Educating the Public on Medicare- Paul Ryan's Great Mission

As an educator, I try to remove ignorance, bad information, lies, myths, questions, and failings in logic and replace them with information, logic, connections, data, and processes to acquire more of the same. This translates well into politics and political thought, since much of the discourse, mainly from Democrats and liberals but also from Republicans and conservatives too, is based on ignorance, lies, and failings in logic. It is my desire to shoot torpedo's of truth at this discourse and educate the electorate so it can make better choices- that is why I have this blog and do radio interviews and am working on a book.

Sometimes though I feel like I am alone in this mission- that others are merely partisan actors, others are all about getting the other guy, and that others are only after power, whether they be Republican or Democrat. So I always get excited when I find someone else out there who really is trying to educate people- educate them about themselves and their rights and what it means to be an American- that our nation was founded on certain principles, chiefly that no one is a king over us, that we are all equal, we all have the right to live and to live in freedom and to earn and keep the fruits of our labor, and that government's purpose is to protect these exceptional principles.

I have found an ally in this educational effort in Congressman Paul Ryan, who has excited me both with his efforts to make the American Dream more accessible to everyone, but also for his attempts to do so through education.

We all know that the Medicare system is headed to collapse, and that if nothing is done about it that this collapse will be very difficult for many seniors to adjust to. Republicans, for better or worse, are trying to save the Medicare program in something like its present form. Congressman Paul Ryan explains all this in the following excellent video that was recently released- it is 5 minutes long and well worth your time to watch it if you haven't already:


For more information about Medicare, please check out Medicare: A Policy Primer or Reforming Medicare: Options, Tradeoffs, and Opportunities (Century Foundation Books (Brookings Hardcover)).

Happy Memorial Day and Decoration Day! Personal Relections

Happy Memorial Day Everyone!

Memorial Day means different things to different people- to some, it is the honoring of fallen soldiers, who died in service to their nation, like my distant relative James, who fought and died in the Civil War.

My grandfather passed this story on to me recently. On Jan. 27,1864, James was just a farmer, but he still went off to do his duty to keep our nation one nation, undivided, with liberty and justice for all. James enlisted in the 17th Infantry Regiment. He was mustered in on Feb. 11, 1864. His Company soon joined the regiment at Annapolis, MD on April 9, 1864- some of the worst battles of the Civil War were about to take place.

He fought in the Battle of the Wilderness in Virginia, in May, 1864, and then fought in the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Virginia, which a vital crossroads which controlled the shortest route to the capitol of Virginia. It was here at Spotsylvania on May 12 that James was taken prisoner and shipped to the notorious Andersonville Confederate prison camp in Georgia. Some months later James died there of dysentery, and was buried in the National Cemetery, Andersonville, GA. He was only 40 years old.

His widow was left with 7 children- her Army pension was $8 a month, with $2 extra for each of her 6 minor children, until they reached the age of 16. James served our nation for 4 months and did his duty and died a true patriot. Thank you James, for all that you did.

To others, Memorial Day is a day to remember our roots and those who have gone before us. My grandfather remembers trips that he used to make a youth on Decoration Day (what Memorial Day used to be called) to visit their old family farm and the old cemetery too. Since the family had a poor section of the cemetery, they would all pitch-in and weed, cut the grass and put flowers on the graves. When they had done everything there, they would drive back to the old farm where they were raised and have a picnic and remember their family. When they were too old to do it together any more, some of the family continued the tradition.

Also on Memorial Day, it my grandfather's family tradition to take flowers to the graves of family members and remember them on this day, whether they died in war or not. It may be called Memorial Day now , but my grandfather is right- to all those who went before us and who raised us, they deserve our attention and respect and honor and thoughts too on Decoration Day.

Happy Memorial Day! Happy Decoration Day!

Bottle Rocketing to Outer Space?

Okay, I read the whole article, and I'm still trying to figure out why we aren't doing this... seems like the way to go... Launch Space Shuttle Like Bottle Rocket by Joseph Archer...

With the advent of cost-limited space flight, the need to think outside the box has never been greater. Space programs simply accept that space flight begins on a launch pad. However, physics suggests that Jules Verne was perhaps more clever than Wernher von Braun. It is time to launch space shuttles like bottle
rockets.

The smartest way to access space is by use of a launch tube. A few grams of explosive can launch an equal mass of projectile to supersonic velocities by virtue of the contained expansion of combustion products. By launching a rocket from a several-mile-long hole in the ground or concrete tube in the ocean, a space bound projectile can be afforded a considerable amount of forward velocity which allows for significantly simpler, cheaper, and safer launch vehicles.

A rocket launched from a pad uses nearly half of its fuel reaching a velocity of around 1300 mph. Firing a rocket out of a tube at that velocity automatically halves the cost of the rocket’s fuel. Further, a rocket launched from a tube does not require nearly as much thrust, so it requires just one engine to burn fuel as opposed to the five-engine system of the shuttle. Also, a less powerful rocket engine is used to put a more massive rocket into space....

(more details- see article)

...Launching rockets from a launch pad is a waste of money and not affordable in today’s economy. When you consider that it takes 100 pounds of rocket to put 1 pound of payload into space, it is clear that basic physics does not endorse our current launch pad system. It is time for our nation’s “rocket scientists” to get creative and live up to their name.

Go ahead 'rocket scientists'- poke holes in this argument for me. Or someone go ahead and build a scaled down version of a launcher and test the technologies and get some data, because I think there is something here.

UPDATE: Ask a rocket scientist to 'poke holes' and of course I get emails graphs and charts and math! Seriously though, thank you Bob for your email- Bob points out that a tunnel gun approach to launching a projectile (like a spacecraft) into outer space would have to be accelerated by a series of explosions behind the spacecraft, which would provide a bit of initial velocity for the spacecraft, but then it would have to have an additional motor kick in to continue the thrust until the spacecraft achieves orbit. There would be considerable issues for this- massive amounts of drag, crushing G forces, and complicated hybrid launching mechanisms.

Still, even looking over the math, I think that with all the money that NASA is throwing around and all the various crazy things that have been built and experimented with for launching items into outer space, I'm surprised that no one has experimented with building a tunnel gun as I described above to some sort of size to test out how feasible this idea really is.

A Conservative Teacher

This blog is published by A Conservative Teacher, and all opinions on this personal blog are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, companies that I consult for, family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances or my pets. Posts by A Conservative Teacher are not to be reposted in their entirety on another blog unless with the written permission of A Conservative Teacher. Please email me at aconservativeteacher@gmail.com. Thank you for visiting aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com.

DNC Chair Wasserman Shultz: Another Bizzaro World Invader?

An invasion of America is taking place, and every day it is becoming more clear that the fabric of space-time has been ripped open and denizens from Bizarro World are settling here and joining the Democratic Party. The evidence of this can be seen in the increasingly disconnect between what Democrats say and what they do and the fact that they no longer even pretend that 2+2=4. In Bizarro world, society is ruled by the Bizarro Code, which states that you must do the opposite of all normal things, and when residents of Bizarro world come to America and join the Democratic Party, you can see that they still operate under this code, stating the exact opposite of the truth in their words and deeds.

Take for example new Democratic Party Chairwoman Representative Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Chosen by the Democratic Party to represent their party, she has recently stated two strong opposites- one, that Republican presidential candidates supposedly favor foreign auto manufacturers, and two, that the GOP agenda is "anti-women" and "a war on women". Let's take a look at those two statements and see how they are in reality the exact opposite as stated.

First, the accusation that Republican presidential candidates supposedly favor foreign auto manufacturers is remarkable coming from someone who drives a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company (and the car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials).

On one hand you have Republicans, many of whom opposed the taxpayer-bailout of the domestic auto industries (for reasons ranging from comparative advantage, creative destruction, corruption in the process, unaccountability of the money, or lack of constitutional authority) but yet use their own personal money to buy domestic auto products. On the other hand, you have Democrats, who voted to use taxpayer money to bail out struggling domestic auto companies to subsidize rich investors (who had preferred stocks) and labor unions and yet used their own personal money to buy foreign made cars.

To me, it is clear that the person who makes the personal choice to support something supports it more strongly than the person who uses other people's money to support something while personally supporting something else.

