Hello John Holdren, Science Czar, believer in the Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes, and Tyrant

Today let's learn about our Science Czar, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren.

As the United States of America continues its descent under President Obama and his New Democrat Party into a third-world dictatorship, I still find myself unfamiliar with the overlords who now control my behavior and distribute to me gifts and favors. Oh, I know who is elected into office, and being a teacher of this sort of stuff I understand the bureaucracy and how it works. But who the heck is John Holdren, what role does he play in our political system, how did he get that role, and what sort of a person is he to be controlling me?

It's tough to keep all these czars straight, you know, since under Obamathe number of unelected, unconfirmed offices who go by the old imperial Russian title of Czar has gone up quite a bit (although to be fair, the number of people who have been considered czars under Obama is still just under the number of people who were considered czars under Bush, a two-term President roundly criticized by both the right and left as being undemocratic and statist). Still, I'm determined to get to know all of them- from Kenneth Feinberg, Head of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront and Pay Czar who although being a long-time Democratic operative and chief of staff for Democratic Senator Kennedy was put in charge of determining how much CEO's should be paid in once-free America, to Gary Samore, former US Communist party member and current WMD Policy Czar, to Ed Montgomery, auto-worker czar and distributor of gifts and favors.

It's going to be important for all of us to become more familiar with how things work in America now- after the change- we'll need to know how to curry favor with royal envoys, how to avoid being intimidated and bullied by bowing low and saying the right things, and how to bow get gifts from to our new overlords, who now tour around the land giving gifts to favored people.

So today let's get to know a little bit better our Science Czar, John Holdren. From Who Runs Gov:

Holdren is a powerhouse in the world of science and public policy. As director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), he is the top adviser to President Barack Obama on science and technology, issues that are increasingly relevant to homeland security, energy and the environment. Holdren casts all of the above as priorities.

He also leads interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets, and works with the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher education communities, and other nations to advance his policy initiatives.

Although a lot of conservatives may focus on other aspects of John Holdren- for example, in a book he published in 1977, he wrote about and appeared to be supportive of forced abortions, mass sterilization, a "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens, populations that would be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food, and other similarly frightening ideas. This research is important and should be realized, but I want to focus instead on another aspect of Holdren- his belief in a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite that will forcibly transfer wealth for some reason or another.

Holdren is a believer in the so-called Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes. This theory is that all left wing causes- including global warming, global cooling, overpopulation, endangered species, poverty, diversity, and many others- can all be solved by a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite that will force others to live their lives differently and will redistribute their property as they see fit.

Basically, Holdren is a run-of-the-mill tyranny supporter, and was appointed to his position by tyrant-in-chief President Barack Obama, and he is to be opposed by all freedom and liberty loving patriots out there.

The worst part about Holdren, aside from the fact that he seizes on the left wing cause of the day to push his tyrannical beliefs, is that his ideas and theories about everything are wrong. From Forbes:

....In keeping with his dogmatic limits-to-growth convictions, Holdren joined his frequent co-author, eco-doomster Paul Ehrlich, in a famous bet against cornucopian economist Julian Simon. In 1980, Holdren, Ehrlich and Stanford colleague John Harte picked a basket of five commodities--chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten--that they were sure were going to rise in price as they became increasingly scarce. They drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Holdren, Ehrlich and Harte the same quantities of five metals that could be purchased for $1,000 10 years later at 1980 prices.

If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990. Simply put, the combined real prices of the metals selected by Holdren and his colleagues fell by more than 50% during the 1980s, confirming cornucopian claims that the supply of resources over time becomes more abundant, not scarcer.....

...Holdren introduced in 1971--with his colleague and perennial population-alarmist, Ehrlich--the concept of the I=PAT identity. Human Impact on the environment is equal to Population x Affluence/consumption x Technology. All of which are supposed to intensify and worsen humanity's impact on the natural world.

History shows that the I=PAT identity largely gets it backward. Population is at worst neutral, while affluence and technology actually promote environmental flourishing. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams cleaner and the forests more expansive....

