Evaluating the Leadership of Obama and Romney Using Howard Putnam's Principles of Leadership

Unlike a Senator or a Congressman or a Judge, one of the most important characteristics needed in a President is leadership. Leadership is the ability to successfully integrate and maximize available resources for the attainment of goals- in other words, Presidential leadership is the ability to maximize taxpayer money and government employee's time in order to to accomplish goals like national security, providing a safety net for members of our nation, protecting the borders, issuing permits, enforcing standards, regulating commerce, and others.

I've written about leadership before, as it is a topic that I am interested in since I am a leader in my classroom, in my school, in my union, in my community, and on the internet. For example, in my post 'Red Wings Provide Lesson in Leadership' I looked at the leadership qualities of the two last captains of the successful Red Wings hockey teams, and evaluated some of our political leaders to see if they had some of the leadership traits that I saw in Steve Yzerman and Nicklas Lidstrom, such as being calm, cool, collected, controlling the highs and lows, working hard, having poise, humility, grace, humility, modesty, and leading through example.

Yesterday I heard some more about leadership from Howard Putnam at the Get Motivated Business Seminar that was held in Auburn Hills (see my post Get Motivated Business Seminar Review: Powell, Giuliani, Cosby, Putnam, Walsh, and More! for my full review). Mr. Putnam rose through the ranks at Southwest Airlines to become CEO of the company, where he led it to great profitability and success.

According to Putnam, there are several principles of leadership. Let's look at each one, and then evaluate whether Obama, Romney, or I follow these rules on how to be an effective leader:

• Honesty- a leader has to be honest with others and say what he means and mean what he says. Those who know me know that I am honest to a fault- I believe that it is important to always tell the truth and not to lie, fib, tell half-truths, dissemble, or obfuscate. Obama on the other hand does not hold closely to this principle- now that we know him after he emerged from obscurity to win the Presidency, we frequently see him lie about things both large and small- he attributes traits and arguments to his opponents that they do not have, he says his health care law isn't a tax but then goes to court to claim it is, he says to be civil in political discourse and then demonizes his opponents, etc. Romney appears to be a more honest person- he says what he means, and this has often gotten him in trouble, especially with the more conservative members of the Republican establishment. He picks and chooses his words carefully, which makes him come off as cautious, but I believe he does this so that he doesn't say things which he does not believe.
• Passion- a leader has to be passionate about their job. Those who know me know that I am passionate about being a teacher- I spend 80 hours a week during the school year working on my lessons and grading papers and improving my own knowledge of the subject matters that I teach and this passion shows through. President Obama also is passionate- but not about all phases of the Presidency- by his own admission, he enjoys and is passionate about the symbolic aspects of the President and is passionate about the legislative aspects of the President's job, but would rather go on vacation and go golfing rather than spend extra time in the office working on being a good executive or commander in chief. Romney also appears to lack full passion for the job- in 2008 he was cautious and did not go fully in when he ran for President and only recently really seems like he wants the job- I'd like to see more passion from him or else he'll be like the cold and boring and unmotivated McCain and lose the next election.
• Vision- a leader must have a vision of how to be successful and stick to that vision. Obama has a vision- his problem is that his vision of the United States is not a vision that most others share because it is extreme, so he must temper his own vision and try to hide his true intentions about where he wants to take our nation. Perhaps if he was more true to his vision, he would be a better leader. Romney's weakest in this area- sometimes I wonder what his true vision is for the United States and what he really pictures when he pictures the America that he wants after he is done being President. Myself, I have a vision- readers of my blog know that I imagine an America based on our Founding Principles and I've getting a reputation in my school for being very picky about making sure everything in my classroom fits my vision of a successful classroom.
• Authentic- a leader must be true to themselves and who they are. In my classroom, this is a problem, because being a conservative teacher means opening oneself up to criticism and attacks from administration and other teachers, and this is a problem on my blog, because I can't reveal my true name. President Obama shares this same problem- as I touched on above, he is an extreme radical, and would rather be a king of America rather than its President, but yet he can't be these things and he knows it. Romney also has a problem being himself- he is stiff and tense sometimes when giving speeches or talking about policy, and I feel that he is deeply concerned that his religion will hurt him with bigoted citizens of our good nation.
• No ego, no arrogance, and no exclusion- a leader must be willing to admit they are wrong, must be willing to be humble, and must try to make everyone feel welcome to express their ideas. Putman once had everyone in the company write him letters offering suggestions on how to improve efficiency, cut waste, use resources more effectively, and run a successful company- he said he read them all, and let people know that he welcomed all their ideas, even if he later said that some were bad and some he didn't take. A good leader has to be open  to listening to others- I take suggestions in my classroom and even though I don't have to, I have my students write an evaluation of my class at the end of the year and I take these suggestions to heart, even if I don't implement all of them. Romney appears to be a humble person too- sometimes almost to a fault as he doesn't speak often enough about his skills, successes, and his track record of doing good and positive things. Obama, on the other hand, is all about ego and arrogance and is running one of the most closed know-it-all White Houses in history, and we can see the results in the lack of leadership and success in our nation.
• People first- a good leader must put people first, and truly care about others. Myself, I care about every student- other teachers laugh at me when I speak honestly about not wanting to leave a single child behind in education and about the difficulties of getting every single person in my classroom to feel cared for and to learn. Romney also seems to put people first- both times that I have met him in person he shook my hand and looked into my eyes and said hello and thanked me for coming to support him, and seemed to genuinely mean it, and his staff and supporters seem to like him for his support and loyalty. Obama though lacks this important leadership skill too- he is aloof and cold towards others, and his staff has deserted him in droves, and in his pettiness he attacks others and demonizes them rather than really trying to move our nation forward.
• Other traits that Putnam talked about for leaders that he really didn't get into were being a continuous learner, having good communication skills, attempting to move forward, being persistent, understanding technology, and having a global mentality. You can on your own evaluate whether Obama or Romney has these skills.

It should not be a surprise that President Obama demonstrates such few leadership skills- in his entire life he has not ever demonstrated that he had the ability to be a leader of any sort of successful enterprise, not when he was a community organizer, a lawyer for disgraced ACORN, a sometimes professor, a state senator, or a national senator. In these capacities, he demonstrated he was intelligent, talented, and a good communicator- but never that he was able to marshal resources in an efficient manner to accomplish tough or difficult goals. President Obama is a political figure who achieved the incredible and our nation took a big chance on him- but we've seen now that he lacks the leadership skills that are necessary in the President of the United States of America. Does Romney? Palin? Clinton? Pawlenty? Bachman? Pelosi? Those are all important questions to ask as we move forward to replacing the leader of our nation with someone else.

Get Motivated Business Seminar Review: Powell, Giuliani, Cosby, Putnam, Walsh, and More!