Wasserman Shultz second point was that the GOP agenda is "anti-women" and "a war on women", but this is clearly not true as well. The Republican Party has several outstanding women candidates in office or running for President, at least on par with the Democratic women, and although Democrats hold a slight marginal edge in women voting, it is not large and is perhaps related to other factors other than gender.

Besides- if Democrats are unwilling to recognize that terrorists are at war with us or that Hamas/Hezbollah are at war with Israel, then I really don't think that they understand what the word 'war' means so that they can use it effectively in a sentence.

The Democratic Party Chair must simply be another Bizarro world refugee, saying the exact opposite of reality.

Ed Schultz: Racist and Sexist?

This post was halfway written last week before I got bored with it and moved on... but it appears that my point was very relevant. My original point was that Ed Schultz, a liberal and a Democrat who supports Barack Obama, as a small man who wants to use the power of the government to control your life, liberty, and property, and demonstrates his smallness in his thoughts and actions, which are thuggish, racist, and sexist.

Last week, Ed Schultz heard the word 'food stamps,' and immediately pictured a black guy! Schultz, like many liberals and demonstrates, screams racism at everyone because in their hearts, people are divided by color and you can stereotype their personalities based on their color and (to him) the job of government is to protect the weaker/poorer/lesser people in society which (to him) are always people of color. No need for Thuggie Eddie to actually get to know people and judge them based on the quality of their character- nope, instead he sees a black guy and thinks 'food stamps', and vice-versa, whenever he hears 'food stamps' he thinks 'this is code for black people 'cause all black people are the kind of people who are all on food stamps and white people are too good for food stamps so food stamps must mean black people.' Ed Schultz is a racist.

Today I heard that Ed Schultz called a woman radio host a 'slut'. Laura Ingraham, a popular conservative radio host and author, criticized President Barack Obama for taking a trip to Ireland and enjoying a Guinness and taking in the sights and going to fancy parties while the Midwestern United States was being hit by severe weather. She felt that this was yet more evidence that Obama was out of touch with the common man.

Soon after, on his radio program (which I sometimes listen to on 1310AM when I want to hear what bizzaro world sounds like), Ed Schultz said

And what do the Republicans thinking about? They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.

Ed is a great example of liberalism- not even pretending to understand the other side, personally attacking the other side, using offensive language that puts down minorities and women and Jews and anyone outside of the ruling elite white class that he wants to empower, getting everything wrong (Ingraham wasn't even on the radio when Reagan was President), and never even failing to address Ingraham's whole point (that Obama is out of touch with the common man).

Ed Schultz is a liberal and a Democrat and supports Barack Obama and is employed by MSNBC and frequently is invited as a guest to speak at liberal events, and demonstrates through his actions just exactly what a liberal Democrat really is- people who want to use the power of the government to control your life, liberty, and property, and aggressively attack with personal and vulgar actions anyone who does not bow to their thuggish, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic demands. It isn't your father's Democratic party anymore.

Laura's books can be found here- check out The Obama Diaries or Shut Up & Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America.

Obama: Courageous Just for Showing Up

Every day that I get a chance to listen to liberal talk radio, they are raving about how "courageous" US President Barack Obama (Democrat) is and how every decision that he ever makes is so full of courage. When he votes to have the government take over the healthcare system and then provide insurance to millions of new people, it is a decision that is full of courage, even though it is paid for on the backs of jobs providers and the young and through debt. When Obama decides to take out a terrorist that our nation has been hunting for a decade, it is a decision that requires lots of courage, because there is a lot to gain and very little to lose. Today on the radio they were raving about how much courage Obama has shown voting to spend money that the government does not have, control industries that the government does not have the authority or skills to control, and how it is so courageous of Obama to give speeches to adoring crowds on issues that he is fully prepared for. You see, to liberals and Democrats and the talk radio that they listen to, the word courage means the exact opposite of its meaning, in yet another example of bizzaro world seeping through.

Courage is defined as the ability to confront fear, pain, risk/danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. Obama's decisions are decidedly lacking in courage- he is defensive, watching the polls, hedging his bets, and always risking nothing with his statements and actions. He does not act rightly in the face of discouragement- rather he slinks farther in himself when faced with discouragement, turning sully and cold and passive aggressive. His decisions- to attack Libya, kill Osama, raise taxes, pile on debt, give things to others which he does not own, allow abortions, associate with terrorists, etc- betray that he lacks courage.

Ask yourself- who would you rather have at your side when things get tough- if terrorists were attacking, if bad guys were threatening you, would you trust Obama to stand up and risk danger and his life to take on odds greater then himself? This is purely hypothetical, of course, so it really is your personal gut feeling about the guy.

On the other hand, I guess you have to give it to the guy- he sat there and got schooled by a real leader who has real courage, and although he was staring coldly at the guy and had steam coming out of his ears, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thoroughly embarrassed him he did sit there and face it with all the courage of a rat.

So I guess it does take a lot of courage for Obama to just get out of the House and go about his business, because he is nothing but a clown.

EXCLUSIVE: Obama Prepared to Demand France Return to 1917 Borders

Following up on his recent calls for Israel to return to its 1967 border, Obama is now calling on France to return to its 1917 border and return the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine back to Germany. For the first time ever, here is President Barack Obama's upcoming speech on Peace in the Middle Europe:

A strong and secure France is in the national security interest of the United States not simply because of a long and boring list of reasons which I shall list and wait for you to clap after each one, but flows from a deeper and magical place that I will not name-- and that place is the values we share. As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, America and France, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers -- and foremothers -- and rearbrothers-- and sidesisters-- and yoregrandfadders-- fought must be the work of every generation. As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedoms we cherish must be constantly tortured. And as the nation that recognized the French Republic first after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland for the French people.

And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of France's security.  And it is precisely because of our commitment to France's long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between France and Germany. Now after all these words, just words, prepare to get a knife in your back. (Big Applause.)

The status quo between France and Germany is unsustainable. And so, in advance of a five-day trip to Europe in which I will go to parties and concerts and sight-see, I chose to ignore pressing topics like the collapse of the world economy and instead stick my nose into an issue which I have neither experience or training to speak on. There was nothing particularly original in my proposal earlier this week; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, and is something with Germany has long requested. But, since others have deemed to question me, the One, let me simply lecture you all again and knock down a series of strawmen arguments to appear smart and sophisticated.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent borders for Germany and France based on the 1917 lines with mutually agreed swaps. In doing so, I give to Germany things which they do not own, and then demand that France trade for those things, as if I have the authority or ability to do any of this. (applause)

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and France must be able to defend itself –- by itself -– against any threat. (Applause.)  Meaningless guarantees must be issued to France that the Alsace and Lorraine regions will not become platforms for invasion. Now, that is what I said previously. And it was my reference to the 1917 lines -- with mutually agreed swaps -- that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1917 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means. If you look up the phrase "border lines with mutually agreed swaps" in any dictionary or online, you will see that it plainly means that the parties themselves -– France and Germany -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed in 1917.  If it is different, that is good, because I want it to start from the same framework that existed when things were different so that it reflects the same level of fairness present in the now different reality.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Germany, and God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)

Of course, this is satire. I took the speech that Obama gave at the AIPAC policy conference in May of 2011 and simply edited it a bit. This guy is a joke, and anyone who votes for him is a joke, and he is making a mockery of our nation and our foreign policy.

UPDATE: To be fair, I got the idea for this post after reading John Lillpop's post "Obama to Call for Return of U.S. –Mexico Borders to 1843?". In my case, I thought it was even more absurd for the President of the United States to be demanding that two non-US countries set a border to our liking than it was for Obama to call for the US to return to our own 1843 border, but I guess the other point is that the past is the past- whether it is 1843 or 1967, those borders are not as relevant as the real situation on the ground, and it is a joke to refer to them as any sort of starting point for negotiations.

Republicans Overturning Tradition and Removing Choice from Parents on Kindergarten?

Two values that are supported more by conservatives than liberals are traditional values and parent choice, and yet Republicans in Michigan keep forgetting these values that they were elected on. Seduced by the power of government and feeling empowered by their large majorities in the House and the Senate, Michigan Republicans recently supported President Obama's Race to the Top program which gives more control over education to Washingtion DC and even more recently have supported raiding the K-12 School Aid fund in violation with voters stated wishes on the subject.