...Holdren doesn't appear to have an adequate understanding of the economic process through which these technological advances are achieved. He seems to think new technologies arise full-blown from government agencies and university laboratories....

This is the general flaw to the Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes- that bureaucrats like Holdren know what they are doing and if they are given more power over others- power that those free people once exercised- and are given more resources- resources taken from the labor of once-free people- that these bureaucrats will make the world a better place for us all to live- a more prosperous, free, and happy place. It turns out though that he is wrong in almost all of his theories- from bets he placed to equations he invented to his general understanding of economics. He is a failed person- perhaps no more failed than the rest of us, but yet given more power and authority and wealth over the rest of us by a government not in any way empowered to do so.

People are not completely 'benelevent', and neither are the governments they create, and there are no 'enlightened' people in charge of our government today, either Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative. Whatever the cause that you believe in or support, the answer is never the Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes, and yet the Obama administration has appointed as Science Czar one of the greatest believers in this theory- a guy who is supposed to be a scientist actually at his heart a firm believer in a theory that is demonstratively wrong.

John Holdren is yet another example of a failed administration based on failed theories and ideas putting in placed failed administrators who implement failed policies- and we can see the results of this failure in America today.

Obama Official- We're Gonna Redistribute Wealth Even Knowing We're Not Allowed To

Today I'd like to draw your attention to a recent story that appeared in The Hill and talk about several of the alarming aspects of this story and what it says about the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party which supports this administration, and the people in our nation who continue to support Obama's policies.

The opening line of the story is this:

President Obama’s education reform efforts will address growing income inequality in the U.S., Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said Wednesday..

The United States Congress is empowered by the Constitution of the United States to regulate commerce, levy taxes, provide for the general welfare, and a range of other powers- but no where is the national government of the United States of America given the power to 'address income inequality in the U.S'. Oh, I know that addressing income inequality has been an issue in our nation for years- but even liberals used to argue that the reason for progressive taxation was that the 'rich' used the services of the U.S more and so should pay a larger percentage of their income or that anti-poverty programs were simply a helping hand up- never in our nation's history has an administration openly pushed for policies designed to simply take wealth from one group and give it to another group.

And the worst part about this administration's push for income redistribution is that it knows that the Constitution does not give this power to our federal government- or more specifically, Obama and his cronies know that it is not one of the enumerated powers given to Congress in Article I and there is no way that policies designed to redistribute wealth are necessary and proper for helping Congress to do its other enumerated powers. They know that what they are doing is unconstitutional and not allowed in our government- but being the tyrannical thugs they are they are going to do it anyway

Duncan’s comments are part of an effort by the administration to call attention to efforts by the president to take actions on the economy that do not require legislation from Congress.

Did you all catch that? The administration is going to purposefully make laws and policies from the executive branch, knowing that these laws and policies would not and could not and should not be passed by the branch of government in our nation given the authority and power to make those laws and policies. This is wrong and contrary to the way that a free and limited government of free men is supposed to be run.

Congress needs to immediately defund any agency or department or official who begins to exercise arbitrary power in our nation and act in a way that is unconstitutional and contrary to the law. Obama's czars and administration are setting down precedents that I don't want anyone to follow, from either party- that executive officials are and should be putting in place policies that our elected officials don't want and putting in place policies that are not authorized by our governing documents.

And the Supreme Court needs to step in and defend the founding principles our which our nation was based- separation of powers and checks and balances. Actions of the executive branch can also be checked by judicial review- and if Congress has not provided for authorization and funds for the Department of Education to engage in a policy of wealth redistribution through its college loan program (which was recently nationalized by the federal government), then any policies that the DOE acts on are unconstitutional and should be rejected and declared null and void.

Obama, his administration, his officials, his party, and anyone who supports him is destroying our Republic through actions such as these, and our nation needs to act swiftly and quickly or we will no longer be living in a nation where people's life, liberty, and property is protected by an impartial government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Instead, we'll be living in a tyranny, where people can be killed, their decisions and choices taken from them, and their property redistributed by unelected officials who do this because- to quote Obama- they can and they won.

