depicted Wisconsin Governor Walker with gun crosshairs over his face, signs that compared Walker to Hitler and Mubarack, signs accusing Republicans of hating and raping people, signs urging Democrats to not retreat but rather to reload, and signs urging 'death to tyrants.'

After the departure of June 2008 Obama, Late February Obama left and went back to the White House to try to work on spinning what he said so that he would appear to be some sort of moderate and not the closet extreme liberal that he is, while Early February Obama busied himself by looking admiringly at himself in the mirror, and January Obama congratulated himself on getting his poll numbers to rise after the shooting of the good Congresswoman.

(This account was fictional, but all quotes are real and are dated correctly and the signs that Obama's political organization is helping create are also real. Follow the links for more information.)

For those interested in more accounts of time travel, try Back to the Future Part II.

Geithner and Obama to be Impeached over Revelation that China Got Them to Lean on Regulators to Approve Chinese-Friendly Deals?

Reuters released a story revealing some pretty shocking things going on over confidential diplomatic cables from the U.S. embassies in Beijing and Hong Kong:

As the U.S. Federal Reserve grappled with the aftershocks of financial crisis, the Chinese, like many others, suffered huge losses from their investments in American financial firms -- from Lehman Brothers to the Primary Reserve Fund, the money market fund that broke the buck.

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks, show that escalating Chinese pressure prompted a procession of soothing visits from the U.S.Treasury Department. In one striking instance, a top Chinese money manager directly asked U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for a favor.

In June, 2009, the head of China's powerful sovereign wealth fund met with Geithner and requested that he lean on regulators at the U.S. Federal Reserve to speed up the approval of its $1.2 billion investment in Morgan Stanley, according to the cables, which were provided to Reuters by a third party.

Although the cables do not mention if Geithner took any action, China's deal to buy Morgan Stanley shares was announced the very next day.

If this is true, and I hope that House and Senate immediately investigates these charges, then we have evidence and records of US officials being successful pressured by the Chinese government to unlawfully use the power of the federal government in such a way to benefit Chinese investment firms.

Timothy Geithner is the United States Secretary of the Treasury, appointed this position under Democrat President Barack Obama, and if it is true that Geithner was pressured by the Chinese to use federal government pressure in any way to circumvent the normal processes of our government then Geithner and anyone else who covered up or knew about this scandal should be impeached and thrown into prison.

Morgan Stanley received billions in taxpayer money as part of the bailout of 2008-2009. This taxpayer money helped Morgan Stanley stay in business. Chinese officials later bought a large chunk of Morgan Stanley, apparently after the White House applied pressure of some sort of federal regulators.

THE CHINESE ARE RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT UNDER OBAMA AND HIS POLICIES, and Obama's latest debt proposal will put us further under communist China's control- they're already calling the shots in the Obama White House, Obama's bowing to the Chinese not just in reality but in real meaningful policy ways to, and this is now rising beyond 'Obama must go because he is imcompetent' and is getting to the level that 'Obama must go because he is criminally complicit in using the power of the White House to inappropriately apply pressure to other government agencies to help foreign governments to the possible detriment of US citizens.'

UPDATE: After sleeping on this one, I've decided that neither Obama nor Geithner has likely committed treason or other high crimes and so should not be impeached (although one could argue that it is possible that since Obama accepted massive amounts of donations from unidentified foreign sources last election that there is some sort of possibility of conspiracy that may be criminal). They are and continue to be incompetent in office, but no longer in the sort of incompetent bumbling fools sort of way, but now rather in the incompetent to the level that it is dangerous to the future of your children sort of way.

UPDATE II: Via memeorandum I see that Breitbart is on to this story now, so hopefully it will gain some legs, because if what Wikileaks reports is true, there are some borderline criminal behaviors that need to be investigated.

The Rising Threat of Fascism: Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Other States

Anti-semitic. Nationalist. Socialist. Corporatist. Totalitarian. Idolizing and exaltating violence, war, and militarism. Emphasizing spiritual renovation, 'better' education, instilling of a will to dominate, and creating national comradeship through the mandatory national military service.

Egypt today is all of these things. Iran is all of these things. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are these things. Syria is these things. These elements are becoming popular in Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These elements swirl through Iraq and Afghanistan. And these are increasingly coming to define the Middle East region.

This is not new. The above elements that I used to describe what is happening in the Middle East are the same exact elements that form the core of fascism.

Fascism did not die with World War Two; it was a very popular ideology that had believers around the world, even here in the United States, and just because the fascist powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan were defeated did not mean that fascism would disappear as an ideology and political alternative to classical liberalism or honest socialism. It did not go away- rather, it changed its name and its focus and attempted to disassociate itself from the worst fascists that were out there, but it did not go away. For many years, the United States and its allies fought for and openly pushed classical liberal ideals on the world, driving fascism into the shadows where it lurked, corrupting socialist movements and swaying liberal governments to its siren call of a 'third way' between life and liberty and death and tyranny.