And now I hear that Republicans are prepared to use the power of the state to tell parents when they think a child is ready or not to go to kindergarten, overturning over 100 years of established values on the subject.

It is understandable that liberals would push to overturn tradition and take away choice from parents on when they send their own children to school, since liberals thrive on power and control, but I would never have thought that the tea party and conservatives in our good state would have swept into power people who now are about to meddle in parent's choice and established values in the name of new-age science.

Feeling that every month in a child's life makes a big difference, that young kids lack the stamina for kindergarten, and that the youngest ones have a harder time integrating socially, emotionally, physically and academically, Michigan State Senator Darwin Booher (R-Evart) and Michigan State Representative Ray Franz (R-Onekama) are planning on introducing legislation that would move up the kindergarten cutoff date from December 1 (where it has been set for over 100 years) to September 1. This would act to prevent children who turn 5 from September to December from attending kindergarten, even if their own parents feel that they are ready.

If parents still want their children to go to school earlier than the government mandated cutoff date, they would be forced to sit down with a government committee which would judge them and issue a decree on whether or not their child was ready to go to school or whether they would have to pay thousands more in daycare for another year until the state deemed it now appropriate for them to send their child to kindergarten.

State Senator and Education Chair Phil Pavlov (R-St. Clair) also apparently supports this attempt to take away choice from parents and overturn tradition. It is unclear why the state has to get involved with setting arbitrary deadlines on when a parent is allowed to send their own child to school, and I suggest that in coming elections that conservative and tea partiers keep these thoughts in mind and work to knock off these corrupted-by-power Senators and Representatives.

Parental choice and tradition, dear state government- that's the way to go.

UPDATE: For those who asked...

• Representative Ray Franz- RayFranz@house.mi.gov
• Senator Darwin Booher-either darwinbooher@senate.mi.gov or dbooher@senate.mi.gov
• Senator Phil Pavlov- either phipavlov@senatoe.mi.gov or ppavlov@senate.mi.gov

UPDATE II: Thank you all for the comments- they support my original point that I'm pissed at Republicans running as conservatives and then not being conservative- so thank you for supporting my argument.

While many feel that children should be older before going to kindergarden, that's their choice. No offense intended, but I don't want anyone to have the power to control when my children start going to school- that's my call as a parent. I do not want any sort of government committee to telling me that if I (as the parent) choose to send my kid to school earlier, that the government will not allow it. That's not how our state has run in the past.

Tradition and parental choice- those are conservative values, and they are the values I support.

Why Obama in 2012? Is it his views, or his policies?

Over the weekend I was talking with some of my friends and relatives who support Obama in 2012, and what struck me about these conversations was the stunning inconsistency that these supporters of Obama demonstrated. They stated that they don't really like Obama's associations with terrorists, his views on race, his anti-Semitism, his contribution to divisive rhetoric, his cold and aloof manner, his extreme vanity, his thin-skinned nature, or the way that he lectures us; but yet they say that they support Obama because 'he is a good guy who I like.' These Obama supporters stated that they like the direction that Obama is taking our nation, but when pressed on a range of real policies, they said that they don't really like the massive amounts of debt that Obama has added, the fact that unemployment rates have settled at a new normal under Obama of 10%, the reality of the housing market which still has not hit bottom, they are sick of paying his prices at the pump because of his anti-drilling policies, and think that Obamacare was a noble and grand attempt but will be a huge policy disaster.

My conversations with Obama supporters led me to believe that they like Obama because of his views and policies, but in reality don't really like his views and policies. It is a weird disconnect that I can't figure out.

UPDATE: All things considered though, if no one actually runs against Obama, it won't really matter in 2012. I just read that Mitch Daniels told supporters in a midnight email early Sunday that he is opting against a 2012 presidential run. Daniels had slowly emerged as my alternative to an un-apologetic-about-healthcare-reform Romney, but now I have to go back to the drawing board. Quick, liberals and Democrats, make me feel comfortable about voting for someone with no experience like Hermain Cain- myself, I like to see accomplishments, but obviously if BamBam can get elected, any rube off the street can be dug up and thrown in White House.

UPDATE II: Via Transterrestial Musings:

The Obama administration reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer changes his name to “Max Power” (he saw it on a hair dryer). He tells Bart that there are three ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way. “What’s the Max Power way?” It’s like the wrong way, but faster.

UPDATE III: The question remains- WHY OBAMA?

Chimpanzee Hunting Driving Monkeys to Extinction? Those Damned Dirty Apes!

Scientific American reports that:

Red colobus monkeys in Uganda's Kibale National Park are being hunted to extinction—by chimpanzees. According to a study published May 9 in the American Journal of Primatology, this is the first documented case of a nonhuman primate significantly overhunting another primate species....

...The study examined nearly 33 years of primate census data (covering 1975 to 2007) and found that the endangered Ugandan red colobus monkey population dropped 89 percent during that time, mainly as a result of being hunted by common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)....

....The decline was furthered by the fact that chimpanzees preyed more on juvenile monkeys which had not grown old enough to reproduce, hurting the population's chance to bounce back.

Meanwhile, the authors found that the number of chimpanzees in the area has risen by 53 percent....

Scientific American is wrong- this is not the first time that those damned dirty apes have tried to kill other primates. Several years ago I got my hands on an account of apes hunting man- I know it is sketchy at best and is not a complete account, but I am going to pass it on to you now to think about.... here is the other account that I have read of ape hunting man...

....Recently several of our astronauts crash-landed in a lake. They were named Dodge, Landon, and Taylor. They used an inflatable raft to reach shore and then set off through the desert, gradually encountering plant life. They find an oasis at the edge of the desert and decide to go swimming, ignoring strange scarecrow-like figures. While they are swimming, their clothes are stolen. Pursuing the thieves, the astronauts find their clothes in shreds and the perpetrators — a group of mute, primitive humans — contentedly raiding a cornfield.

Suddenly, gorillas on horseback charged through the cornfield, brandishing firearms, snares, and nets, which they use to capture whatever humans they can and kill those they cannot. While fleeing, Dodge is killed, Landon is bashed in the head and knocked unconscious, and Taylor is shot in the throat. The gorillas took Taylor to Ape City, where his life is saved by two chimpanzee scientists, animal psychologist Zira and surgeon Galen. Upon awakening, Taylor — now housed in a cage with a girl whom he later calls Nova who was captured on the same hunt — discovers that his throat wound has rendered him temporarily mute.

Taylor discovers that the apes, who can talk, are in control and are divided into a strict caste system: the gorillas as police, military, and hunters; the orangutans as administrators, politicians, and lawyers; and the chimpanzees as intellectuals and scientists. Humans, who cannot talk, are considered feral vermin and are hunted and either killed outright, enslaved for manual labor, or used for scientific experimentation.

Zira and her fiancé, Cornelius, an archaeologist, take an interest in Taylor when he tries to communicate by mouthing words. Taylor attempts to communicate by writing in the dirt, but his writings are hidden by Zira and Cornelius's boss, an orangutan named Dr. Zaius. Eventually, Taylor steals paper from Zira and uses it to write messages to her. Zira and Cornelius become convinced that Taylor is intelligent; but upon learning of this, Zaius orders that Taylor be castrated.

Taylor managed to escape and flees through Ape City. During his flight, he finds himself in a museum, where Dodge's corpse has been stuffed and put on display. Shortly thereafter, Taylor is recaptured by gorillas; finding that his throat has healed, he angrily addresses them, shouting "Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"...

At this point, the account that I have trails off, so I have no idea what happened. But it is clear from this account and from the story in Scientific America that apes and monkeys and chimps represent a clear and present danger to our society, and should be watched in the future very closely. I suggest doing so at your local zoo.

Barack Obama Returns to George W Bush's Foreign Policy?

Walter Russell Mead makes an interesting argument in a recent article- in spite of Obama running as the anti-Bush and in spite of his supporters voting for him because he was supposed to be the anti-Bush, his recent actions show that he is in fact working his hardest now to push for Bush's policies in international affairs:

....President Obama’s speech to State Department employees today was billed as a major address on recasting American foreign policy in the Middle East.