Don't Blame Yourself for Voting for Obama in '08- Just Don't Do It in '12

Today as I drove home I saw a bumper sticker on the car in front of me that read "Don't Blame Me- I Voted for the Other Guy". It was amusing, but got me thinking- should people be blamed for voting for Obama in 2008? The answer is no- if you or any of your family voted for President Obama in 2008, it was a mistake, but I believe it was an understandable mistake.

Let's look back on President Obama circa 2008 see just what sort of a candidate he was and what sort of campaign he ran using a great resource called Living Room Candidate. Here is how candidate Barack Obama's campaign is described there:

Barack Obama’s campaign created a number of positive ads that emphasize such words as “values” and “work,” portraying him as someone whom working-class voters can feel comfortable with. While Obama’s ads tended to be more positive in tone than McCain’s, there were also a large number of attack ads. Just as President Clinton’s 1996 ads linked Bob Dole with Newt Gingrich, nearly all of Obama’s attack ads linked John McCain with President Bush, whose approval ratings are extremely low. By linking McCain to Bush, the Obama campaign successfully undercut McCain’s image as an independent maverick.

In advertisement after advertisement in 2008, Barack Obama pounded a steady theme- that he was an agent of change that would bring our nation back towards hope by rising above partisanship and embracing every good idea that was proposed. He talked about how he would pull us out of Iraq and that he would sit down an engage in smart diplomacy with our enemies. He pounded on the fact that he would be a smart and savvy leader who would have the sound judgement and wisdom to make the right decisions facing our nation. He linked his opponents in the Democratic Party and in the Republican Party to corruption and special interests and vowed that not only would he be the cleanest, least corrupt politician in the White House, that he would root out special interests and make the White House open and clean and transparent. And he promised to cut the deficit in half and leave our nation with a balanced budget. These were all great goals and promises that a lot of American people could get behind in 2008.

Watch how in this speech he hammers Congress for 'failing to ask the hard questions'- questions about why contracts were awarded to certain groups, why policies were undertaken when the nation clearly didn't have to money to engage on them, and he ripped the Congress a new one for 'giving the President open-ended authority' to make actions and spend money. Obama was right- America doesn't want a President that is unrestricted and making rules up as he goes, playing around with slush funds of cash, and using executive orders to get around the authority of Congress and the people, and he was right to hammer Congress on it.

Take a look at this speech he gave where he laid out his reasons for running for office. In it, he says that we need a new President for 3 reasons- first reason, that we need someone who can bring our nation together and rise above the divisions and partisanship that is dividing our nation, second reason, that we need someone who can 'take on the special interests and win', and third reason, 'telling the truth to the American people even when it's tough.' Back in 2008, and today too, these are good reasons to vote for him and it is understandable that people would support that.

Or watch this one, where Obama lays out the argument to vote for him in the primary in Iowa back in 2008. In it, Obama says that the reasons to vote for him is that he has a track record for reducing the power of lobbyists in DC, that he was opposed to the war in Iraq from the start and will immediately bring our troops home, that he would help out working families and raise their pay and lower the costs of healthcare, that he wouldn't push national programs in education without properly funding those programs, and that we can be 'assured' that he will be who he says he is. He pounds the point that we can trust him- that he is who he says he is and that he isn't going to change once he gets in the White House.

Don't blame yourself for voting for Obama in 2008- in campaign advertisement after campaign ad, he said the right things and talked about doing a lot of good things for our nation. It was understandable if you voted for him based on these ads, and since there was very little background or track record of him, that was pretty much all you had to go on. And McCain wasn't the best choice and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, so don't blame yourself for voting for Obama in 2008.