Fascism though is once more rearing its ugly head, singing its song that if only the people would unite behind certain ideals- be they a united community of Muslims preaching nationalism and death to Jews in a corporatist economy, or a divided nation rallying behind a demagogue who promises change and hope while creating a union-government-big business partnership, or Germans smarting from a dehumanizing loss in WWI seeking out Volk through a third way economic program based on environmentalism and postmodern values. Fascism is still going strong today, luring people into adopting it, working with it, and even preaching it in their own little ways, all while vehemently rejecting it just because it isn't spoken in German and this isn't 1940 and because their own mind shrinks back in horrified rejection over the accusation that perhaps what they really are advancing is fascist.

This isn't really new ground for me to cover- longtime readers of my blog will remember my other posts on fascism such as Fascism Healthcare, The Third Way: Obama and Fascism, State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism ..., Wikipedia Description of Fascist Sounds Like Someone I Know, or The World According to Obama.

What is new to me is the dawning realization that the Middle East is going fascist, that the people of Israel are in grave danger, and that appeasers hold positions of power around the world and are going to let atrocities, rapes, rocket attacks, land grabs, condemnations, and rebukes occur. And we must fight this new fascism.

For more information about fascism, read Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

UPDATE: It is stunning to me the lack of education demonstrated by the teachers and their allies in Wisconsin. There are so many signs about this whole Wisconsin budget battle thing where they make their opponents out to be fascists and have sign after sign with a mustache drawn on the Governor of Wisconsin to make him into some sort of Hitler. Not only is it uncivil and disgusting, it is shocking illiterate and uneducated about what exactly fascism is. Making it so that public employees (who are hired and fired by the government and who have an entire civil service commission set up to supervise them) can not unionize and collectively bargain is not something that any fascist at any point in history even thought about, unless you view unions to be communist and argue that fascists hated communists? I doubt this is it- no, rather this is just another effort to disguise just exactly what fascism is and water down the word so that when you see real fascism- like the kind I believe you see signs of in the Middle East and elsewhere- you won't recognize it and therefore attack and condemn it.

Black History Month Post: James Earl Jones Reading "Baby, Baby, Baby" by Justin Bieber

For another great video on Black History Month, please check out this one from Morgan Freeman where he talks about his thoughts on the subject.

Star Trek's Federation Essentially a Big Protection Racket?

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy I found this highly fasinating analysis of federalism and the nature of government in the Star Trek universe. Read the whole thing and the comments here, but here is a snippet of it:

While teaching my Federalism seminar recently, I made an analogy to Star Trek's United Federation of Planets. That got me thinking about the role of federalism in Star Trek. How much power does the Federation's central government have, and how much is left to the individual planets? Does the central government's Star Fleet have a monopoly of military force, or do Vulcan and other planets have their own local forces? Does the Federation subsidize planetary governments heavily, or are there hard budget constraints? Despite five Star Trek TV series and numerous movies, these questions haven't really been answered. Unfortunately, the academic literature on Federation law isn't much help either (see also this supposedly comprehensive volume on Star Trek and the law, which almost completely ignores federalism issues).

The evidence in the TV series' on these points is contradictory. On the one hand, the Federation seems to have a socialistic economy with a massive welfare state and no currency, which would require a high degree of centralization and planning incompatible with meaningful federalism. In the absence of a currency and price system, central planning seems to be the only way to coordinate a complex economy to even a limited degree. On the other, member planets apparently have considerable autonomy. For example, Vulcan seems to have very different laws from Earth. And Vulcan's economy seems to have a large market sector dominated by family-owned enterprises. In Deep Space Nine, the planet of Bajor applies for Federation membership. Although Bajor is at least a partial theocracy with a government heavily influenced by religious leaders, anti-Federation Bajorans never argue that Federation membership would lead to the end of Bajor's quasi-theocratic political system (as it surely would if the highly secular Federation denied political autonomy to member planets).

How to reconcile the evidence? I would suggest that it is only Earth that is socialistic, while the other member worlds have free market systems or mixed economies. The human-dominated Star Fleet military is the only Federation military force, and is tasked with collecting tribute from the nonhuman planets for redistribution to Earth. But as long as they pay their taxes, which subsidize Earth's welfare state and Star Fleet itself, they are largely left alone to govern their domestic affairs as they see fit. The Federation is essentially a big protection racket (in both senses of the word: providing external security, and also "protection" against its own depradations). There is even a good historical precedent. The 5th century BC Athenian-dominated Delian League also collected tribute from the other member states (which had no independent militaries) and used it to finance government spending on welfare benefits and the Athenian Navy, an analogue to Star Fleet. As long as the allies paid their tribute, Athens mostly left them alone and did not try to influence their domestic policies.

This theory explains a lot. For example, it is now clear why Star Fleet is so completely dominated by humans. I don't think we have ever seen a nonhuman Star Fleet admiral, and there are very few nonhumans serving even as lower-ranking officers. Except for a few collaborators like Mr. Spock (who is criticized by his fellow Vulcans for accepting too many "illogical" human ways), the nonhumans can't be trusted to force their own people to pay tribute. It also explains why the human-dominated Star Fleet military force seems to have near-total control over Federation foreign policy (e.g. - Star Fleet officers such as Capt. Picard make major policy decisions without any significant civilian oversight).