Today, along with thousands of others, I attended a Get Motivated seminar at the Palace of Auburn Hills. It was packed, parking was $15, the food was expensive, but the ticket was cheap ($2) and it was worth a day due to the wealth of information, ideas, and motivation that were thrown at you. There were many quality speakers at this event interspersed with sales pitches and people trying to keep the crowd motivated- let me give you a quick recap of some of my thoughts on each of the main speakers-

• General Colin Powell spoke on leadership and was surprisingly energetic- he bounded up the steps with energy and enthusiasm and came across as very humble and told a large number of jokes. He touched on a lot of great points- that we now live in a post 9/11 world where we take a proactive view on dealing with terrorism, the importance of politicians getting out of Washington and seeing that the real people in America still are optimistic about America and our system of laws and capitalism, that the real trick to being a leader is to enable the followers to do their jobs better by giving them proper purpose and equipment, and that it is important for our nation to get back in the business of creating wealth by building and selling things. On the other hand, I felt that his time in government has isolated him a bit from the 'real world'- he no longer understands what it is like to work for a living due to his own time in Washington, flying on personal jets, sipping soft drinks and tea, making lots of money using his government connections. Some people talk about 'Powell for President', but I would never after hearing him say garbage like 'I've made millions and now am retired living on a public pension so think that we should all do their part and pay more in taxes to help Obama blow money on bad ideas'. Still, he gave an okay presentation.
• James Smith spoke on financial success- I did not really know who he was, but he was a guy so passionate and energetic and authentic that he was kind of funny but also kind of different to listen to. His advice was wide-ranging and much of it was infused strongly with his Christian values- he talked about turning off the TV and actually doing things, he talked about watching less sports and making love to your wife more instead, about taking charge of your life and quit making excuses, the problems of wasting time, and not trying to control your destiny and instead just take the doors that God opens. His investment advice as  about creating more revenue streams, using the tax code, finding foreclosed properties, etc- all the kind of stuff that you can really only learn after you take his class, as this was long long extended sales pitch.
• Bill Cosby spoke on success, and you can still see what an amazing entertainer he is, as he was at his best when he was just joking around and freelancing, and a bit less good when he was talking about the topic of success. I guess his message was to just do it, and not let barriers stand in the way of what you want to accomplish in life.
• John Walsh spoke on achievement, and gave a mesmerizing account of how he his path in life was horribly changed for him after the abduction and murder of his young child in 1981. The world that he spoke of in 1981 was a world less full of life than the one that he has helped create today, from his work bringing criminals to justice through his TV show America's Most Wanted, he work with charities to help find missing children, and his support for legislation that protect children from those who have chosen evil paths in life. I hung on his every word, and am glad that networks found a reason to put his show on for many years, and hope they do so again, because whether it makes money or not, it is important and great public service.
• Rudy Giuliani spoke on perseverance and I was surprised at the toll the years are taking on America's Mayor- he moved around with less zest and spoke about technology in a way that sounded a little dated. Now, I've heard him on the radio give some pretty good interviews, and several years ago I supported him for President, and I really like the guy a lot and think that he could have made a good President, but it seems as if his time has passed- maybe I just caught him on a bad day though.
• The best speech was given by Howard Putnam, who spoke on management, and although it seemed as if the amount of time he was allotted was less than some of the others, when he talked about his principles of leadership, I thought he was right on, and after thinking more about what he spoke about, I'm going to put together a separate post just on his speech.

The Get Motivated Business Seminar's are an interesting event- I still don't know how they make any money what with all the great speakers and the cheap price of admission- but it was definitely worth the time and cost for me and I imagine for many businesses too.

For those who missed it, you can always check out books by these people- Leadership (by Giuliani), Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors and I Didn't Ask to Be Born: (But I'm Glad I Was) (by Cosby), My American Journey (by Powell), The Winds of Turbulence: A CEO's Reflections on Surviving and Thriving on the Cutting Edge of Corporate Crisis (by Putnam), or Bringing Adam Home: The Abduction That Changed America (by John Walsh).

UPDATE: Thank you all for visiting my blog- be sure to check out some other posts while you are here. In particular, I put together a post inspired by this seminar that you might be interested in-
http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2011/06/evaluating-leadership-of-obama-and.html

Lessons from Economic Recessions- Introduction and Great Depression

History teaches lessons- it allows those of us in the present to see how results in the past worked. Economic recessions are a great teaching tool for policy makers and average citizens, because they teach us how the recession may have happened and how to emerge from the recession and therefore inform us as to the policy actions that we must take and those that we as citizens must support.

The problem is though that policymakers and citizens really only have learned about one historical economic recession, The Great Depression, and the lessons that they have been learned regarding this recession are usually the wrong lessons. There are other recessions that our nation has battled through and the lessons we can learn from them may be more instructive to policy makers and average citizens, especially in light of the current Obama recession.

The version of the Great Depression that most Americans learn is that unregulated capitalism, free trade, lax regulation, and unequal distribution of wealth led to a massive collapse of our economy in 1929, then President Hoover did nothing to intervene and help, and our nation didn't recover until FDR actively and aggressively acted with his New Deal policies of massive spending, massive debt, massive regulation, and massive changes to the American system. The problem with this version of history, and the lessons that it teaches, is that it is almost wholly false.

The Great Depression resulted from government policies- the Federal Reserve messing with rates, the regulations and taxes from the Wilson administration, etc- combined with restrictive trade policies and the collapse of a major economic power (Germany), which resulted in a recession in 1929. President Hoover then acted in a very active and ultimately destructive manner, increasing spending, regulation, and activity by the government, resulting in the recession deepening and lasting until 1932. FDR took these mistakes and expanded on them and enlarged them, and the result was that a real recovery never took place and rather the nation dropped into another recession (1937), leading us to just lump this whole time period together as the 'Great Depression.' Although the world war helped mask many of our economic problems, it wasn't until the death of FDR and the ending of his policies that our nation began to recover in any real economic normal sense, and wealth began to be created again. This is a closer version of events, with entirely different sets of lessons to learn.

But don't take my word for it- check out the following books to become more educated on the Great Depression- America's Great Depression, Great Myths of the Great Depression (this one is great- only $2, a dozen pages, and a great gift for any history teacher to receive), or Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.

In my next post I'll address other economic recessions and the lessons to learn from them.

Justice Kagan Is Wrong on the First Amendment

The First Amendment to the Constitution was added to the Constitution in 1791 because many feared that the national government would become so powerful that it would erode our democracy and take away our ability to freely participate in the political system of our nation. If the government attempts to prohibit you from speaking freely about an issue, the First Amendment will be your protection. As you can clearly see in it, it prevents Congress from making laws that prohibit you from speaking freely. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It clearly does not say that Congress SHALL pass any sort of laws, and it appears to clearly prohibit the government from passing laws which would force others to support certain candidates that they do not support. And yet, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan seems to think the First Amendment says the exact opposite. In a recent decision, she wrote:

"The First Amendment’s core purpose is to foster a healthy, vibrant political system full of robust discussion and debate."

The word that I focus on is 'foster'. 'Foster' is a positive and active word; she choose this word because in her mind, the First Amendment is not a barrier to an over-reaching government, but rather is some sort of empowering act that gives the government more power, power to take property from others and then distribute it to candidates that it favors. To her, the amendment does not stop government, but rather allows government permission to violate the rights of citizens, as long as government employees can justify the violations under some sort of vague and arbitrary standard by claiming that these violations are 'healthy' and create 'robust debate.'

Elena Kagan is dangerously extreme and her interpretation of the Constitution and the laws that govern our nation are flat out wrong. She may have more degrees than me and been a good friend of Obama, but if she thinks that the core purpose of the First Amendment is to empower an active government to take property from some people and give it to other people that no one wants to listen to so that she feels better, than she is no more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than my dog.