But look back at all that he ran on in 2008 and compare it to what the results were and who he is today. He did the opposite of everything that he said, he ruined everything he wanted to help, he has presided over divisive and protests like no other- both Tea Parties on the right and Occupiers on the left-, he has piled up debt and put in place structural deficits that will bankrupt America, he took many years to take our troops out of Iraq while expanding troops in Afghanistan and committing our military to many more countries, he has made the White House more opaque, corruption is rampant and massive contracts were awarded to companies with few questions asked- likely due to campaign donations those companies gave him personally-, he throws around his authority without limit, signs executive orders to go around Congress, has blocked fundamental and tough reforms from being put in place, has increased unemployment and the number of people on food stamps, and has made foolish decision and statement after foolish statement and decision.

Most importantly, you shouldn't blame yourself for voting for Obama in 2008 because you trusted him- but if you vote for him in 2012 everyone should blame you because you still trust him. He lied to you- he lied to all of us- he promised us things and pounded on the themes of trust and believing him him, and he did not do those things. He lied, and in 2012, America should hold him accountable for his lies, which are all public record and easily found (follow this link yourself), and he should be thrown out of office and the Republican nominee- whether it is Romney, Perry, Cain, or someone else- should be our next President of the United States.

Ron Paul- Drop Out of the Race

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) is a good Representative to the United States Congress and is a good advocate for libertarian views on public policy positions- but he should in no way be considered for the office of the President of the United States of America. This means that he should not be encouraged or supported in any effort to do so through support in straw polls, campaign donations, or nice comments online, and that he should not fan any sort of flames for a Paul Presidency by running. He should drop out of the race for the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party and not even hint or flirt about running for President again.

Ron Paul has no executive experience, and our next President of the United States should have executive experience. This does not mean that Paul doesn't have good ideas- he does have a lot of good ideas- but the proper place for a guy with lots of good ideas in our political system is in our legislative branch, not our executive branch. The President of the United States is essentially a clerk in our system, organizing and leading all the various agencies and departments and satisfying other important roles like chief of state and commander-in-chief. Even in his ability as commander-in-chief though the President is not really a man of ideas and new policies- he is the chief executive officer in charge of our military, providing direction and guidance and leadership but not really driving policies. The main job of the office is simply to oversee the whole process as something like a CEO of our government- and Ron Paul has never done this in any governmental unit, not as Director or Secretary of any agency, not as Governor, and hasn't even had any sort of leadership roles within his party that might prepare him to these tasks. He is simply unqualified to be an executive- much as our President today was, and we see the results of it now.

The President of the United States is expected to be a great communicator, decision maker, leader, and manager; all roles that Ron Paul may be good at, but are not the main reasons why his supporters like him. He can communicate- but is not renowned as a speaker or communicator, and this is something that a President must be able to do very well. President Reagan was a great communicator- President Obama, especially in the absence of his teleprompter and prepared speeches, is not (although he is a great speaker of prepared speeches), and that's why he makes a bad President and why Ron Paul would to.

The President of the United States must be a manager, presiding over the nation's day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year operations. He has to be able to oversee the vast operations of the massive government bureaucracy so that there is no corruption and misuse of funds and missions; and yet he has to be detached enough from the process to be able to see the big picture and provide clear direction and leadership to the operations of the state. Even Ron Paul supporters would be hard pressed to argue that their guy would be great at this aspect of the job- the day-to-day management of the vast enterprise of USA Inc- and yet this is a major aspect of the job of President.

Ron Paul, drop out of the race. Your supporters need to begin to look elsewhere for the next person that will lead our nation, a person who has the skills and competence and demonstrated executive experience to run the vast operations that is America. Your supporters need to begin to evaluate whether the other candidates for the job have the right skills, vision, dedication, and background to successful be a clerk, a CEO, and a manager for our nation, and thereby fill the void that is in the executive branch right now. No longer can (or should) our nation accept incompetence and inexperience masquerading as passion and ideology in the White House- no, we demand a real grown-up in this august office, one who can move the machinery of state and slowly fade back into the background while people with ideas pass laws out of the legislative branch that direct our executive and tell him which way to move the levers of the state.