It lived up to its billing. President Obama has deep-sixed the ‘realism’ that marked the first two years of his approach to the Middle East. He has returned to the foreign policy of George W. Bush.

The United States is no longer, the President told us in words he could have borrowed from his predecessor, a status quo power in the Middle East. The realist course of cooperating with oppressive regimes in a quest for international calm is a dead end. It breeds toxic resentment against the United States; it stores up fuel for an inevitable conflagration when the oppressors weaken; it stokes anti-Israel resentment when hatred of Israel becomes the only form of political activism open to ordinary people; it strengthens the hold of extremist religion and strangles the growth of liberal forces.

More, he attacked Iran. All that talk about avoiding polarization with Iran is gone. Instead, President Obama singled out Iran as an oppressive, tyrannical regime supporting terror and running an “illicit nuclear program” as well.

He also followed Bush in attacking some US allies, calling on Bahrain and Yemen to make changes. It was a speech that enraged almost every powerful actor in the Middle East and put America out on a limb. Like Bush, Obama is willing to confront some of America’s closest allies (the Saudis, who back the crackdown in Bahrain). Like Bush, he hailed Iraq as an example of democracy and pluralism that can play a vital role in the transformation of the region. Like Bush, he proposes to work with opposition groups in friendly countries.

His policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side....

Obama is showing quite a bit of courage in abandoning all of his previous principles, opinions, views, and voting records to continue the previous policies of an administration that he personally attacked many times, and his supporters are very brave in supporting Obama's remarkable change in policies from George W Bush to George W Bush. But in spite of all of this change and togetherness and hope and rainbows, I can't help but feel that if Bush's policies are so good and wise now, what sort of damage did Obama do in fighting them in the Senate during the blink-of-eye that he was actually in government prior to becoming President, and what sort of damage did Obama do to our nation in resisting these policies during the first two years that he was getting his ears dried off while playing at being President?

I guess I'm just nit-picking though- I should be happy that Obama finally is learning that all of his instincts and ideas regarding foreign policy are wrong and that George W Bush was right about a great many things. Obama's greatest foreign policy successes have come by following on Bush's heels- from killing OBL to the surge in Afghanistan- and maybe one of these days he'll begin to follow in Bush's domestic policy heels too and we'll go back to the awful days of 5% unemployment growth and positive GDP growth.

UPDATE: To be serious for a moment, I still can't figure out why the Jewish community voted for Barack Obama so strongly last election. I've always thought that something about how he deals with Jewish people bothers me- he appears at times to be against Jewish people, demanding more evidence from them and less from others, not believing them and believing others, and being cold and vaguely disrespectful towards Israel's leaders while warm and inviting towards the leaders of Israel's enemies. The National Review Online actually did some analysis of his speech, and picked up on a couple of these tendencies of Obama- his tendency to blame the Jews, his tendency to order the Jews to do things, and his tendency to minimize threats to the Jewish people. These are all vaguely disturbing tendencies for the President of the United States to have.

Evidence is Mounting that Obamacare is All Sorts of Corrupt?

In several earlier posts I have been critical of Obamacare because it attacks life, liberty, and property and because it represents the growing tyranny of the federal government. But somehow I missed an important reason why we should oppose giving the national government more control over our healthcare system- power should not be concentrated in the hands of government and government officials because when this happens it increases by considerable amounts the chances that this power will be used in a corrupt manner. And we're seeing that under President Barack Obama (Democrat) and a Congress that was run by Nancy Pelosi (Democrat), legislation like Obamacare was passed into law that is now leading to considerable amounts of corruption in our system.

Corruption takes makes many forms, but in this case, we have to consider whether or not Democrats, led by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, passed legislation that allows and encourages more corruption in our nation and also whether or not these same Democrats continue to be encouraging and supporting of corruption. Corruption is seen usually in several ways- trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks.

It was my suspicion several months ago that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a corrupt piece of legislation designed to transfer property and choice from those who have it to those who want it. There would be those who would not want to be part of this process who would then ask for waivers, and it was my suspicion that these waivers would be given out based on political considerations- in other words, they would be given to groups that support the Democratic Party, Obama in particular, or to companies who had access and connections to those Democratic party officials who were making the decisions on the waivers, likely because of their campaign donations. So I started to do some research on the issue- as I stated, the research was by no means an exhaustive list of evidence but did end up being some pretty fair anecdotal evidence that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. Check out the post for my little bit of research on this issue. Usually where there is lots of smoke there is a fire, and it turns out the smoke I saw is now being seen by others.

The Daily Caller is reporting that:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments.

This is not shocking news to me- Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House and Barack Obama is still our President, and both are Democrats, and of course the kick-backs will be going primarily to areas that supported them, whether they be in Pelosi's district or union allies or local government units that vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

I think Mona Charen from RealClearPolitics really understands the nature of Obamacare- it is designed to move us away from a nation built on equality and laws to a nation built on power and men:

....There are rumblings of suspicion that HHS has shown favoritism -- labor unions have received some 26 percent of waivers while comprising only 12 percent of workers. As Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee remarked, "What does it say about the feasibility of the health care law when the administration needs to exempt over 1,000 health plans from its own law?"

A few wags have suggested that the HHS grant the rest of the country a waiver and be done with it. But the implications of what Professor Richard Epstein has called "government by waiver" aren't funny. As Congress has ceded more and more power to regulatory agencies, the opportunities for abuse of power multiply. Writing in National Affairs, Epstein notes that among the companies and entities that successfully sought waivers from Obamacare's provisions were PepsiCo, Foot Locker, the Pew Charitable Trusts, many local chapters of the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and numerous public-employee unions.

But, asks Epstein, "(W)hat about employers who do not have the resources to navigate the waiver process? What about those lacking the political connections to make their concerns heard in Washington? And what happens when the one-year waivers run out? Will they be renewed? Under what conditions? And what rights will insurers have to waive then in order to avoid going out of business?"

The world of Obamacare is no place for the little guy.

The danger of waiver power is that it will be used differentially, giving one private entity a competitive advantage over another. The company denied a waiver can bring suit -- but litigation is expensive and slow....

....Because there are so few avenues of recourse when we live under a government by waiver, we are forced, as Epstein warns, to trust in the good judgment of bureaucrats and elected officials: "The fate of our rights and liberties is left to the wisdom and discretion of individuals; we are therefore governed by men, not by laws."

In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." It will also cease to deserve that "high appellation" if we submit to the unreviewable discretion of agencies.

There really are two visions of the future of America being pushed for by the two parties in our nation- one vision pushes for a nation built on laws (although you might disagree with some of those laws) and another vision pushes for a nation built on the rule of powerful men (although you might agree with some of the rules these men establish). It's a tough choice for many- side with the strongman who promises a better future, or side with the lawman who promises a nation built on law. Many will be seduced, and our nation will be less because of it.

Obama Pushes America into Another Subprime Mortgage Crisis?

Although there were a lot of causes for the collapse of the United State's economy in 2008, most analysts would agree that the subprime mortgage crisis was at the root of it. Banks have money, and lend that money to people who want to invest, buy consumer goods, or purchase homes or cars. Banks charge borrowers interest for borrowing the money from them- the interest that the bank earns on the money is used to run the bank (insurance, employees, covering bad investments and loans, making money, lending to other banks, etc). Some people are a greater risk for the bank to lend to, because of their likely inability to repay the loan or past borrowing history, and to be fair to everyone, these people pay higher interest rates. But some people feel that this is unfair or racist or discriminatory, and so put pressure on the banks to give out loans to people at very low interest rates, and the bank made little money off these loans, and many people took out loans that they were unable to repay since they had such low rates, and then many of these borrowers were unable to pay back their loans, and the banks lost more money. This crisis had many causes, but at the root of it was political and legal pressure applied to banks all in the name of making everyone in our nation equally poor someday.

Via theblogprof, I read with frustration that the Obama Administration has stepped up its scrutiny of disadvantaged neighborhoods' credit access- in other words, Obama wants to increase the number of subprime and adjustable rate mortgages that are being given to those borrowers who are at the most risk of not paying back their loans and thereby causing the economy to collapse. Seriously, he is going to build another bubble to win re-election, and then when it predictably collapses, he'll just play the blame game and it won't matter because he and his buddies will have made a lot money off the bubble regardless.