Furthermore, in one of Star Trek movies, a Klingon spokesman denounces the Federation as a "homo sapiens-only club." Taken literally, this is too obviously false to be effective propaganda; the Federation surely does have nonhuman members. But this propaganda line makes sense if it actually refers to the fact that Federation and Star Fleet are tools for expropriating wealth from nonhuman planets and transferring it to Earth.

Why don't we ever see Captain Kirk or Capt. Picard on tribute collection runs? Because the Enterprise is one of Star Fleet's most advanced warships, and is therefore reserved for more difficult missions, such as going "where no man has gone before" in search of new wealthy star systems to occupy and tax. Note the term "no man," which further underscores human control of Star Fleet.

How does the Prime Directive fit into this? On the surface, it seems incompatible with an imperialistic Federation. But remember that the Prime Directive only applies to planets which are at a much lower level of technological development than the Federation itself. That is, only to planets that are not wealthy enough to be worth the cost of occupying and taxing. Star Fleet Command wants to prevent glory-seeking captains like Kirk from taking over underdeveloped worlds that are likely to drain more revenue than they bring in. The Prime Directive serves this goal, while also cloaking Federation imperialism in a veneer of righteousness that has been all too successful in fooling generations of TV viewers.

I highly doubt that this is the interpretation of Star Trek that Gene Roddenberry intended. However, it does account for the available evidence, doesn't it?

If you are intersted in learning more about Star Trek, try reading Star Trek Organizations: Star Trek Governments, Starfleet, United Federation of Planets, Maquis, Dominion, Kzinti Hegemony, Section 31 or Four visions of the century ahead: will it be Star Trek, Ecotopia, Big Government, or Mad Max?(technological optimism and skepticism): An article from: The Futurist or Political Science Fiction.

Uncle Sam's Share of Taxes at 60-year low due to tax cuts and poor economy, mostly poor economy though

The reason why you probably shouldn't go to the mainstream media for anything but sports editorials and the comics is because whenever it writes about anything else its amazing liberal bias shines through. Take for example a recent 'article' (not editorial) appearing in the Detroit News called Death a sure thing, taxes less so: Uncle Sam's share at 60-year low:

Taxes too high? Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.

And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency. Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

From the way this is written, you would imagine that it is Obama and the Democrats in Congress that are to thank for lower taxes and that because of all those low taxes the Democrats provided us with taxes are now at a 60 year low. In reality, tax cuts were pushed for by Republicans over Democrats objections, and it is the Democrats that we can thank for the job-killing regulations and taxes and uncertainty that has destroyed our national economy leading to few with jobs and few companies earning money, thus lower overall revenue to the national government, thus all that 'lower share' nonsense.

Democrats still don't get the Laffer Curve- that when taxes are too high, they choke off investment and economic growth, leading to less tax revenue to the national government, leading to less revenue to spend on national defense, welfare for the truly needy, money for speculative science, and a secure social security system. It is liberals and Democrats who are pushing higher taxes and thus are creating lower revenues for the national government- under Bush and Reagan and Kennedy when they cut taxes revenue to the national government went up and this could allow the federal government to do all those wonderful things liberals want them to do.

The truth is though that liberals don't really want a government that provides for the poor, the needy, the sick, and everyone else if that means that they control your behavior less with lower taxes. Nope, liberals would trade higher taxes and the control this gives them even if the revenues that the federal government are lower as a consequence. That is the only conclusion to reach, if experience demonstrates time after time the truth behind the Laffer Curve.

The author of the article in the Detroit News demonstrates that lack of knowledge of the Laffer Curve must be pervasive in the liberal community- rather than think 'taxes and regulation and government control are higher and tax revenue is down; I want tax revenue up; perhaps we should have less taxes and regulation and government control' the author of the article pushes for more taxes and regulation and government control, and then will have to cast around for someone to blame when this shortsighted and uneducated policy doesn't work (I've been in Michigan for a while and seen Democrats desperately go through a laundry list of people to blame for the failures of their policies).

For more information on the Laffer Curve, check out Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status or The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen.

Michigan Democratic Party State Convention- Elites Double-Down on Liberal Agenda?

At the Michigan Democratic Party State Convention, Debbie Dingell, the wife of US Rep. John Dingell and a major figure in the Michigan Democratic Party, summed up exactly what is wrong with the Michigan Democratic Party when she said

None of us can be happy with what happened in the last election. What we have to do as a party is make sure everybody is brought together. We've got to use the talents of everybody.

Democrats believe that they lost the last election not because their high tax, high regulation, no values policies drove Michigan into the ground and destroyed it, but because the elites didn't keep the peons in the party together and didn't figure out a way to use them properly. To win future elections, they believe, they need to enforce stricter party unity and figure out how to use others to their advantage better. But the message will stay the same and they will continue to believe that people are simply slaves of the state who exist to serve the wishes of the elites and those who provide the elites with votes (those on state support, those who 'work' for the state, unions who derive support from the state, and other political insiders).