Tombs of Atuan Book Review

The Tombs of Atuan, by Ursula K. Le Guin, is book two in the Earthsea Cycle, and tells the story of the Tenar, a young priestess who serves ancient Gods until she meets the young wizard Ged and together they escape the darkness. Whereas the previous book The Wizard of Earthsea was a sprawling epic that covered an entire world and introduced us to a range of characters, this book is small and intimate and goes in depth into one young woman and her life and realm, and as such it sucks you slowly in until you are interested in the characters and their lives. It was a quick and easy read, and I recommend it as a good way to spend an afternoon or two.

One thing that struck me the most about this book was how much Tenar was a slave to traditions and ideas that were no longer relevant or useful any more. She spent her whole life serving a religion that no longer served any sort of purpose- she danced the rites, she said the sayings, she wore the outfits, and she moved what needed to be moved, and yet the Gods she served did nothing and gave her nothing back, because she no longer knew them or had knowledge of who they really were. She lived a small and inward facing life and overlooked many obvious solutions to her problems, because she had placed her faith in false Gods.

On the other hand, at least Tenar believed in something, in Gods that used to have power, even if their power was long forgotten and not at all understood any more. The other priestesses served even more false Gods than Tenar; they served in temples that were dedicated to men who had taken power and then tried to put themselves up as higher than others. These priestesses served no purpose in society other than to fan the vanity of men, and they placed their faith only in men and in no gods.

The one character who knew the true nature of the Gods that Tenar served and the men who the other priestesses served was Ged, the hero from the previous book, who comes to the Tombs of Atuan looking for a hidden treasure. With his magic and honesty and truth he illuminates to everyone the darkness of their lives, the emptiness of their beliefs, and the falseness of their gods. Through study, thought, and confronting the very nature of man he has learned the reality of the world and forged a personal relationship with it, and he is a ray of light in the darkness of the book.

It was an enjoyable little book, and I am looking forward to reading book three, The Farthest Shore, sometime in the future.

These books can be purchased by following these links: A Wizard of Earthsea (The Earthsea Cycle, Book 1), The Tombs of Atuan (The Earthsea Cycle, Book 2), or The Farthest Shore (The Earthsea Cycle, Book 3).

Rep. Peters (MI-9th) Invites Citizens to Meet with Him Regarding Budget- Tuesday, June 28, 7pm

On Congressman Gary Peters' (a liberal Democrat Congressman from Michigan's soon-to-be-eliminated 9th District) website, via RightMichigan:

On Tuesday, June 28, Representative Gary Peters will host a Federal Budget Workshop to discuss - and find solutions to - the fiscal challenges facing the United States. Teaming up with experts from the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan budget watchdog group, Representative Peters will give 9th District residents a hands-on chance to tackle America's budget crisis.

Participation is free and open to residents of Michigan's 9th Congressional District. To RSVP (required) please complete the form (found on the website) or call 248-273-4227. If you have any questions, please call us at 248-273-4227.

What: Budget Workshop with the Concord Coalition
When: Tuesday, June 28 7:00 - 8:30 PM
Where: Berkley High School Collaborative Center
Address: 2325 Catalpa Drive, Berkley, MI

If you live in Michigan's 9th Congressional District, please make an attempt to go to this event. Make sure you RSVP- Peters is legendary for only talking to constituents who have gone through the proper screening process, and his thugs will run you off if you are not on the guest list to talk to him.

Although the Concord Coalition bills itself as 'non-partisan', it is the exact kind of non-partisan that Gary Peters loves- it is liberal poppycock that on its website accuses Republicans of sabotaging the budget process, encourages 'fiscal reform' (code for more taxes), characterizes conservative views of death panels as 'misguided', and in testimony to Congress argued to let the Bush tax cuts expire and increase revenue by eliminating deductions. So, although Peters might continue to pretend to be some sort of moderate, realize that he's the kind of slime that uses words to disguise his intentions rather than illuminate them, and so he is going to try to use what little time he spends in district to host this sham of a 'budget workshop' to try to convince constituents that we need to raise taxes. Although I do see that the Heritage Foundation is a partner with this group, so I could be wrong and it could be more balanced- someone please leave comments and let me know how it goes.

Graph: Voter Turnout vs Political Party

What sports do you watch and how likely are you to vote? That is the subject of the following graph. If I were running for office as a Republican, I'd spend some time at some golf events and host a lot of fundraisers at the golf course.

A Lesson in Property Rights

Imagine that you lived in a state of nature- your plane crash landed on some previously unclaimed island that has no inhabitants and there is no hope of being rescued or contacting your previous home nations. Or you go to the moon, or an asteroid, or the bottom of the ocean, or some other location where there are no laws and no legal rights are written down. What sort of rights would you have?

Another way of asking this question is for you to think of things that others would do to you that you would think are wrong- that you would believe are wrong because you know that to do these things are wrong, with or without a government or any sort of legal authority telling you that they are wrong. These are what are called your natural rights.

What sort of natural rights would you have, whereby you would feel violated and wronged by others, even if there were no government or state or authority? Let's say you crash land on the island or find yourself on the moon- would you feel that you had been horribly wronged and violated if your fellow citizens didn't pay for your healthcare insurance in case you got injured? You're on an asteroid, and you demand that the other people on the asteroid buy a house for you or subsidize your loan, and they say no- have you been wronged and your natural rights violated? Of course not- you don't have any sort of right to have others pay for your healthcare insurance, house, car, food, or anything of that sort.

Imagine that you begin to work on your island, tilling a field and growing a crop, where others lay around and do nothing other than to watch you. After you are done growing your crop, they all band together in a large group and vote to have you distribute your crop to everyone, with everyone getting an equal share, even though you contributed all the labor. Were you wronged? Did someone violate your rights? Or let's say on the moon, you provide some sort of service that is essential- taking care of the banking, entertaining others by playing a sport, taking a risk and thinking up a new product- and you work hard at your service and in return others pay you some sort of compensation, that they voluntarily pay for your service because they recognize its worth; and after this, someone else comes along and demands a share of your 'money' in order to pay for someone else to conduct a study of the effects of drinking in prostitutes in China, or to build a road that you will never travel on the other side of the moon, or to cut a check to the older people stranded on the moon, or to hire a bureaucrat to supervise you and tell you all the things you are doing wrong. Would you be wronged then?

Of course you would have been wronged- your labor is yours, and the profit from your labor is yours, and the government does not have any 'right' to your labor, not unless you are a slave to the state. You are okay with voting to provide a military to protect your property from outside aggression, or police or fire service to protect it from theft or fire, or to create a court system to resolve any disputes that may arise regarding your property. But for the government to come and demand the fruits of your labor and lay claim to it is tyranny- it is your property, it existed before government, it will exist after government, and you are the only person who can lay any sort of right to that property. This in your natural right to property.

The purpose of our government is to protect these natural rights- life, liberty, and property. There is no such thing as a 'tax cut for the rich'- the government does not have any sort of claim on the rich citizens' property, so a more proper name for this would be a 'lessening of the unequal taxes levied on those earning high incomes'. You do not have any sort of right to healthcare or housing; but neither do you have any sort of right to social security or medicare- those are provided to some in our society by violating my rights and the rights of other young people in society to keep and earn property in order to provide forced charity to those who have had ample opportunity to earn and pay for their own retirement and healthcare- but they have no right to this sort of forced charitable giving.