You have to read the post theblogprof put together- it is a tour de force on the subject.

Abandon the Libertarian Party and 'Tea Party' and other Third Parties- Vote GOP You Fools

Last week I received several excited text messages all saying "Ron Paul is in!" That's right- Representative Ron Paul is running once again for President, and although I have supported his House campaigns in the past and personally think that he makes many good points, I have to say that I am annoyed that he is running for President again. My friends who are excited that he is in the race will vote for him in the primary, and in so doing will work to elect candidates who are farther away from libertarian positions. Ron Paul entering the race is yet another example of the stupid political strategies that 'libertarians' employ.

The Volokh Conspiracy agrees with me:

In a recent post, co-blogger David Bernstein urges libertarians to abandon the Libertarian Party and work within the two major parties. He points out that there are several serious libertarian-leaning candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination, which gives libertarians an important opportunity to increase their influence within the GOP. Ron Paul’s announcement of his candidacy for the Republican nomination today underscores David’s point. In my view, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who announced his candidacy last month, is both more libertarian than Paul and a stronger candidate, a point I intend to elaborate in more detail in future posts. Mitch Daniels, who has not yet declared his candidacy, is also probably superior to Paul for similar reasons.

Whatever one’s opinion of specific candidates, I emphatically agree with David’s general point that the Libertarian Party is a poor vehicle for promoting libertarianism, and that libertarian activists should concentrate their time and money elsewhere....

...Libertarians therefore have some valuable political assets. But in order to maximize our impact, we must focus our efforts effectively. And that means learning the lesson that the LP is a poor vehicle for libertarianism. It is much more effective to pursue some combination of major party politics and advocacy efforts that operate outside the party system entirely....

The Volokh Conspiracy has been pounding this point for a while, demonstrating over the years that voting for the 'Libertarian Party' has consistently helped elect candidates who are farthest from libertarian ideas, and support for libertarians-running-as-Republicans has only resulted in Bob Doles and John McCains.

I've also been pounding this point for a while, pointing out where libertarians voting for a 'Libertarian' over a conservative/libertarian Republican has been crucial in helping elect socialists, communists, and fascists.

Here in Michigan, a solid conservative Republican Rocky Raczkowski expressed many ideas and policies that libertarians could get around, but the libertarians still ran two candidates against him, one an official Libertarian and another an independent. Too late they realized the error of their ways, and in the last week of the race both dropped out to endorse Rocky, but many people had already voted absentee or didn't know about them dropping out and endorsing Rocky, and they received enough votes that together they helped Democrat Gary Peters get elected, a man whose policies and views and ideas are considerably opposed to libertarians. See my post Libertarian Candidate Drops out of MI-9th Race and Endorses GOP Candidate Rocky- Dem Congressman Peters Calls All Libertarians 'Fringe'.

Back in 2008, I wrote a post on how Michigan Supreme Court Judge Cliff Taylor, who was a libertarian's dream version of a candidate, lost because he was a Republican and the Libertarians sucked off enough votes that he was defeated by a leftist activist judge who has continually issued decisions that attack human freedom and liberty. Taylor lost 39% to 49% to Dianne Hathaway... but a motivated and organized and active Libertarian base gave 11% to a no-chance-of-winning candidate named Robert Roddis who was not any more demonstratively libertarian that Taylor- if that 11% would have been given to the proper candidate, libertarians would have been much more happy with the result.

In Poor Foolish Libertarian Voters Now Realize the Error of Their Ways I wrote:

Once, I was a libertarian. I even voted Libertarian. And then I grew up and realized that we have a two party system, and by voting Libertarian, I was only helping make sure that people who were far from libertarian were elected into office. After that, I became a reliable Republican vote, realizing that they were indeed the lesser of two evils, and that I'd rather have a libertarian-leaning Republican than an anti-libertarian Democrat.

Many libertarians supported Obama last election, claiming that he was an independent and a moderate, and that he would be much preferred over the invading and free-speech breaking George Bush. Idiots. Now they lament.

Foolish libertarians. Why did you support Obama? Why did you fail to support McCain, which is in function the same thing as supporting Obama? Why did you vote third-party in Minnesota, thereby putting in office that joker Al Franken? Libertarians, by not voting for a conservative Republican, installed a super-liberal Franken, who has been the crucial vote on a range of anti-libertarian issues.

Liberals and Democrats can't help how they vote- they don't know any better. But conservatives, libertarians, and 'independents' should know better by now- we have a two party system, and if you aren't part of the solution and voting Republican, you are part of the problem. Save your sad stories and articles about dashed dreams, because they just remind me that you are stupid and foolish. Vote Republican next time.

The important thing that my libertarian friends and those who excitedly texted me that Ron Paul was entering the race need to remember is that we have a two party system. Ron Paul realized this long ago, but not to the extent that he needed to- he has always been an outsider in the party and views the rest of the GOP with hostility. The GOP is a big tent, and it is important for libertarians to find their way into this tent and be active in the primary, and then make the real-life calculation in the general, and vote Republican.

You see, Libertarians need to begin to become solid and reliable Republican voters and shape the future of our party, and Ron Paul is not that future. Think about, my dear 'independent' or 'tea party' or 'libertarian' readers, and do what is best for yourself and your nation by waking up and start voting Republican. I'm getting annoyed with your help getting liberals, socialist, fascists, and leftists elected into office.

UPDATE: Libertarians and tea partiers and other conservative-leaning third parties can comment and argue and debate all they want, but the truth of the matter is that by disagreeing with me and not voting Republican in the general election, they have once more helped put a Democrat in office and move our nation farter away from what they believe in. In the special election for Congress in New York's 26th Congressional District, 36% voted for Republican nominee Jane Corwin (a lite-conservative/libertarian) and 13% for Tea Party candidate Jack Davis (a strong conservative/libertarian), which means that the election will be won by Democrat Kathy Hochul with 42%, an anti-conservaive/libertarian. Her win will move more political power to other anti-conservative and anti-libertrian and anti-tea partiers, and it is all thanks to the them. I'm moving beyond annoyed by libertarians and conservatives helping to empower those who would take away my liberty and freedom- I'm getting pissed at them.

Wise up, it's a two party system, with one party being the Democratic Party (since 1828) and the other being the Republican Party (since 1854). Any discussion of Whigs or Tea Parties is the kind of stupid thinking that leads to liberal and socialist Democrats taking away your life, liberty, and property while you engage in some sort of stupid history lesson. In the primary, work like heck to get libertarian and tea party Republicans elected, but in the general elections, start voting Republican, as they are closer (if only a little) to libertarian and tea party views, and the lesser of two evils is still less evil than the greater of two evils.

Democratic Senate vs Republican House on Gas Prices

Gasoline prices are climbing higher and higher, and it's not even summer yet, when gasoline prices traditionally go real high. These high prices cut into discretionary spending in families, and also put increasing inflationary pressure businesses who need to pay more for fuel costs and transportation, and they then pass these higher costs on to consumers as higher prices, further cutting into discretionary spending. High gasoline prices are a threat to our prosperity and will increasingly work to lower economic growth, cause unemployment, and lower real incomes of the lower and middle class who are most affected by rises in gasoline prices.

There are likely many reasons for the rise in gasoline prices, but at the heart of the matter is that there is increasingly demand for the product and yet the supply of the product is not increasing. There is no documented evidence of evil rich millionaires hoarding billions of gallons of gasoline in black-painted tankers that float in the middle of Hades, and there is considerable evidence that the Middle East is growing more unstable, partly due to Obama's policies of throwing allies under the bus and yet supporting enemies to stability and international commerce.

Last week the House of Representatives and the Senate both debated and passed legislation to do something about the rising price of gasoline in our nation. Let's look at what each chamber did:

In the House of Representatives, Republicans shoved through a bill that would force the Interior Department (controlled by Democratic President Barack Obama) to act within 60 days on all applications for offshore drilling permits. You see, under Obama, offshore drilling permits are not being acted on, naturally leading to less discoveries of supplies of oil and natural speculation that oil prices will go higher because of this. Democrats worked to oppose this measure, believing that exploring for and discovering and selling more oil will not provide income, jobs, or cheaper gasoline for the poor citizens of our nation.