Oh, not everyone in the modern-day Democratic Party thinks this way- only the leadership and the elected officials and everyone who really matters to the Party. Fools who continue to believe that the Democratic Party of today is the Democratic Party of 15 or 30 years ago are marginalized and, with a smile, told to shut up and simply pull the lever for Democrat. For example, at the convention this year there was a challenge from Detroit TV producer Ron Scott, who claimed to have about 500 supporters among more than 1,700 delegates at the convention. He wanted to challenge for the chairman's position and so (according to him) last week he made several phone calls to the party headquarters to find out what the convention rules were. He was told some of them, but was not told that he needed to pay the 'traditional' $1,000 nomination fee (a fee that serves as a barrier to most delegates), and so he wasn't on the ballot, and Mark Brewer, who oversaw the worst showing ever by Democrats in Michigan in several generations, was elected to unopposed to his ninth term.

From the Detroit News:

Ron Seigel, of Highland Park, was among the 14th District delegates who tried to get a voice on the floor but were ignored by Brewer. "I asked for a point of information," Seigal said. "This is not Democratic."

Scott described party leaders as "elites" who ignore the diversity of the Democratic base—a charge Brewer denied.

"If you look at our executive committee it's very diverse — every ethnic group, every region of the state," Brewer said. "It's one of the things we strive for."

And that quote probably is another great quote to demonstrate what is wrong with the modern-day Democratic Party- it sums up diversity as 'ethnic' and 'geographical', and it doesn't even cross the mind of the elites who run the party that there might be others in the party with diverse views and experiences and opinions on the issues. Nope, it is elites controlling the process and then putting on a nice show of 'diversity' by pointing to all the liberal elites of color from different areas of the state who all believe in the elite message of the Democratic Party of taxes, regulation, control, lack of values, green god worship, and disdain for the rest of us slaves of the state.

Don't kid yourself Democrats- your party is 100% behind the agenda that Barack Obama, Debbie Stabenow, and John Dingell champion, which is to nationalize the health care and health insurance industries through demanding consumers buy products and taxing others so that others can get free healthcare, supporting more government control over the financial system even though it was government companies like Freddie and Fannie who were the reason for the collapse in 2009, and supporting other regulations and controls and taxes that was the Democratic agenda of 2009-2011. They double-downed on this agenda, and don't forget that fact when next year they campaign as some sort of moderate or bipartisan politician- they are exactly who they were in 2009-2011, when voters wisely removed them from office. The GOP isn't a perfect party, but this convention should have convinced you that the Democrats are not a viable alternative for public office any more.

Mayan Civilization Destroyed by Man Made Global Warming?

David Stahle, a geoscientist at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,  has just published a new study which used tree rings to add many hundreds of years to the region's climate record and has discovered that the Mayan civilization faced a severe drought for 25 years around the year 900 and accompanied the end of a flourishing era of Mayan city-states. This intense and prolonged drought was worse than anything ever seen in modern meteorological records, but the key question is, was this drought caused by human activity such as industrialization and the driving of SUV's?

"Clearly the drought in 1400 was not caused by the accumulation of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere because it precedes the industrial revolution," Stahle said. "But something caused it that stimulated very unusual climate conditions elsewhere in the world. This may allow us to determine the dynamics of drought-forcing over Mexico."

Although it may clear to this researcher that the industrial revolution is not behind the draught that led to the fall of the Mayan civilization, I am sure there are many other scientists who remain convinced that human activity controls climate patterns and that the best way to have regular and positive climate patterns is then to control humans. To be honest, I'm surprised that this tree ring data wasn't manipulated like other tree ring data to demonstrate global warming and therefore create a 'consensus' in favor of environmentalfasism.

Other findings from the study are that

...one of the most severe periods of drought occurred between 897 and 922, the researchers reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, just as the Terminal Classic period (of the Mayans) came to an end. Another 19-year drought around 1150 coincided with the fall of the Toltec state, which was the dominant civilization of central Mexico at the time. The most severe drought of the last 1,000 years, which lasted from 1378 to 1404, actually occurred though during a period of rapid Aztec expansion (possibly due to the weakness of other states?). (Also) a drought from 1514 to 1539 led up to and continued through the arrival of Cortez and the Spanish conquest. It's possible, the researchers speculate, that the climate, along with epidemic disease, led to the rapid decline of Aztec Mexico as the Colonial period began.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the climate of the entire globe is an incredibly complicated issue that is beyond the understanding or computer modeling of humans today. That isn't to say that we should not be environmentally friendly- on the contrary, the best way to protect the environment is to continue to build stronger and stronger private property rights within society and vigorously oppose efforts by governments to violate private property rights and thereby increase the tragedy of the commons. But this is to say that the Mayan civilization was clearly not destroyed by man made global warming.