Ron Paul, be a legislator, and a great one at that; but drop out of the race to be the chief executive of our nation, because it is not the right office for you, and your supporters are needed in helping choose the right person for this job.

To see other posts regarding my thoughts on Ron Paul, check out Ron Paul is Not the Future of the GOP or Abandon the Libertarian Party and 'Tea Party' and other Third Parties- Vote GOP You Fools.

UPDATE: It is amusing to get emails from so-called 'conservatives' and 'libertarians' who want Ron Paul to rule our nation as a king and use his position as executive to jam down his legislative policy on the serfs of our nation. Read Hamilton and Madison and go back and look at the Presidencies of Washington and Jefferson and Madison- they were merely clerks in our system, good managers, and good executives. So you better examine your motives for wanting Ron Paul to be President before you start emailing me- some of you are no better than Obama supporters in that you want a king to rule over us, the only difference is that the king you want is from Texas and talks a good game about libertarian and conservative values.

UPDATE II: My argument is based in part on my reading and understanding of professor Richard Neustadt's book Presidential Power, in which he examined the decision-making process at the highest levels of government. He argued that the President is actually rather weak in the U.S. government, being unable to effect significant change without the approval of the Congress, and that in practice the President must rely on a combination of personal persuasion, professional reputation "inside the Beltway", and public prestige to get things done. These very skills are ones that Paul seems to be lacking in, and thus he would make a poor President. Oh, I know he promises hope and change and speaks a good game, but we've already got a Democratic version of that in the White House, and we can see how badly it is working out, so why would we want a Libertarian or GOP version of hope-and-change-and-rhetoric?


UPDATE III: Please be sure to read my more updated post on this topic called Elect a 'Clerk' For President in 2012 and Restore Founding Father's Vision of Executive Branch? where I argue that our Founding Fathers and modern-day libertarians and Tea Partiers should be supporting a clerk, a manager, and a CEO for America Inc, and not a right-wing version of hope-and-change (like Ron Paul). Be sure to read it here!

In Praise of Justice Thomas

Clarence Thomas has long been my favorite Supreme Court Judge, and that was even before I read his amazing book. This weekend marks his 20th year on the Court, and we as a nation can only hope that he is on there for another 20 years. John Yoo wrote the following article as a tribute to him in the Wall Street Journal, and I hope you all get a chance to read it. Here it is in part...

This weekend marks the 20th anniversary of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court. In his first two decades on the bench, Justice Thomas has established himself as the original Constitution's greatest defender against elite efforts at social engineering. His stances for limited government and individual freedom make him the left's lightning rod and the tea party's intellectual godfather. And he is only halfway through the 40 years he may sit on the high court.

Justice Thomas's two decades on the bench show the simple power of ideas over the pettiness of our politics. Media and academic elites have spent the last 20 years trying to marginalize him by drawing a portrait of a man stung by his confirmation, angry at his rejection by the civil rights community, and a blind follower of fellow conservatives. But Justice Thomas has broken through this partisan fog to convince the court to adopt many of his positions, and to become a beacon to the grass-roots movement to restrain government spending and reduce the size of the welfare state.

Clarence Thomas set the table for the tea party by making originalism fashionable again. Many appointees to the court enjoy its role as arbiter of society's most divisive questions—race, abortion, religion, gay rights and national security—and show little desire to control their own power. Antonin Scalia, at best, thinks interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning is "the lesser evil," as he wrote in a 1989 law journal article, because it prevents judges from pursuing their own personal policies. Justice Thomas, however, thinks that the meaning of the Constitution held at its ratification binds the United States as a political community, and that decades of precedent must be scraped off the original Constitution like barnacles on a ship's hull....

Make sure you take a minute to read the rest and gain hope for the future of our great nation.

Official Data on Pay and Jobs Shows 2007 Peak and Steep Decline Since

The Social Security Administration just released figures taken from payroll taxes that track the number of workers in the United States and their median pay. These figures come from the Medicare tax database at the Social Security Administration, which processes every W-2 wage form. All wages, salaries, bonuses, independent contractor net income and other compensation for services subject to the Medicare tax are added up to the penny.