For those interested, in Michigan, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (GOP) voted in favor of lowering gasoline prices and provide jobs and income for our citizens, and Congressman Gary Peters voted against the bill, since he owes green industries a lot for their campaign support over the last several years.

The House then turned to a second Republican-sponsored bill that would open much of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic shorelines to new oil and gas exploration- again, working to for real expand the supply of oil, which would lead to a real decrease in the cost of gas. Democrats are expected to oppose this measure as well.

In contrast, the Democrats in the Senate are working to demonize oil companies that are doing well because they are doing well, believing that success in producing a product demands punishment. Specifically, they want to cut off taxpayer subsidies to any firm they don't like, and continue to use the money that they suck off of profitable firms to subsidize unprofitable and inefficient 'green' companies, who kick back massive amounts of campaign funding to Democrats as a thank you for this obvious corruption.

These higher taxes will either be passed on to consumers as higher gasoline prices, or if is not passed on to consumers it will work to reduce the profitability of these firms so that they have less money to invest in improving efficiency and greening their operations, less money to look for new supplies of oil and gas, and less money to pay their employees. Investors will be paid lower dividends, leading to those people on fixed incomes from investments to suffer, and these important stocks will be sold off, leading to a fall in the stock market.

No good will come of the actions of the Democrats in the Senate; instead, many bad things will occur. Supporting this sort of legislation is Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, who believes that demonizing and attacking private profitable companies and increasing taxes on them will somehow lower the cost of the product that they produce.

It could not be clearer- the policies of the Democrats in the Senate are making our nation less, and the policies of the Republicans in the House are making our nation more, and more is almost better than less.

Now We Know What Osama Was Doing Last 10 Years: Downloading Porn

According to US officials, Navy SEALs found a large stash of pornography at the Pakistani compound of Osama bin Laden, and the stash has been described as 'modern' and 'fairly extensive.' Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound did not have Internet connection or other hard-wired communication networks, but officials did find hundred's of flash drives, and I bet that's how OBL snuck in the porn, which he then watched on TV's that we know were equipped with the ability to show video (there are video's out there of him watching himself on TV).

To build up such an extensive and modern stash of porn takes a lot of time, I imagine, and this would perfectly explain why we haven't heard a whole lot out of him since 9/11. He fled into a hole for a while before eventually settling into a dirty ugly compound where he spent his days paying couriers to bring in modern pornography for him to watch. Case closed- we know know exactly what OBL has been doing for the past 10 years.

Red Wings Provide Lesson in Leadership

Here in Detroit, we have been blessed to have had perhaps two of the greatest leaders in the history of hockey, maybe even in all of sports, in Steve Yzerman and Nicklas Lidstrom. The former and current captain of the Red Wings hockey team demonstrate the qualities that a good leader should have, and I believe that from them we can learn some larger lessons on leadership that we can then apply to many of our current politicians.

The words that have been used to describe the leadership qualities and skills of these two captains include: Calm, cool, collected, controlling the highs and lows, working hard, poise, humility, grace, humility, modesty, and leading through example. These two captains are not the kind that always feel the need to give speeches about their leadership; rather, they lead. And they rarely seek out awards and accolades; in fact, they both appear uncomfortable with the deserved recognition that they receive for their talents and leadership. In addition to winning numerous individual awards, they have also led the Red Wings to many Stanley Cups and have led teams that have dominated their sport for almost 20 years.

The Red Wings are currently locked in an epic battle with the San Jose Sharks in a series that I honestly wish would never end- two mighty teams locked in a titanic struggle of wills, both teams playing the game the right way, both teams giving it their all, showing the world how awesome hockey is- if this series was played for another dozen games I'd be happy! Watch Game 7 on Thursday at 9:00 pm eastern time.

Contrast the leadership of Stever Yzerman and Nicklas Lidstrom with the qualities of the current leadership in our nation, both Republican and Democrat. Would you describe Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or John McCain as calm, cool, collected leaders? I wouldn't- although Obama sometimes appears as a icy professor, his eyes give away that behind that icy facade he is burning with a fire and passion that has driven him to success. Pelosi and Reid and Trump and Gingrich and McCain all are excitable and sometimes shrill leaders; leaders yes, but not the collected types who are under control at all times.

Whereas Yzerman and Lidstrom demonstrate poise and grace, those qualities are absent from Trump and Pelosi and McCain and Reid, who all appear to be more emotional and awkward, whether because of bad hair, shrill speaking, politically-incorrect jokes, or incoherent statements.

Yzerman and Lidstrom are modest and humble; contrast that to spotlight grabbing Obama or Palin, who both can't go a day without bragging about what they do and seeking recognition for their successes.

George W Bush had some of these qualities about him, and I think that explains his growing popularity as we move farther away from his Presidency, and Reagan and FDR and Washington all demonstrated during their presidencies these leadership traits of being cool, collected, humble, modest, graceful, and poised, and under their leadership America got better- maybe not as great as many wanted and perhaps made some mistakes along the way, but they all had the kind of Presidencies where after they were done people looked back and were okay with the direction the nation had gone.

Do any of our political leaders have these qualities and skills? Perhaps Hillary Clinton? Perhaps a Mitt Romney?

Our next President should look to these great Red Wings captains for leadership qualities and skills.

UPDATE: Via ABC News, George W Bush comments on the death of bin Laden... and does not spend an entire speech on all that he did, does not highlight all the work he did trying to catch and kill OBL, and does not try to garb himself in some sort of false populist mantle. Here is what he instead says:

Bush said Obama described in detail the secret mission to raid bin Laden's Pakistani compound and the decision he made to put the plan into motion. He told Obama, "Good call."

"The guy is dead. That is good," Bush said of bin Laden. "Osama's death is a great victory in the war on terror. He was held up as a leader."

"The intelligence services deserve a lot of credit. They built a mosaic of information, piece by piece," he said, claiming no credit for himself.

"I met SEAL Team Six in Afghanistan. They are awesome, skilled, talented and brave," he added. "I said, 'I hope you have everything you need. One guy said, 'We need your permission to go into Pakistan and kick ass.'"

Humility, grace, uncomfortable claiming credit, modest, and cool- traits that Obama would do well to emulate if he wants to be half the quality of a leader as President Bush.

Questioning Global Warming Compared by Committee to Other 'Falacies' Like Believing in God: A Personal Story

Yesterday I attended a conference at a university in another state for the purposes of looking over a test that this university gives all future teacher candidates, and it was indeed an upsetting experience for me once again because of my conservative beliefs. The conference had about a dozen teachers and professors at it, all drawn from the social studies profession, and we spent the day looking over all of the items on a test that is given each year to graduating teacher candidates, making sure that the test items were valid questions to ask future teachers. The teachers on the committee ranged from communists to fascists to socialists to liberals, with one or two moderates thrown in for balance, and me. The day was a constant battle for me, but there was one question in particular that I believe was very revealing.

Our committee looked over a question that (roughly) said "Which of the following is the correct reason why there is global climate change?" The supposed correct answer was "the build-up of carbon dioxide gasses caused by man-caused deforestation."

Of course I questioned the validity of the item, and in doing so, I set off an amazing firestorm of criticism and personal attacks that shocked me in its savagery and offensiveness by simply questioning of whether a test question should be asked to all students who want to be teachers in the future should establish as a fact that there is in fact global climate change occurring and that the reason for it occurring is because of the build up of carbon dioxide gasses and that the reason why there is more CO2 is because of deforestation and that this deforestation is caused by man.

You see, by questioning this test item, I questioned the entire Faith of the liberals and leftists on the committee, and questioning people's Faith really pisses people off. It is a matter of Faith that is not to be questioned and that evidence is not needed that global warming was happening, that it is caused by humanity, that it is a bad thing, that even if other nations do nothing we can still do something, that it isn’t too late to act, that we can afford to do something, and that the something is more government control over our society. I questioned whether it should be a fact that all students learn the Faith of the left.