School Policy Against Wearing Black Paint on Faces?

Here is an email that I received from one of my regular readers:

• A Conservative Teacher, at my high school we have something called spirit week, which is a week where students have different dress up days and such to encourage school spirit. One of these dress up days is a day where each class wears a certain color- seniors dress in black, juniors in white, sophomores in yellow, freshman in red, etc. One of my seniors dressed up in all black and thought it would be cool to also paint his face black to show his school spirit. Unfortunately, our school has a policy against wearing black paint on one's face, so this student was called down to the office and told to wash it off. There is no policy about wearing white paint or yellow paint or red paint on one's face, but there is a policy in our school handbook that does forbid wearing all black paint on one's face because doing so would be racist. Is there some way that I can help this student out so that he isn't punished further? Thank you, Regular Reader (name edited out for protection).

My reaction to hearing something like this is to laugh, because it demonstrates how politically correct public education is- it is just silly to think that someone felt it was correct to put in a student code of conduct a rule that says that a student isn't allowed to wear black paint on his face because doing so would encourage and inspire racism. So many things are wrong with this that I don't even know where to start or what to say to the teacher!

Obama's START Treaty Based on Silly Video's He Watched in High School?

Recently I have been critical of President Barack Obama's New START Treaty. My criticism is relevant because one of the most important roles of a President is negotiating treaties and this treaty is the most important one that Obama has negotiated. It is also relevant because this treaty was ratified in the Senate by Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and she is up for re-election, and should be held to account for her vote on this important issue. And my criticism of this treaty is relevant because it critiques a larger viewpoint held by many on the liberal and left of the spectrum that reductions in weapons are always a good thing. Let's not forget about this issue just because in the meantime Obama has messed up on several others (Egypt, gasoline prices, etc).

In My Thoughts on the New START Treaty I wrote:

President Change and his party in Congress continue to cause trouble, even though most of us have turned our attention to happier things during this holiday season. For the first time ever in our nation's history, a lame-duck Senate confirmed a major arms treaty, defying convention and tradition and the historical role of the Senate to give due deliberation to treaties of this sort in favor of a quick ratification in recognition of the fact that the treaty is a bad one and the next Senate would never ratify it because it is bad....

....Well, to be correct, it isn't a bad treaty, it just is one that my six-year old daughter could have negotiated, if she did a bad job. It is a treaty that gives everything away with getting little in return, and a fair and honest assessment of the treaty leads one to lead to a 'no' vote on it and to be critical of Obama. Of course, politics and scoring wins are very important to Democrats, so they don't really care about the reality of the treaty, but I do, and so I think Obama did a bad job with this treaty, 71 Senators voted incorrectly to confirm it, and those who celebrate its passage are weak-minded fools....

....Let's look at what this treaty does in the wider scope of international affairs. Under this treaty, the US becomes a weaker nuclear power, less able to defend itself from attacks, less able to keep tabs on its main nuclear rival, and less able to attack other nations using nuclear weapons. Of course no one wants to ever attack anyone using nuclear weapons, but the main way this is done is to be just crazy enough to threaten overwhelming nuclear attacks (for evidence see the continued existence of the world after US adopted this policy). Russia knows this is the best way to get things done too, and is letting its conventional forces weaken while it strengthens its nuclear weapons (at lower numbers) (under Obama's watch), because then it will continue to wield international power without having to maintain all those conventional forces. Iran and North Korea both also see that the US is weaker and less able to check their advances and so will continue building up their nuclear forces (under Obama's watch) free from the threat of nuclear annihilation (although we all know it never would have happened, the possibility was always there)....

I also wasn't surprised to find out that Obama Sold Out British to Russians in Deal to get New START Treaty, since I knew it was a bad treaty I figured there was a lot of bad stuff in it, although I was a bit surprised about the audacity of Obama to give the Russians information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain as part of the deal.

So if the New START treaty was such a poor treaty, why did Obama negotiate it and many Senators vote to ratify it? Because of their mistaken belief that the best way to achieve lasting peace is through unilateral disarmament.

In one of our International Relations classes here at my high school, students watch a video called Disarmament: The Quest for Lasting Peace. This video confronts the major issues of disarmament by clarifying the terminology and describing the most recently developed weapons and their effect on world disarmament negotiations. It explores the past attempts, the problems of present negotiations, and future trends of arms control, with a goal of convincing students that the best way to achieve lasting peace for the world is through disarmament of world powers. But students don't watch a video on Peace Through Strength and about how disarmament is just silly unless it is from a position of strength and done in such a way so not to jeopardize the security of America and its allies.

Nope, in our school, like most schools around the nation, students only hear one point of view in their International Relations class and then the teacher leads discussion on this one point of view asking students to talk about disarmament and talk about lasting peace and talk about how disarmament can lead to lasting peace. And then these students grow up and vote or run for political office or become President, and their silly ideas about disarmament leading to world peace get put into policy, and America signs bad treaties like the New START Treaty, and the world is a less safe place because of it. It all fits together.