Understanding property rights and the nature of them is important, because once the state becomes destructive to these property rights that state is on the road to tyranny. We can see it already in our nation, where our government has arbitrarily violated contracts because a car company is going bankrupt, failed to properly issue permits to energy companies who have gone through the (excessive and capricious) permit process, or the forcing someone young and healthy and full of life to buy a product like health insurance in order to subsidize the costs for others in society. Once it has been established that your property rights can be violated by a government- that rights to keep and earn property that existed before government was around and would be around even if government was not around- then the next step is to go after your freedoms and liberties, and lastly, your life.

Fight for the right to keep and earn property, and stop engaging in class warfare, because it will only lead to tyranny and injustice.

For more, check out John Locke, property rights, and economic theory.: An article from: Journal of Economic Issues or John Locke and Property as a Human Right Today: Towards a New Theory of Property Rights.

Democratic policies lead to more expensive cars, allies upset at us, and corruption in the White House

Today on my drive home from work I listened to both a liberal talk radio show (the Ed Schultz show) and a conservative talk radio show that was having liberals call in to debate (the Michael Medved show). The basic point of liberals, no matter what the topic, was that conservatives/tea party supporters/Republicans support tax cuts for the rich which is corrupt and wrong and takes money and jobs away from the poor people in society, and the better way to go is to support the liberal/progressive/socialist/Democratic policies best illustrated by President Barack Obama. Also, they like to bring up the fact that when Republicans are in charge no one likes America, and now that Obama is in charge everyone around the world loves us. That's pretty much the heart of every argument on every issue that comes up.

Does the recent news support that Obama's policies are better for the poor, are less likely to lead to corruption, and help build strong partnerships around the world? Based on a summary glance of stories this week, I think the answer is a pretty clear 'no'.

According to a recent study, Democrats policies could force vehicle prices up by nearly $10,000, reduce sales by 5.5 million vehicles annually and eliminate more than 260,000 jobs. Thankfully Republicans are able to block many of these policies from the one half branch of government that they currently control, where they are expending massive amounts of time and money to try to simply stop these policies. Imagine if they had control of the Senate and the White House- they might be able to put in the opposite policies leading to cheaper cars, increased sales, and more jobs. The rich and wealthy will be okay under the Democrats plans- they can afford to pay a little extra for their cars- but the poor and middle class will be the hardest hit by these Democratic policies. The record is clear- Democrats policies don't help the poor and the middle class, they hurt the poor and the middle class more than Republican policies.

The election of Obama and the implementation of his policies was supposed to lead to a new era in international relations, an era where our allies became more supportive of our nation and took over a larger share in conflicts like Iraq or Afghanistan (or Libya). Instead, reports indicate that our allies are increasingly frustrated by our policies, and are beginning to reconsider their friendly relationships with us. Last month it was Israel that was stunningly badly treated by the Obama administration- this month, we see in the news that the Czech Republic is withdrawing from our missile defense plans because they are frustrated that their nation was forced into a minor role at the request of Russia. This weakens the US, Czech Republic, and our allies in Western Europe, all to the advantage of Iran and Russia. The Bush administration and Czech Republic struck a groundbreaking deal to put interceptor missiles in the Czech Republic, missiles that would possibly be able to knock nuclear missiles launched by rogue or terrorist nations. Obama rolled in and decided that he'd change the deal and instead just give the Czech's an early warning center instead, and rather than waiting around to see if he'd alter the deal further, the Czech's withdrew in frustration.

Liberals are often upset at 'tax cuts for the rich', because in their minds they see some sort of corrupt deal going down when Republicans are in charge, where 'the rich' get to keep more of the money that they earned in exchange for some sort of kickbacks or something. Democrats hint that Republicans are more corrupt and are taking bribes and deals in exchange for giveaways, still cashing in on reputation of Nixon's shady dealings while conveniently ignoring the impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton for lying under oath. The truth is, while Bush may have given tax cuts to the rich, Obama is giving jobs, commissions, stimulus money, government contracts, and more to those who supported his Presidency. More than two years after President Obama took office vowing to banish “special interests” from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events, an investigation by iWatch News has found. This is the sort of real corruption that only a liberal Democrat who believes the purpose of government is to distribute gifts to those who help earn power can bring.

The record is clear- Democratic policies lead to more expensive cars, allies upset at us, and corruption in the White House.

For more on the direction that liberal policies lead, check out Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Ruling by Executive Decree: Obamacare Waiver Program Ended by Our Ruler?

President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress who voted in favor of it are going to stand for election in another year, and when they do it is important to for voters to remember that one of the biggest pieces of legislation that they pushed for and voted for was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as 'Obamacare.'

Part of Obamacare included a provision for temporary waivers, which were put put in place to encourage employers and insurers who are currently offering mini-med plans not to withdraw medical coverage before the full regulations come into force. This is an important aspect of the legislation- if these waivers were not in place, employers and insurers might decide to drop coverage for employees and push these employees into the public system, thereby driving up costs for the public and putting further pressure on our already bankrupt system.

The problem with these waivers is that like most aspects of the Obama administration is that it was a corrupt process- corrupt in the sense that this waiver process became tied up in trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks. Democrats in Congress were supposed to be proving oversight to this process, but were negligent in their duties, and so there was all sorts of evidence that the waiver process was corrupt. I wrote about it myself in my post Evidence is Mounting that Obamacare is All Sorts of Corrupt?, where I wrote the following:

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.

The process of getting waivers was established by law, and supporters of Obamacare gave many speeches on it where they further clarified and expanded on the meaning of the law, and in every case, these Obamacare waivers were to be granted until 2014.

But, as the corruption inherent in the process has become politically damaging, Obama has decided to change the law by issuing a decree ending the health care waiver program on September 22.

This is President Obama, supported by the modern Democratic Party- ruling by decree, changing laws around to suit their political interests, and restraining themselves from engaging in further corrupt activities only because their past corruption is now being exposed by bloggers like me.

The purpose of these waivers was to avoid disrupting coverage, but Obama has decided that it would be much better for him to disrupt insurance coverage for our nation if it will remove a politically embarrassing and corrupt program that he worked to pass. Let me be clear- Obama has made a selfish decision that will damage our nation because he believes it will help him hide politically his policies and his past actions. These sorts of actions move Obama away from simply naively incompetent to dangerously corrupt.

America's Traditions Attacked by NBC, which Cut Portions out of our Pledge

America is an exceptional nation- a nation that was founded and built on traditions and ideas in a way that no nation had previously tried and no other nation has since duplicated. The ideas are put forth in our Declaration of Independence- all men are created equal, no man is better than you at deciding how you run your life, government is created for very limited purposes, and that these mainly are to protect your freedom of choice, to protect your life, and to protect your property which was the product of your hard work and labor. As I have written about many times, these ideas are under daily attack by those unexceptional nations who would drag us back into their petty jealousies, and by those who support these nations out of belief that America has something to apologize for or that the monarchs and empires of the past are to be admired and emulated.

Traditionally, our nation has been a nation of immigrants who come here expecting nothing other than to be rewarded for their hard work and not be judged based on their race or class, and traditionally our nation has been a nation built on rule of law, not rule of strong men ruling by decree. These traditions are also under attack by those who immigrated here expecting others to work hard for their benefit, and rule of law is slipping badly in our nation.