The committee reacted with shock that I was allowed to be on the committee and was allowed to be a teacher. I was called stupid, dumb, uneducated, and an unbeliever. They wanted to know how many years I had been teaching, how many students I may have possibly talked to about my unbelief, and above all, how I had ever been allowed to become a teacher with such ideas as questioning the Faith of the left.

In spite of the vicious and personal nature of the attacks me, I maintained my cool and simply kept repeating that some question aspects of the question and that it would be unfair and invalid to have that sort of question on a test that all students must take. I maintained that my personal views were irrelevant and that I was simply doing my job. But this wasn't good enough- the mere whiff that there was a heretic in the room had got the committee's blood boiling, and instead of discussing whether the item was valid or not, they jumped to the attack of me, demanding to know my personal views on every aspect of global climate change. I kept my cool until one of the more moderate committee members made a comment that sent me over the edge by questioning my Faith.

"Teach brings up a good point," he said, "There are people out there who may doubt what we all know are accepted facts, and we should be careful with our language. When we ask questions about other discredited ideas and theories, like creationism, we are careful to not purposefully offend those who believe in those things, so we should really try to rework this question."

The committee though disagreed- one after another they said "This test is to test whether graduating students have the knowledge to be teachers, and I don't want anyone becoming a teacher who has illogical and wrong views, whether it is believing in a flat earth or creationism or or magic or doubting that man-made global warming is happening now due to deforestation."

Now I was boiling. This committee thought that I was illogical and wrong because I believed in science and God!  They compared creationism (a variation of which that focuses on the evolution of early man that I have become increasingly fascinated with) and the science of global warming with flat earth and magic and saw nothing wrong with that comparison! My Faith and beliefs were now under attack.

Sadly though, I recognized that the committee was correct- I was a Christian man in a sea of heretics, and my options were at that point to continue my objections to the test question and continue to be attacked by the group, or to just shut up and continue to chip away at the edges of the the liberal agenda of the test. Since this was only a volunteer effort on my part, I stopped talking, eventually their personal attacks and questioning of my education and beliefs were stopped since they no longer were hurting me, and the committee moved on to other questions of various degrees of invalidity.

This is not the first time that I have run into this sort of reaction, and it will not be the last. In Stonehenge and the Descent into Barbarianism I wrote:

Pagan religion is becoming increasingly popular and accepted in our society. I see it most in the numbers of people who openly and proudly proclaim that they are not Christian, and also are the most fervent and devout believers in man-made-caused-one-way-global-warming-solved-by-government-power. They now worship the Green God. Other people, in an effort to be fair and politically correct to everyone, have decided to worship every god, embracing a polytheistic view of the world, whereby they pray to whatever god they think will help them the most. Animal rights activists worship animals and many people worship men (like Obama)- paganism is on the rise, not decline, in our society.

In My Personal Experience Fighting the Worship of Earth Hour I wrote:

...It all started last week with an innocent email that was sent out by an administrator, telling our entire staff all about Earth Hour and encouraging people to "support the fight against global warming by turning off your lights for one hour tomorrow night- together , we can create change in our world and bring peace to all."...

...In a fit of frustration, I replied to this email- pecking out a reply between hours- and sent it to the whole staff. I felt that if it was okay to get emails about Earth Hour, it was okay to respond to these emails- and I did. I sent the following message "As you can see from the attached graphs, there is no correlation between keeping your lights on and the Earth warming. But, because you asked, I'll turn off some lights to lower my energy bill."...

....But question the religion of global warming, question the beliefs of liberals, and be prepared for a firestorm- now I know. My inbox was instantly filled with emails blasting me, stunning me with their viciousness and vileness.

Other teachers and administrators sent me emails that said that my arguments were "sad defeatist" arguments, that I was giving up on the world and was unwilling to fight to make the world a better place. I was called "unintelligent," "uneducated," "immature," "backward," and "crazy." Like most liberals do, rather than debate my ideas and thoughts and data, they went straight for name-calling.

Even worse, many began to question my teaching ability. For the record, my students have the highest scores in the district on our common assessments and high-stakes tests, and I have frequently been recognized by students, other teachers, and administrators for being an outstanding teacher. But question the global warming religion once, and I get emails saying such things as "I am concerned that you could be convincing our students of the same fallacies" and "I seriously question what you are teaching our students."...

...Logic, reasoning, and calm calculations, supported by data and clear thinking, had run up against religion. Global Warming (or climate change) is a religion, not a policy position. It's too bad that this religion is allowed to flourish in schools, that education can have study classes on the tenets of global warming, that we erect alters to worship global warming (a 'green garden' was built at our school last year), and that there are places to sacrifice to the green gods all over schools (the recycling symbol is omnipresent, as our recycling boxes and bins). It's too bad that schools are against religions such as Christianity and Judaism, as public schools continue their war on "he who can not be named in schools" (God).

Perhaps what was most upsetting to me about this incident was the reaction I got from my wife when I told her all this stuff. Excited about fighting the good battle, energized from my attempts to reason, I told my wife what I had done. Her face got pale, and she became fearful and scared- she was frightened that in this world, this new country of change, that I would be fired for believing the wrong things, for having the wrong views on global warming. My wife was scared that schools have become so much like a 3rd world dictatorship that saying the wrong view could mean the loss of my job. And the scary thing, she is right.

By taking this stand, by sending out one little email questioning global warming, by defending myself from insults and questions as to my ability, I have put myself personally in danger of being fired. I may now be let go from my job for questioning global warming. That is scary. Things are changing in this world, hope is dimming, and life is not fair anymore- and my small attempt to fight back at this, to push the darkness back by lighting the light of logic and reasoning on Earth Hour, may very well be the end of me as a teacher.

As you can see, the Green God has a lot of followers in the education world, and expressing faith in him and his beliefs and rituals is more accepted in our society and in our schools that expressing faith in God and the Bible and the rituals of Christianity. My experience serving on this committee once more reinforced this belief and provided even more evidence to me of that Liberalism is now a Religion.

Obama the Deceiver- Pretends to Care in Order to get Power and Control?

In two recent separate posts, Scott and John of PowerLine highlight the hypocrisy of the left in our nation. To refresh your memory, I wrote this on the subject of the left's hypocrisy in my post Rand Paul to Obama Officials: You are pro-choice on abortion but not on toilets and lightbulbs?:

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.

Over at Powerlineblog, Scott wrote in his post Vindication:

In a biting column he titles "The first-person presidency," Victor Davis Hanson conveniently summarizes the national security positions asserted by then Senator Obama, with relevant quotations, and contrasts them with the positions he has taken as president. He then provides this convenient summary:

"Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts -- before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation -- this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama's radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away...."

John's post at Powerlingblog makes the connection between modern liberals and hypocrisy even more clear in his post Time to Celebrate?

No doubt, very few of those who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 anticipated that the high point of his administration would be the extra-judicial killing of a terrorist leader by a team of Navy SEALs. This, as our involvement in Iraq winds down on the Bush administration's timetable, the war in Afghanistan has been stepped up, and a third conflict in Libya has been commenced. But for the Democrats, any port in a storm: they are happy to celebrate victories wherever they can find them....

...One is, nevertheless, struck by the rapturous manner in which the liberal press has applauded Obama's role in the mission...

...All of this praise is due to the fact that Obama approved, rather than nixing, the killing of bin Laden. A good decision, to be sure. But is there a single person, anywhere, who doubts that George W. Bush would have made the same call? Or John McCain, if he had won in 2008? Of course not. The Democrats' jubilation results from the fact that their guy didn't wilt under pressure, but rather lived up to the standard that George W. Bush and John McCain easily met. For this, he is called "courageous" and "gutsy."

One wonders: if killing bin Laden was a courageous, gutsy decision by Barack Obama, where were the liberals when President Bush approved the killing of Zarqawi? Do you remember any of them praising that decision as courageous and "game changing?" No, neither do I. Or how about the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? How many congratulations did that skillfully-executed operation draw from the Left? And how about Bush's decision to topple, and then capture, Saddam Hussein, one of America's bitterest enemies, whose forces tried to shoot down American airplanes and who attempted to assassinate a former American President? Was that a courageous and gutsy decision? We all know the answer to that question.