UPDATE:

Evidence is Pretty One Sided Against Obama's Foriegn Policy, Don't You Think?

Doug Ross has put together an excellent summary of all of President Obama's recent foreign policy actions. Let us not forget that while we have a Congress to worry about and work on domestic policy, it falls on our President to worry about and work on foreign policy, and Obama has performed very poorly in it. This is some fairly harsh criticism of Obama, but it is not wrong:

• Pakistan is said to have increased its stockpile of nuclear weapons, secretly surpassing India's level of atomic arms. In addition, Pakistan is becoming 'enveloped by Islamists' as radicals hold more and more sway over the people and the government.
• The government of Egypt is about to fall, threatening a replay of the 1979 Iranian revolution in which a populist democratic movement was quickly subsumed by a well-organized and violent cadre of religious extremists. Unlike Iran, however, Egypt's "military is a powerhouse in the region, possessing hundreds of advanced tanks and fighter aircraft that could fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.
• Lebanon is under new management: the vicious, Iranian-backed group called Hezbollah, which is responsible for the terrorist attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut. Their aim is written into their charter -- to destroy Israel, Britain and the United States
• Tunisia is in the throes of its own revolution with hard-line radical Islamists poised to take control of the government
• Iran continues its work on nuclear armaments and intercontinental ballistic missile technologies, its steady progress delayed only by a clever cyber-attack
• Gaza's Hamas-led government is reportedly importing a new strain of Iranian extremists; Hezbollah agents are said to be making their way into the Palestinian enclave to train soldiers for an attack on Israel; in their spare time Hamas is lobbing missiles into Israel
• Venezuela, Hugo Chavez' dictatorship, is now said to be fielding Iranian military personnel and missiles with 'scientific' collaboration revolving around warhead design and nuclear technology
• The military regime of North Korea recently torpedoed a South Korean warship and is threatening to retest its nuclear weapons. It was also busted importing nuclear technology into Syria and has -- as a bonus -- assisted Iran with its development of missile guidance technologies
• China is on the move: building aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, locking up energy contracts all over the world, and generally preparing to occupy Taiwan and -- eventually -- regions closer to the U.S. All the while, it uses North Korea as a proxy for delivering advanced technologies to rogue regimes to ensure that the United States can never rest easy
• According to a disclosure in Wikileaks, Al-Qaida is "on the brink" of using a nuclear weapon and is far closer to deployment of chemical and biological weapons than previously believed.

Now I know that I have a lot of liberals and Democrats read my blog, so go ahead and list in my comment section all of the incredible foreign policy accomplishments of Obama, and we'll all compare. I predict that the best that Democrats and liberals can do is offer a laundry list of excuses and reasons why bad things occur whenever they are in charge, or lame attempts to pin the blame on someone else, or things that they can take credit for that were things they voted against or spoke out against when they were running for office. The balance is likely to be pointing one way on this one, and that is against the competence of the Obama administration's handling of foreign affairs.

Reagan Super Bowl XLV Tribute

Not sure if you saw this...

Predicting the Field for the GOP in 2012

The New York Times FiveThirtyEight blog has put together a graphical look at the GOP contenders for President in 2012 that is interesting to look at. This two-axis model shows where candidates stand relative to one another with relation to being part of the establishment or out of it and how conservative or moderate they are. In addition, it depicts a circle around the candidates name, the bigger the circle the higher probability that candidates chances are for winning the nomination. Here is the graphic:

The NYT's analysis of the 2012 field is here, and does make some good points. To me, the most important person in the 2012 GOP nomination race is Sarah Palin. It is my belief that if she runs, she may well win the nomination (which would lead to an Obama reelection) because the remaining votes for everyone else would be split between the remaining candidates. I really hope she doesn't run (I really like her but I want the GOP to win the Presidency and end the childness of the Obama administration), and I don't think she is going to yet, and if she doesn't, I think that Mitt Romney will win the nomination. To me, the larger question is whether or not the Tea Party people are grownups or not- they may well be childish and sit home rather than vote for Romney because of Romneycare, and that would result in an Obama win.

The chart provided by the NYT does nothing to really move me from my belief that Romney will be our next President. What do you think?

Democrat Senators Did Poor Job in Confirming Disgraced Ambassador Cynthia Stroum

Cynthia Stroum served as the United States Ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg from December 7, 2009 to January 31, 2011, when she resigned after (source)

...an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum's management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

The Luxembourg embassy "has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador's tenure," said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. "At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities."

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department's inspector general was made public...

...The report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

"The bulk of the mission's internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style," the report said. "She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction."

Cynthia Stroum was a political appointee who was nominated for this position because of her extensive fundraising efforts on behalf of Barack Obama when he was running for President in 2008. When he won his election, Obama rewarded many supporters like Stroum with positions in our government, as is our custom. Although I do not fault Obama nor his continuation of appointing to political positions key supporters of his campaign, I do fault him for picking a poor nominee, although not greatly, because her resume was solid and she likely seemed like a decent pick, and it looks more as if this was simply a reward and not a personal pick of Obama's.