One other great tradition that America was firmly built on is Christianity. This Christian spirit animated our nation and our nation's leaders from the beginning to today, and is firmly a part of our character. While other Christian nations around the world have had slipping church attendance and little vigorous debate on the nature of God and God's Word, in our nation many still go to church and healthy and moral debates continue to be engaged on the nature of God.

This traditional Christian character of our nation is an important part of our tradition, and has been enshrined in our Pledge of Allegiance, which we all know and say from birth as:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

But this tradition is under attack as well, by well meaning individuals who believe that out nation will be improved or strengthened in some manner if God is driven underground and killed. They object to saying the pledge, usually by hiding behind nameless others who might possibly be offended by saying that the United States of America was founded and remains as one nation under God. They seek to remove the words 'under God', believing that it is possible to pick and choose what parts of America they like and support. Today they remove the phrase 'under God', but it has always been my fear that once that phrase is permitted to be removed, others will soon follow, and our traditions will be torn asunder and our foundations as a nation will shatter and we will fail.

Sadly, this is what is now happening. The election of Barack Obama was a bad gamble that our nation took, a leap of faith on someone who did not earn it, and the empowering of the liberal wing of his party, a Democratic Party that has moved far away from most people, further took our nation down a path of failed ideas and rejection of traditions. On Sunday, while many people sat down on a great Father's Day to watch the U.S. Open Golf Championship, they saw how far our nation has gone down this path when one of the major networks altered our nation's Pledge.

NBC on Sunday decided to cut the words "under God" from the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance that accompanied the beginning of its coverage of the U.S. Open Golf Championship. Seconds after that, there was another reading of the Pledge, and this time, in addition to cutting out the words 'under God', NBC went further and cut out the words 'one nation' as well, dishonoring all of the thousands of dead who fought to keep our nation one nation during the US Civil War. Watch the video yourself.

NBC later issued an apology, but I wonder, what is next for the liberals who run NBC, who support Barack Obama, and support the liberal radical left of the modern day Democratic Party? Will they next drop out the words 'with liberty', since they don't believe that I truly have the liberty to run my own life however I want and need to be ruled over by elites in Washington? Will they drop out 'to the republic', or maybe alter it 'to the democracy', thereby changing our nation from a nation of laws into one where strong men can do what they do and the rest of us must suffer under their tyranny? What is next for our nation, if the traditions of our nations can be so casually rejected by a major network?

For your classroom, think about getting one of these posters- I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the USA - Classroom Motivational Poster or I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America - Classroom Motivational Poster.

Why America Declines and the 2012 Decision

Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article last week that was powerful and insightful called America in Decline? I have pondered on it over the last couple days, and think that the most important piece of the article was the reasons why America is declining and whether or not this will continue. Read the whole article, but here is the part to ponder the most:

Consider the following areas in which America is said to be in trouble, but in fact could easily surmount the present difficulties.

Debt. In 1999 Americans worried about the specter of paying off the debt and transmogrifying to creditor status. There are trillions of dollars produced annually in this country; it is a matter of redirecting the economy from consumption to savings, and to wealth creation from redistribution. The years 2004-2005 seemed bountiful when the federal budget was a mere $2.3 trillion. Go back to those spending levels and the administration could more or less balance the budget. If we had a leader willing to cut expenditures and ignore the furor, we could pile up surpluses rather quickly. The present fiscal policy is a choice to embrace redistribution and decline, not a result of innate unproductivity, resource depletion, strikes, and factional strife.

Energy. Known reserves of natural gas just keep getting larger. The amount of oil in the Dakotas, in Texas, in Alaska, and offshore climbs too, even as cars are getting more efficient and new hybrids become more practical. There is enough natural gas (and its derivatives) to quite easily power a quarter of our fleet for a century or more. Should Americans have a president who wished to drill, utilize natural gas as a transportation fuel, and downplay subsidizing "millions of green jobs," the nation could do wonders on the energy front. Each barrel produced here rather than imported from Saudi Arabia means more money, more jobs, and enhanced national security. Asking other governments to pump more oil, whether Brazil or Saudi Arabia, even as we insist that drilling and supply have no effect on prices, shows that Americans prefer to become more indebted and dependent. Again, that is a choice, not a fate.

National security. Despite all the talk of al Qaeda, the Bush anti-terrorism protocols—derided and then embraced and expanded by Obama—coupled with the terrible toll we took on Islamists in Anbar, Iraq, and in Afghanistan, have meant that radical Islam is far weaker than it was in 2001, and we far stronger. Osama bin Laden is now dead; and his organization in disarray. We are still spending less than 5 percent of GDP on defense. If we were to develop a strategic, consistent policy of bestowing our alliances and friendship on those who shared either our values or our notion of security, we could easily regain our strategic preeminence, rather than "leading from behind."

Immigration. Close the border, before addressing other immigration issues. We should institutionalize employer fines, finish the fence—and predicate legal entry into the US not on race, nearness to the border, or the number of relatives in America, but on skills and capital. America would experience a renaissance if it were to end 500,000 illegal entries and replace them with 250,000 legal entries based on education and expertise, not national origin, proximity, or family connection. Immigration could be one of our greatest strengths, rather than a continual effort to bolster political constituencies. Apparently, self-supporting, highly educated, confident immigrants from all regions of the globe are not this administration’s natural constituents, and therefore of no value politically.

Entitlements. Whether we adopt the Simpson-Bowles commission’s analysis, raise the retirement age, or follow Rep. Paul Ryan’s recommendations, there is a little discussed truth: with reasonable reforms, we can make Social Security solvent and still support retired citizens in finer fashion than was true ten years ago. Borrowing to spend is a mood, a state of mind, not a death sentence.

Victor Davis Hanson may be an expert with a slew of degrees and be a member of the Hoover institution, but you don't have be a genius to see his point- that policies that liberals, Democrats, progressives, 'moderate' Republicans, and others are pushing on debt, energy, national security, immigration, and entitlements are bad DECISIONS- they are policies that are based on false assumptions regarding human nature and the role or abilities of government and they are policies based on theories of economics (Keynesian) or the environment (AGW) that are unproven at best and dangerous at worst.

But these policies had real effects, bad effects that have weakened our nation and moved us closer to tyranny and father from liberty and freedom. The road to bad policies are always paved with good intentions, so those who are pushing these policies are not bad people and those who are opposing these policies are not necessarily good people- but the point remains that society is not advanced when power and authority and responsibility is moved away from people to a far-distant bureaucrat who is given wealth and sustenance by taking it from the labor of others through taxes or fees or whatever.

But these policies can be reversed by other policies, policies that emphasize life, liberty, and the protection of property. These sort of policies are usually pushed for by Republicans, particularly libertarian and conservative members of the Republican Party, who are aided and supported by other Republicans and moderate or conservative Democrats. It is to the Tea Party or right wing of the Republican Party that our nation must look to for leadership, to their policies, however imperfect they are, to overturn the bad policies of the past.

On debt, energy, national security, immigration, and entitlements, the Democratic Party is pushing for the wrong policies and the Republican Party is pushing for the right (or the less-wrong at least) policies.

Read the whole article- it is very good, and I have only touched on a portion of it.

Obama is Dukakis: The Data Supports My Instincts?