What we are currently witnessing is the strange spectacle of liberals trying to grab, for their guy, a mantle neither he nor they ever sought: cold-blooded assassin of anti-American terrorists. This has nothing to do with their true values and priorities, and everything to do with the fact that Obama's economic policies have put him in a deep hole as he seeks re-election next year...

America is a principled nation, founded on principles and inhabited by many with principles. And yet one of our major parties, the Democratic Party, has essentially abandoned any pretense of principles under the leadership of President Obama. The party is now about one thing- power, and maintaining power, by playing games with the American people, notably games of race and class division, all while still pretending to actually have real principles. Look, I know some of my readers are Democrats, and I increasingly wonder how they can defend this guy and support his presidency when it is increasingly becoming clear that he is above all else a hypocrite.

Obama is a deceiver who cares nothing for the values and beliefs of our nation but pretends to do so in order to get what he craves more than anything else- power and control over others.

Who planned on using race and class tensions to hurt America?

Quick, fill in the blank:

"__________ aspired to damage the United States by attempting to inflame race and class tensions in hopes of tearing down the country from the inside out."

I'll give you a hint- the name starts with an 'O'....

Need another one? Fill in the blank:

"___________ planned to specifically recruit African-Americans to carry out attacks on the homeland. The goal was to create a divisiveness that would cause more damage than al Qaeda could ever hope to do on their own."

Surely you have guessed it by now? Who out there attempted to inflame race and class tensions and frequently uses race as a way to attack enemies and critics and create a more divisive nation?  Can you think of anyone who stands to gain by pulling out the race card and using class warfare to split our nation terribly apart- to move us from one nation under God indivisible to a nation of the rich and poor, black and white, with no working together, riots in the streets, and escalating rhetoric of hate? Did you guess who it was yet?

It's Osama bin Laden who said those things! Read the ABC story that I saw through memeorandum. Wait, who did you think I was talking about?

Obama Travels to NYC to View Site of Future Ground Zero Mosque, Lay Wreath too

Last week, President Barack Obama saw the site of the future Ground Zero Victory Mosque (or as it is sometimes called the Cordoba House Initiative Project, or Ground Zero Mosque, or Celebration of the Thousands Killed by Extremist Muslims, or Cordoba Initiative) for the first time, as he laid a wreath at the site of the collapsed Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York to pay tribute to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States.

Obama last year gave his blessing to "the right of Muslims to build a place of worship" on Ground Zero and was supportive of the building of a 'victory mosque' on the site of the most successful attack ever on America by Muslim extremists by Muslim extremists, and last week he took time from his busy schedule to view this location before he laid a wreath at the foot of the Survivor Tree, which sustained damage during the attack but was freed from the rubble.

Obama also visited a fire station that lost 15 firefighters during the attack and almost drove within sight of the victory mosque before he stopped by another lower Manhattan police station. One year after he trumpeted that "as President, I believe that Muslims have... the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances", he stopped by New York City to bring meet with people after the U.S. commando raid in Pakistan killed 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack that bin Laden masterminded, Obama said: `'We keep them in our hearts. We haven't forgotten."

Obviously he hopes that people have forgotten that he supports building an Islamic victory mosque on the same ground that he visited to honor the fallen victims of 9/11- I guess when you are taking credit for killing an evil terrorist it is okay to say that the ground is holy and honor those who were killed on it, but when you are defending Muslims it is okay to say that the ground isn't holy and that anyone can build whatever they want on it, even a victory mosque that celebrates the attack (and also is a house of worship and is an educational center and other stuff too, but mostly a victory mosque).

Obama Cleverly Replaces Birther Conspiracy with Deather Conspiracy? A Theory on How the Release of the Birth Certificate connects to Attack on OBL

I keep coming back to the simple question "Why did Obama not release his birth certificate earlier?" It has been bothering me ever since he just released it last week- there was nothing controversial it in, nothing secret, nothing that would have violated any sort of laws, nothing illegal in it, nothing fishy in it, and it appears to be legitimate. Why then did he keep it secret and hidden for all of these years, knowing full well that when asked, he could have simply produced it? And why was that reason for keeping it secret suddenly removed, all of a sudden, a week ago, so that now there was no reason to hide it and laugh off questions about it without ever answering them?

When Obama released the birth certificate, we all assumed it was because of the pressure that Trump had been putting on the President- that when he demanded it be released, suddenly Obama jumped and released it- but I no longer think that is the case. Obama resisted other requests and denied others the birth certificate, so he could have done the same for Trump. So why release it last week- what did he know or what changed that enabled him to release it?

Of course today, looking back, we all know why Obama released his birth certificate last week- because he knew where Osama bin Laden was and was putting together a mission to go after him and knew that later that week he would score the biggest unqualified and unquestioned success of his Presidency.

So, how does Obama knowing that he is going to take out Osama bin Laden change anything at all regarding his previous positions on his birth certificate?

One theory is that the birth certificate was faked and phony, and that he released the fake one to bury the story and rumor of his non-citizenship knowing that the entire nation would focus instead on the successful killing of OBL. So he released his birth certificate on 4/27 (Wednesday) and plans on killing OBL on the 30th (Saturday), although because of weather they instead do it on 5/1 (Sunday), in the hopes that this will discredit those who continue to doubt his citizenship or at least bury their news and stories behind the news and stories of OBL's death. Personally, I think this theory is far-fetched, but I do offer it up to my more conspiracy minded readers as food for thought.

A second theory, and the one that I now feel is the most plausible, is that Obama is going to replace the 'birther' conspiracy with a new 'deather' conspiracy.

Obama is clever, much the same way that many tyrants are clever, and he knows that because his positions and beliefs and policies are bad for our nation and don't make any sense and are based purely on empowering him and his allies, he can't engage in a conversation with his opponents or get in a debate based on ideas and ideals and reality. Instead, he is clever to understand that the only way that he can get and keep more and more power for himself and his friends and allies is by discrediting his opponents and making them appear less intelligent, less sophisticated, less worldly, and less human, so that when his opponents make valid criticisms and critiques of him and his bad policies, he can simply laugh them off as nuts and fools.

If your goal is to make people look like fools and discredit them, then one way to do this is to tell them conflicting stories, tell them partial stories, give them suggestive statements, and hide things, and then when they run with these suspicions to laugh at them and discredit them as nuts and fools, whose very real and honest and accurate views and positions are now weakened by their being suckered into his discrediting game.

The birther conspiracy was a great one- he himself spun it, kept it going, laughed off questions about it without answering them, and fed the story, knowing that it would sucker his opponents into making personal attacks on him and insinuations about his heritage and birth, to which he could turn around and cry 'racist'. But this conspiracy was getting played out and losing its edge, so he now has a better one- the 'deather' conspiracy.

The story of Osama bin Laden's death is simply and clear and able to be communicated in a way that has no ambiguity or cloudiness or confusion, and yet, the story of his death as told by Obama is not being told this way at all. The interweb is all the rage with conspiracy theories, ranging from those who say that OBL isn't really dead to conflicting stories about how he died to confusion regarding what the SEAL's orders were to staged photo's. And Obama is feeding this, refusing to clarify the issue and actively muddying the waters, knowing that this will sucker in the nuts and fools and perhaps some legitimate challengers too and that the mud will splash up and hit other Republicans too.

Obama is clever- he is going to try to replace the 'birther' conspiracy with a 'deather' conspiracy. You watch- it is already happening, and the liberals on TV and radio and in the blogosphere are already laughing at it. Obama is going to take a non-fire, blow some smoke, and then laugh at the fools with get suckered in, because he knows that when the time comes next election, he can discredit these people as unAmerican because they don't take pride in the killing of OBL. This time around, he'll discredit his opponents who question what exactly happened on this mission, why photo's were staged, why stories were changed and modified, why questions were answered by him clearly, and what really went down by simply laughing at anyone who questions him and pointing out that he did something that Bush could never do and that he is more in touch with America and he got the guy who caused 9/11 and anyone asking questions is not really an American and not really patriotic and not really for the victims of 9/11.

Tell me- am I way off on this theory? Does it not explain why Obama finally decided to release his birth certificate on Wednesday, knowing that he had a better and more clever way to discredit his opponents in his back pocket to be pulled out on Saturday? How does the release of the birth certificate on Wednesday connect to attack on Osama bin Laden on Sunday?