Mostly I lay blame for this international disaster at the feet of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is supposed to check and vet and provide oversight to the President's nominee's for offices. They failed in their duties to do their proper due diligence on this issue.

As you can see from the following video of her confirmation hearings before the Senate, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, October 08, 2009, which begins discussing nominations at the 11:00 minute mark, Democrats supported and believed in Cynthia Stroum. Senator Cantwell from the state of Washington gives the first speech in support of her (15:00-17:00) and vouches for her. Cynthia Stroum begins speaking herself at the 30:00 minute mark, and in her testimony she thanks Obama, cries, and speaks about why she is going to be a great ambassador. The bulk of the time she talks about cancer research and money laundering. She finishes at the 34:00 minute mark. As far as I was able to figure out, she was only asked one softball question at the 64:00 minute mark about how the people of Luxembourg feel about how they are doing in Afghanistan (where they contribute 9 troops and some money), which is done at 66:00. She was later confirmed with no further discussion, hearings, or testimony.

The Democratic members of the 111th Senate Foreign Relations Committee that fail in their duties and did a poor job in confirming the poor nomination from Democrat President Barack Obama. Hold the following Senators responsible for voting for and confirming this poor nominee: Democrats John Kerry (Mass., Chairman), Christopher Dodd (Conn.) Russ Feingold (Wis.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Jim Webb (Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.).

Obama Sold Out British to Russians in Deal to get New START Treaty

Another day, yet more evidence that America made one big mistake in voting to put Obama in the White House and give him a Democratic Senate that would confirm his treaties and a House that wouldn't exercise oversight on him... one mistake has been corrected so far...

Here is the latest evidence, and it is indeed explosive. Via memeorandum, via the Telegraph, WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today....

...A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US still agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

This needs little elaboration. The US sold out one of our allies, in direct opposition to thier stated wishes, in order to get the Russians to sign on to a bad treaty that damages the US.

My Debate with Mr. Liberal Teacher on How Teachers Should be Evaluated

What is the best way to evaluate a teacher's job performance?

This question is being increasingly asked in public education, inspired by legislation like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top and important because teachers rising salaries have not led to rising performance on national tests for students. It is an important question and a basic one, a question that likely has already been established for you if you don't work in government- those of you who work in the real world know what your pay and job security and recognition is based on, whether it be sales, piece-work, clients, hours, reviews, boss evaluations, or something else. But in education, teachers are rarely evaluated, and even more rarely are evaluated in any sort of meaningful way. So the question needs to be asked- what is the best way to evaluate a teacher's job performance?

At our staff meeting last week, our social studies department discussed this issue, and it is my hope that you can see why simply asking the question is very threatening to those who work in public schools. My department has about a dozen social studies teachers, teaching subjects ranging from US History to World History to International Relations to Government to Psychology. Only a couple have been teaching less than 10 years, and the rest have been in education for many years. It is our suspicion that sometime in the future some parts of our job may be based on job performance so we decided as a department to start the conversation up on how we should be measured. And the conversation didn't get very far.

"There is no way that anyone can evaluate a teacher's job performance," Mr. Liberal Teacher said (I call him Mr. Liberal because his ideology could be most closely described as liberal- he likes big government, activist judges, few limits on government, was opposed to the War on Terror, hates Bush and Palin, often talks about the plight of various groups like the poor or minorities or gays, and thinks rich people are evil- ie, generally has liberal views on issues). He is the leader of a group of teachers in our department with a similar mindset.

"I disagree," I said, and then suggested "One way that we can be evaluated as teachers is by test grades, such as our scores on AP tests." (Most of our department teaches some form of Advanced Placement class).

"No," Mr. Liberal Teacher said, "That's not a fair way to assess us. Some of the AP Exams are easier than others- I know I teach for the hardest AP exam."

That was not true- all AP tests are equally hard, and are statistically weighted and designed to be this way, but I didn't want to fight him on that point, so I suggested another way "How about then we all get evaluated based on how our students do on our common assessments?" (The core subjects that are taught in our department span several teachers and now have common unit tests).

"No," Mr. Liberal Teacher said, "That's not a fair way to assess us either. Some of us have different students of different capabilities in our classroom, and it wouldn't be fair to assess us as teachers because we may have lower performing students in our classroom."

That was a good point, I suppose, so I applied my few math skills and tried to think of a solution. "Okay, then we'll take the average of our classes and measure over a period of several years- that should correct for the statistical problem of a low sample size of a group of poorly performing kids which may lower a score- over time, we'll all have the same opportunity to get the same groups of kids, and therefore our common assessments will be valid ways to assess our teaching."

"No," Mr. Liberal Teacher said, "That's not a fair way to fix this problem. Some of the other teacher's will just 'teach to the test' to improve their scores, and I don't think that is right."

That was a fair point too, I suppose. "Okay, so if the test is the problem, we can go about creating a better more valid instrument to measure the students on, one that will be based on the curriculum that we're supposed to be teaching and broad enough so that teacher's can't just feed students specific answers."