Since this blog deals with politics and government, I have taken the liberty of dividing the bar graph into 5 time periods based on which political party was in charge of our nation at that time. Hopefully this will add some clarity to the analysis.

From 1999 to 2001, with Democrat Bill Clinton as President and a Republican Congress, an increase in both the number of people with jobs in our nation and their median pay. That's a good thing- give credit to Clinton and the GOP Congress inspired by the 1994 conservatives for doing some right things for our economy. The imminent election of Bush in late 2000 seemed to only add to the increase in median pay.

From 2001 to 2003, with Republican George W Bush as President and a divided Congress (House was GOP, Senate was Democrat), the number of workers and their pay remained flat. This is probably where the whole 'Bush's recover was jobless' rhetoric comes from, since once a liberal gets a view in their head, facts usually can't change it later on. It isn't good, but it isn't awful either, so let's see what happened after Democrats lost the Senate and see if that changed anything regarding Bush's term.

From 2003 to 2007, with Republican George W Bush as President and a full Republican Congress, there was a dramatic increase in the number of workers in our nation and (over time) a rise in the median pay for workers as well. This is a great thing- more people with jobs and the median pay of jobs also going up means a larger tax base, more people making goods and providing services, and America is better. The key variable here appears to be less a matter of Bush and more a matter of Republicans running Congress- and those Republicans from 2003 to 2007 weren't even especially conservative, principled, or driven by any sort of Tea Party ideals, they were just sort of Democrat-lites. 2007 was the peak in our nation in both workers and median pay, so putting back in charge whatever party did so well back then seems a reasonable assumption.

From 2007 to 2009, with Republican George W Bush as President and a full Democratic Congress, there was a slight drop from 2007 to 2008, and then in 2008 the bottom just fell out on our nation and we lost a ton of workers and the median pay for those workers who were still employed plunged. The massive bailouts, TARP, and other big government programs implemented by Bush late in his administration appear to have been considerable failures. The Democrats came roaring into Congress in 2007 on a platform of change and especially in 2008 began to really pass their agenda through Congress, so I would contend that the Democrats in Congress appear to be the key to destroying jobs and pay in an economy. The imminent election of Obama in late 2000 seemed to only add to the remarkable decrease in America's jobs and pay.

From 2009 to 2010, with Democrat Barack Obama as President and a full Democratic Congress, there was a slight drop in the number of workers in our nation, but another stunning drop in media pay. This data includes massive stimulus bills and spending programs that added stunning amounts of debt. The addition of Obama to the situation appeared to lead to a considerable drop in the median pay for our nation and did not bring any more jobs. I blame the Democrats in Congress more so than him at this point.

My prediction is that we will see another dip in jobs and median pay from 2010 to 2011, all of which Democrats can be said to be responsible. And it is too early to speculate on what effect the Republican take-over of the House in 2011 did to these numbers- after all, 2011 isn't even over. To be fair though, the steep drop in pay and workers should at the very least slow with this new divided Congress, as the data seems to fairly conclusively demonstrate that the more Republicans are in charge of Congress, the more workers we have as a nation and the more they are paid.

UPDATE: One loyal reader wanted me to pass on this caveat: "we must acknowledge the overriding influences on such data of the dot.com bubble of the 1990's which made everybody look good as 2000 approached and the real estate bubble of the early 2000's which made everybody look good until the crisis beginning in 2007. Both bubbles resulted in unsustainable highs which should not be considered new standards..."

Government Spending is UP 5% So Far This Year!

According to my liberal friends, the reason why the economy is going to double-dip is because the Republicans have been cutting so much spending that it is de-stimulating the economy. Like most things liberals say, the facts don't support it- not only haven't Republicans been cutting spending they actually are spending more money. It's understandable- they only control the House- but not acceptable- by spending more money, they are sucking up resources from the private sector and distorting our market system with their inefficient use of resources, corrupting free choices and mis-allocating valuable monies to make our nation more and more poor and less and less free. Cut spending now!