In recent months, Obama has been compared to the likes of Jimmy Carter (recent Democrat who lectured to us as our nation dropped into malaise and high interest rates), Herbert Hoover (progressive Republican who thought active government and debts would stop a recession), and Woodrow Wilson (progressive Democrat professor who lectured to nation and strengthened unions while nation went into recession). These are all fair comparisons and each has its merits, but for some time now, I keep coming back to the idea that Barack Obama's Presidency is in reality a Michael Dukakis Presidency.

In Whatever Happened to the Massachusetts Miracle? I first wandered my way on to this idea when I realized that soon after Democratic Presidential-nominee Dukakis lost in 1988, the so-called 'Massachusetts Miracle' of prosperity also went bust, and his high-regulation, managed-growth, high-taxes, generous-welfare policies left a state that was mired deeply in debt, facing budget shortfalls, and not growing.

As the years have gone on, it has become increasing clear that Obama is Dukakis, as was written in my post Obama is Dukakis?:

...Both creatures of the liberal Northeast and of Harvard, with no sense at all of most of the rest of the country; both rationalists who impose legalistic criteria on emotion-rich subjects; both with fixed ideas of who society’s victims are, which do not accord with the views of the public; and both with a tin ear for the culture and a genius for creating wedge issues that split their own party...

In that post, I was highly critical of John McCain's campaign, which failed to capitalize on all of the weaknesses that Obama brought as a candidate, and contrasted it with George H.W. Bush, who was able to capitalize on all the weaknesses that Dukakis brought as a candidate:

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

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

So, I guess we have whoever ran GWB's campaign in 1988 to thank from saving us from the mess that we find ourselves in today, and we have whoever ran JSM's campaign in 2008 to thank for us finding ourselves in the mess that we are in today (may that person be smacked around by milk jugs)...

Months after I wrote these posts, it turns out that Dukakis actually visited the White House to give Obama advice- it was written in my post Dukakis Gives Advice to Obama: Obama Gets it?:

...Former Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis, the failed 1988 presidential nominee, recently visited the White House and delivered his strategy for the midterm elections: pound key precincts across the country with the message that Republicans want to implement the same policies that led to the Great Recession. Asked if the White House aides were receptive, he said, "I think they certainly get it." He declined to name the aides he met at the White House...

...Obama gets it- the Democrats in general are now all running on the 'blame Bush' strategy, even though they controlled (House for 4 years and Senate for over 6) and the White House for (3)....

Apparently, as usual, my instincts were right, because today my favorite numbers guy Jay Cost broke down the latest polling data, and Obama does not track like Clinton or Carter, but tracks most closely to Michael Dukakis:

...Accordingly, I think that at this point the Democrat that Obama most closely resembles is Michael Dukakis. To appreciate what I mean, let’s compare Obama’s current standing among different political groups with the 1988 exit poll results.

(see graph)

These are some very eerie similarities – Dukakis, unlike Carter, was able to hold together his party coalition. He lost the 1988 election because Republicans were firmly united behind George Bush, and independents broke decisively toward the GOP.

This is roughly how the current political landscape appears, which leads me to conclude if the election were held today, and the GOP nominated a reasonably attractive candidate, Obama would do about as well in the popular vote as Dukakis did. Given the geographical polarization of the electorate (i.e. the red state-blue state divide), Obama would surely capture more than the 111 electoral votes Dukakis carried. Even so, it would be a sizeable Republican victory. Not quite as smashing as Reagan’s victory in 1980, but still substantial.

Moving forward, I think that is the best way to compare Obama. Not so much to Carter, who was hampered by internal divisions that did not plague Obama, but more to Dukakis, whose final vote share is roughly consistent with Obama’s job approval rating over the last 18 months.

This is all good news- not good news that Democratic policies are destroying our nation, but good that we have been shown the way in the past by hard-campaigner George HW Bush how to defeat someone like Dukakis/Obama (new nickname for the list- Duke Bama?). One can only hope that the next Republican nominee will follow the path and defeat Obama, whether it is an establishment moderate like Romney or an outsider conservative like Bachman.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever read anything Dukakis has written? Leader-Manager in the Public Sector: Managing for Results or Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story.

Modern Democratic Party Betrays Progress By Promoting Policies of the Past

Modern day Democrats talk often about 'progress'. If you listen to your Democratic Congressman or Senator or President talk, they'll mention how they want to move society forward, advance the ball, create or grow jobs through government spending, or in some way improve humanity by using the power of the state to hammer the backward among us into the future. Liberal blogs support Democrats by arguing and mocking conservatives and Republicans as 'backwards' and falling behind an advancing liberal society.

But the truth of the matter is that the modern day Democratic Party has betrayed the ideal of 'progress' by promoting policies of the past, policies that lock in jobs and classes and innovations and ideas of the past and act as a barrier to human progress.

President Obama demonstrated this lately when he lamented that the worsening economy isn’t his fault because of things like ATM machines and airport kiosks. He said:

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

The modern day Democratic Party does not support or favor any sort of structural changes in America- they don't want America to progress in any sort of way, and this statement says just that- Obama is upset that the vision that he has of the past when he was growing up, a vision of no ATM's and bank tellers patiently waiting in the bank and long lines at the airport waiting for agents to help customers, is no longer the reality of the present and will not be the reality of the future.

Rather than embracing this change, Obama and the modern day Democrats fight against it. They think that they see these changes leading to lost jobs (even though the evidence is that there are more bank tellers than there were in the past), but what they fail to see how this progress has made the People better. By by replacing expensive bank tellers and customer service agents with cheaper automated efficient ATMS and kiosks, banks can now charge lower fees and even have free checking, and airports can lower prices for airline tickets and continue to provide quality service. The People benefit, notably the poor, by these advances in technology and innovation. It is real change, the kind that we all hoped for when Obama was elected, the kind of change and progress that defined a nation that grew from rural settlements clinging to the east coast to a superpower.

But the modern day Democratic Party doesn't like this change- they want to lock in the classes, structures, jobs, technology, and modes of travel that they know and understand and think that they can control.

In my post Nuclear Power and Manned Space Flight: Victims of Democrat's Progress Backwards? I started to advance this meme when I wrote:

America instead is collapsing on the weight of promises made to generations past, ruled over by elitist politicians who seek only to control us, and everyday our nation moves farther away from living a prosperous life in the stars in freedom and liberty, however preposterous or unlikely that future may have been.

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

Man once walked on the moon! Nuclear power plants were once built! Say it- and then realize that these are events of the past- that the new normal and likely new future of America and the world is a long, slow slide backwards into tyranny, injustice, and confiscation of property by elites.

The modern day Democratic Party, including my Congressman Gary Peters and my Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin and my President Barack Obama, push through legislation, appointments, and executive orders energy policies that attempt to lock in the 1970's. Excessive regulations and cancelling of the Yucca Mountain project ensure that our nation will have the same number of nuclear power plants as the 1970's. Through regulations and taxes and fees they have prevented or delayed or made more expensive the building new refineries, drilling for oil, or developing new natural resources.

Modern day Democrats talk about putting in place policies that push us to walk or travel by bus or train- methods of transportation that have long since been surpassed by automobiles and airplanes, although because automobiles travel on government-built roads and because air travel is increasingly regulated by the government, both of these modes of transportation are less dynamic and innovative and efficient than they could be if Americans were as free as they could be.