"No," Mr. Liberal Teacher said, "That's not a fair way to fix that problem. There is no test that will ever be able to correctly evaluate what I am teaching my students."

This is the sort of thing that liberal teachers say when they get provoked and frustrated, because you see, they are hiding their real motive. Let's continue the story and you'll see what the real motive is...

"Okay," I said, moving on, "How about then if we have the students evaluate us? We'll come up with some sort of perfect student evaluation that will ask students to judge us based on a variety of measures."

"No," Mr. Liberal Teacher said, "That's not a fair way to assess us either. Your students like you because you are easy and give everyone an A and never yell at them- my students don't like me because I am tough on them and fail many of them and yell at them to keep them disciplined- it wouldn't be fair to assess me on what kids think about me."

"Okay," I said, trying one more time, "How about a basket of many things including evaluations by students, AP scores, common assessment scores, evaluations by peers, evaluations by administration, number of after school activities, number of students signing up for your classes, and parent reviews?"

"NO," Mr. Liberal Teacher said, "There is no possible way to ever evaluate my job."

That ended our conversation in our staff meeting, but I'm curious- what sort of job do you think he is doing as a teacher when he refuses to be evaluated?

Obama is Picking Worst of Bad Options in Egypt: Is Obama Getting Advice from Jimmy Carter?

Earlier last week I was critical of Obama's response to Tunisia's revolution, where it appeared that rather than take an active role in events, Obama's administration simply sat on the sidelines and tried to figure out where Tunisia was (I'm kidding- I heard that he had a 40 minute briefing on Tunisia after the revolution broke out- I'm sure he learned about it then). He is dangerously incompetent, especially on important world events that our President is supposed to be the primary actor on in our political system. The revolution in Tunisia though was just the start of something bigger, something that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has taught us will have repercussions lasting decades, and that is the revolution that is taking place right now in Egypt.

For the past couple days I have been trying to get a handle on events there, much like our President, and like usual, my reactions have mirrored Obama's. First I first supported the young revolutionaries against the bad dictator, while Obama supported the bad dictator. But now I support the bad dictator over the evil militant terrorist groups who want to take power in Egypt, while Obama now supports the evil militant terrorist groups (he supports them by not saying anything bad about them while saying bad stuff about Mubarak- that's an upgrade over his usual 'voting present' by showing support for the bad guys). Obama is dangerously incompetent again and once again, anyone who voted for him or his party made our nation and world a worse place by doing so.

The best article that I have found to help me get a handle on what is going on in Egypt appeared today in the Jerusalum Post by Caroline Glick called Our World: Clueless in Washington. I am going to pass on some of the better parts of it to you to help you too understand a little bit better what is going on in Egypt...

The Egyptian multitudes on the streets of Cairo are a stunning sight. With their banners calling for freedom and an end to the reign of President Hosni Mubarak the story these images tell is a simple one as old as time.


On the one hand we have the young, dispossessed and weak protesters. And on the other we have the old, corrupt and tyrannical Mubarak. Hans Christian Andersen taught us who to support when we were wee tots.

But does his wisdom apply in this case?

Certainly it is true that the regime is populated by old men. Mubarak is 82 years old. It is also true that his regime is corrupt and tyrannical. Since the Muslim Brotherhood spinoff Islamic Jihad terror group murdered Mubarak’s predecessor president Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt has been governed by emergency laws that ban democratic freedoms. Mubarak has consistently rejected US pressure to ease regime repression and enact liberal reforms in governance.

This reality has led many American commentators across the political spectrum to side enthusiastically with the rioters. A prestigious working group on Egypt formed in recent months by Middle East experts from Left and Right issued a statement over the weekend calling for the Obama administration to dump Mubarak and withdraw its support for the Egyptian regime. It recommended further that the administration force Mubarak to abdicate and his regime to fall by suspending all economic and military assistance to Egypt for the duration.

The blue ribbon panel’s recommendations were applauded by its members’ many friends across the political spectrum. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard’s editor William Kristol praised the panel on Sunday and wrote, “It’s time for the US government to take an active role… to bring about a South Korea/Philippines/Chile-like transition in Egypt, from an American-supported dictatorship to an American-supported and popularly legitimate liberal democracy.”

The problem with this recommendation is that it is based entirely on the nature of Mubarak’s regime. If the regime was the biggest problem, then certainly removing US support for it would make sense. However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.

Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.

According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

WHAT ALL of this makes clear is that if the regime falls, the successor regime will not be a liberal democracy. Mubarak’s military authoritarianism will be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism. The US’s greatest Arab ally will become its greatest enemy. Israel’s peace partner will again become its gravest foe.

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?...

...As Prof. Barry Rubin wrote this week, “There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.”
 
Unfortunately, given the cluelessness of the US foreign policy debate, this situation is only likely to grow worse.

Two more years remain in President Obama's term of office. Hopefully voters in America will wake up and realize how dangerously incompetent his administration has been and how destructive the impulse to take a flier on this unknown was.