None of this should be a surprise to voters, and yet it seems to be. When Obama gave a major speech on energy when he was running for President in 2008, I wrote:

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

Democrats are about locking in the class system that we currently had and are all about fighting any change to it. That's why they bail out banks and automotive companies- it has little to do with saving jobs and everything to do with saving jobs from people who they are friends with and who donate money to them. Democrats are all about taxing the rich, because they know that the super rich will be able to hide their money in offshore accounts or deduct it through hidden tax code provisions, but yet the upper middle class won't be able to dodge these taxes and will be forced to pay them and will sink into the lower classes which are so dependent on government help. Democrats are all about regulations and licensing and provisions and rules, all of which by their costs and difficulty in implementing help existing firms and companies, especially those large ones that are able to lobby government for waivers, but yet hurt new firms and businesses, especially small ones, who are not able to get past the barriers that the government erects to challenge the existing businesses and by so doing change our nation for the better.

While Obama might talk about how ATMs and kiosks are costing jobs, what he really is lamenting is that his vision of the past is being destroyed by advances that he didn't see coming and doesn't fully understand how to control- he is upset that his vision of the past is no longer the present now that we have had real progress in spite of Democrats efforts.

Humanity is amazing, and can remake the world in amazing ways when unleashed and freed from the bonds of government and the state through limited government, rule of law, protection of property, low taxes, low regulation, and conservative principles.

But modern day Democrats have betrayed the ideas of 'progress' and instead are now only interested in putting place policies that lock in the past.

GOP Still Believes in America, Obama and Democrats Think 5% Growth is Ridiculous

Via The Daily Caller:

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty turned out a blockbuster economic growth plan this past week, including deep cuts in taxes, spending, and regulations. It’s really the first Reaganesque supply-side growth plan from any of the GOP presidential contenders. And he caps it all off with a defense of optimism as he charges ahead with a national economic growth goal of 5 percent.

That’s right: 5 percent.

Pawlenty calls this target aspirational. Okay, fine. But deeper down, he’s basically saying no to the declinists and pessimists who seem to populate the economic landscape these days. Big government doesn’t work. Let’s try something different.

Ronald Reagan always believed that America is exceptional. By removing obstacles to growth, the Gipper held that economic policies could unleash a massive outpouring of risk-taking, creativity, and entrepreneurship. He was right, and his policies launched a two-decade-long boom.

Actually, the first couple years of the Reagan recovery came in at over 7 percent. And as Pawlenty noted in his speech at the University of Chicago this week, between 1983 and 1987, the economy grew at 4.9 percent annually. I note that President John F. Kennedy also had a 5 percent growth target, a response to Ike’s three recessions.

...those on the left criticize Pawlenty...

Whether Pawlenty's goal is realistic or not is not the point- rather it is the Democratic liberal establishment's response to it. Rather than hope and change and pushing back the tide and restoring America's prosperity and believing in and pushing for and working for jobs and a great economy, liberals and Democrats, whether they are in Congress or in the White House or in the media, now simply laugh at and scoff and ridicule anyone who believes such things.

IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR? A party that's first and biggest and lasting impression of someone saying that our economy can grow again is to laugh, scoff, deny, and offer reason after reason why you won't get a job, why you won't get a raise, why your children will owe more in debts, why America will get weaker, etc- the new normal of Obama and the Democrats will be a lesser nation, one that you better get used to and expect won't improve.

The very possibility that America could rise again after the destruction that the Democrats and Obama has driven into the very foundations of America inspired the White House to reply:

With regards to 5 percent growth, we couldn’t agree more; that would be very beneficial to the economy. We think providing expansive tax cuts to the wealthy — which we did in the last term and added tremendously to our debt and resulted in this President inheriting a massive deficit and debt in 2009 — probably not the best approach.

This comment filled with snark and sarcasm and divisiveness and bitterness is what we all can now expect from Obama and an Executive Branch controlled by the Democrats. He didn't say 'That's great, how can we work together and find common ground to achieve not only 5% growth but 6% growth', but rather the reply was mocking, empty rhetoric on class warfare, and transferring blame.

Firedoglake, which Obama reads and quotes from and believes in, called Pawlenty's plan a "Unicorn and Pony Economic Plan", and suggested that it is now a 'fantasy' for America to grow again at 5% and that merely suggesting that America can be a prosperous, free, and strong nation is ridiculous.

Michael Ettlinger of the liberal Center for American Progress said, "It's patently ridiculous... it's not worth serious discussion. ... No one serious thinks that's possible."

This quote illustrates the difference between the right (conservatives, tea partiers, libertarians, moderates) and the left (liberals, communists, socialists, fascists)- the right still thinks that unleashing human liberty and freedom through private property protection, limited government, rule of law, and a love of human life will lead our nation to high GDP growth rates, and the left does not. The left believes that it is no longer even possible for America to grow, and that the ruling classes need to lock in social and economic classes through regulation, government control, and excessive taxes so that the rich can grow richer and the poor can grow poorer.

It is shocking that Obama and the Democrats believe that it isn't even possible for the United States to have a 5% GDP growth rate. According to the CIA, many nations grew faster than 5% last year- Qatar grew at 16.272%, Paraguay at 15.270, Singapore at 14.471, India at 10.365, Turkmenistan at 9.222, Argentina at 9.161, Peru at 8.795, Botswana at 8.562, Nigeria at 8.394, Sweden at 5.536, or Mexico at 5.518.

In fact, out of 184 nations listed, 68 of them grew at a rate of 5% or faster last year- and yet Obama and the Democrats think that this is impossible for the United States to do, and they believe that we've turned it around and that Americans should be happy with a growth rate of 2.834% for 2009, which makes our nation the 117th fastest growing economy in the age of Obama.

Our economy that Obama and his liberal Democrat allies thinks it is impossible and silly and just wrong for our economy to grow faster than 5%, and their policies are doing just this- high taxes, high fees, increased regulation, increased government control over society, more bureaucrats, breaking the rule of law, excessive environmental regulations, rhetorical attacks on business and investment and success and industry, policies that attack our energy industry, policies that break the law white hindering our nuclear industry, and massive stimulus and spending bills that mis-allocate resources.

Republicans offer an alternative- they still believe in America, they still believe in the dream of a growing economy, and they still think that 5% growth rate is possible. Vote for them next election.

Picture of Obama and Weiner Together

One of the biggest fallacies of liberals is that that believe that they can control your behavior when in reality they have trouble even controlling themselves. They preach about greedy rich and then once elected President eat Kobe beef and play golf. They talk about having a low environmental impact while flying around the globe burning lots of jet fuel. And they work to put together legislation controlling banks and corporations while tweeting lewd pictures of themselves to women who didn't ask for those pictures.

From Barack Obama to Anthony Weiner, modern day liberals are failing to control themselves and by doing so demonstrating that they shouldn't be the ones who are controlling me.

Pictured in the photo we can see President Barack Obama talking policy or tweeting or whatever with, from left to right, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, Rep. Jim Himes, D-Greenwich, and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on Air Force One on the flight from JFK to Andrews Air Force Base, Monday, Sept. 14, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).

The Story of a Bear named 'Bearack Obama' and How Liberal Policies Are Affecting His Brother Bears Too

Apparently the Great Recession of Obama is impacting animal life too- much like the people of the Michigan's Upper Peninsula who have had their jobs and industries destroyed by liberal policies, black bears are also having trouble making ends meet and have been forced to migrate south to the lower Peninsula in search of food.

Another factor that is driving more black bears into urban areas is global warming- when the hoax didn't pan out and the climate instead got colder, black bears were forced to move to warmer climates in the southern parts of Michigan.

These bears are yet more evidence of the destructive policies of the Obama administration. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there are even reports of a black bear that has recently taken to sitting every day at the picnic table, apparently waiting to be fed. He also has refused to dig out his own winter den, forcing government employees to do so.

Although the bear once was self-sufficient, he now begs for a handout every day from our generous government, who provides him with food and a home because those rich fat cats who make a profit deserve to suffer or something or other.  Because the bear was once a healthy and prosperous bear but now is just a lazy welfare case of a bear, the local residents have taken to calling him Bearack Obama.

True story.

UPDATE: This story has renewed interest in a possible Bear Czar, who would be in charge of providing for and supervising the feeding and housing of the bear necessities. If so, I'd be curious about his stance on the second amendment- one can only hope that this Bear Czar does not work to take away our right to bear arms. Stay tuned here for more.

UPDATE II: For the record, black bears are the best. Fact: Bears eat beets. Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.

Predictions of the Future from Doug Casey

One of my sister's passed an article on to me where Doug Casey, a highly respected author, publisher and professional investor, predicts three possible futures. These futures are of what the world will look like 20 years from today (2031). Casey bases his projections on facts, research, and sound analysis, and while all three are possible and I encourage you to read the entire article, the second one to me is the most plausible and likely and so it is only that one which I will excerpt below:

MIDDLE CASE – FACTS ARE IGNORED
The world’s governments continue under the delusion that printing massive quantities of paper money will solve problems when, in fact, printing lies at the base of the problems. Most currencies lose most of their value. Some lose it all. This destroys the most productive people in society, the middle class, who produce more than they consume and save the difference... in currency.

And it injures successful corporations that have billions, or even tens of billions, in cash. Few of their managers know what to do with such sums other than to hold currency; at best they’ll buy their own and other companies' stock. The result is a stock market boom in the midst of a grim depression. But only one person in a hundred will be in a position to benefit from it, because most will be living too close to the edge, and the stock market will be the last thing on their minds. The destruction of capital sets technology back quite a bit in the U.S., Japan and Europe. Chindia increases its relative strength.

The U.S. government, believing it has both the obligation and the ability to “do something,” redoubles its control of the economy. Price controls and capital controls are the order of the day. Petroleum products are rationed. Enforcement of new regulations is assigned to a new agency, the “Economic Recovery Administration,” which resembles the TSA in most regards – except it has many plain-clothes employees, to better ferret out violators.

People think increasingly of politics as the way to get what they want. More and more Americans move abroad – although things are deteriorating in most places in the world. Poor, backwater countries offer the best opportunities because their governments are either weak, or corrupt, enough to allow new economic activity.

Again, I highly encourage you to read the entire article, which lays out the methodology and background and reasoning behind the predictions and also lays out the other possible futures.

Doug Casey has written The International Man: The Complete Guidebook to the World's Last Frontiers. For Freedom Seekers, Investors, Adventurers, Speculators, and Expatriates and Lies, damn lies & dirty lies: How to get rich by understanding big government & the media.

Democrats Energy Policies Continue their Assault on Wealth and Jobs

From Powerlineblog:

The Obama administration's energy policies have been a disaster, assuming that American decline is not your objective. We have written many times about the administration's efforts to suppress development of our oil resources, but coal is equally important. The United States is blessed with extraordinary deposits of coal, but Obama is determined to prevent us from using it to generate cheap and plentiful electricity. Obama wasn't kidding when he said, as a candidate, that his policies would cause electricity prices to "skyrocket."

U.S. News reports that Obama's EPA is promulgating regulations that will cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs:

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group. ...

Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.

That was yesterday. Today, American Electric Power announced that it will close down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions to comply with the EPA's proposed regulations:

Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations. ...

The company, one of the country's largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.

The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.

Of course, the administration is trying to block development of natural gas, too. Of all of the Obama administration's perverse economic policies, its anti-energy agenda is most likely to make Obama a one-term president.

Our economy is struggling for a reason- Democrats and their policies are crushing human liberty and freedom, attacking wealth and wealth creation, freezing in social and economic structures, limiting mobility and change, and disincentivizing economic growth. Their policies are quite clear- these energy policies are a great example of how Democrats are increasing 'safety' or 'environmental' regulations that will drive US companies under, kill jobs, and drive business to other nations which have lower standards (thereby causing more harm to people or the environment), resulting in a net loss for society and America. Similar policies are found in healthcare, defense, education, etc. Although Republicans are not perfect- in fact, they are far from it because they are not conservative or libertarian enough- they are usually the better alternative to Democrats in the 2012 election, in Congress, for President, and at state levels.

UPDATE: My buddy conservativesonfire asked "Where is the outrage, CT. Dose nobody pay attention to what is happening and what it will mean?"

The Cloward–Piven strategy and Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals both teach that change should not come slowly to America and should not come in measured amounts that are brought before the light- rather, Obama and the Democrats believe that change should be rapid, hidden, and such an overwhelming onslaught of liberal policies that one blends into another in a sort of rapid-fire radical agenda that shocks and awes all opposition and collapses resistance to its agenda. Obama typically drops the worst policies on Friday, when the media doesn't cover them, and by Monday, there is yet another crisis or bad policy or scandal to distract America from the radical agenda of Obama and his Democratic allies.

Picture: The Result of Obama's Economic Policies

The graph demonstrates that Obama's economic policies, notably his massive stimulus spending bill and his other spending programs, have made our economy worse than even his worse-case projection said it would be. Let's buy the argument that Bush left Obama with a train-wreck of an economy- in that case, not only did Obama not 'fix' Bush's flaws (bottom graph), not only did he simply hold status quo from the 'awful' economy that Bush left him (the middle graph), but rather, Obama messed up our economy even worse (the more accurate top graph, which I still think understates how bad the economy is).

In fact, look at the data more closely- under Bush, the unemployment rate was in the mid 7's and projected to go as high as 9. But the introduction of the variable of 'President Barack Obama' pushed those numbers as high as the mid 10's- and locked in a 'new normal' of 9% unemployment.

Is that what all you Democrat and liberal voters voted for in 2008? A new normal of 9% unemployment??? Or is it 'Bush's fault' that the new normal of 9% unemployment is locked in in 2011, even though Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008? Both Reagan and W Bush were able to shorten the recessions that Democrats left them and return our nation back to prosperity quicker than Obama- perhaps Obama isn't the right guy for the job.

Look, Obama is a bad President, and likely will go down as one of the worst in our nation's history because of the damage that is doing to our nation in many ways. I suspect that Hillary Clinton would have been a lot better, and I know John McCain would have been better too- of course we would have had a recession, but it would have likely just been the middle line, and our nation would be on the road to a recovery now instead of on its way to a 'new normal', or worse, a double-dip recession bordering on a great depression due to Obama and the Democrats policies, which attack human freedom, liberty, dignity, and prosperity.

One thing that I do know- it does not matter who the Republicans nominate in 2012, they will be better for everyone in our nation than Obama is, even if they do nothing (the middle line, which is better than Obama's 'doing something). Romney, Perry, Palin, or Pawlenty- all are much better, and I'm surprised that the Democrats are sticking with Obama since he has been such an obvious failure.