Here is the story, via IBD:

When Republicans took control of the House in January, they pledged to make deep cuts in federal spending, and in April they succeeded in passing a bill advertised as cutting $38 billion from fiscal 2011's budget. Then in August, they pushed for a deal to cut an additional $2.4 trillion over the next decade.

Some analysts have blamed these spending cuts for this year's economic slowdown.

But data released by the Treasury Department on Friday show that, so far, there haven't been any spending cuts at all.

In fact, in the first nine months of this year, federal spending was $120 billion higher than in the same period in 2010, the data show. That's an increase of almost 5%. And deficits during this time were $23.5 billion higher. These spending hikes haven't stopped many analysts from claiming that the country is in an age of budget austerity, one that's hurting economic growth.

A July article in USA Today, for example, claimed that "Already in 2011, softer government spending has sapped growth."

Jared Bernstein, former chief economic adviser to Vice President Biden, wrote over the summer that "government spending cutbacks have been a large drag on growth in recent quarters and have led to sharp losses in state and local employment."

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argued in September that "the turn toward austerity (is) a major factor in our growth slowdown."

If government spending is related to growth, as these and others claim, then the economy presumably should be growing faster, not slower, given the current higher rates of federal outlays.

Nor does the claim that state governments sharply cut spending stand up well to closer scrutiny.

Overall state spending continued to climb right through the recession, when all money from state general funds and other funds, federal grants and state bonds is combined. Total state outlays in 2010 were almost 10% higher than in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers' annual State Expenditure Report.

And general fund spending — which makes up about 40% of total state spending — is expected to climb 5.2% in 2011 and 2.6% next year, according to the association's latest survey.

TX High School Students Made to Recite Mexican National Anthem?

Via The Blaze:

Students in a Texas public high school were made to stand up and recite the Mexican national anthem and Mexican pledge of allegiance as part of a Spanish class assignment, but the school district maintains there was nothing wrong with the lesson.

It happened last month in an intermediate Spanish class at Achieve Early College High School in McAllen, Texas — a city located about 10 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

(Related: Listen to Glenn Beck interview the father of the girl who refused to recite the pledge)

Wearing red, white and green, students had to memorize the Mexican anthem and pledge and stand up and recite them in individually in front of the class.

That didn’t go over well with sophomore Brenda Brinsdon. The 15-year-old sat down and refused to participate. She also caught it all on video.

“I just thought it was out of hand, I didn’t think it was right,” she told The Blaze. “Reciting pledges to Mexico and being loyal to it has nothing to do with learning Spanish.”

She said she was particularly offended because the presentations in teacher Reyna Santos’s class took place during “Freedom Week,” the week after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and on U.S. Constitution Day — the same day as Mexico’s Independence Day.

“Why are we doing their independence when it‘s Freedom Week and it’s also Constitution Day?” Brinsdon said.

Brinsdon said she complained to the school principal, Yvette Cavazo, who told her it was part of the curriculum and that she should participate. Her father, William, also got involved, calling the school district superintendent to complain.

When Brenda made clear she would not stand up and recite the pledge, she was given an alternative assignment: an essay on the history of the Mexican revolution.

Meanwhile, other students continued with their presentations, which took place over the course of several days.

When Brinsdon talked to Santos — a first-year teacher at Achieve — about her new assignment, the teacher told her she grew up in Mexico.

“She told me that she loved Mexico,” Brinsdon said.

School district spokesman Mark May defended the presentations, saying it’s a state requirement for upper-level language classes to teach about foreign culture.

According to the state’s Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills standards, students are expected to gain “knowledge and understanding” of other cultures and use the language to demonstrate understanding of different practices and perspectives. There are no specific requirements about learning to recite pledges or anthems.

May said it’s up to the teacher how to interpret and teach the standards.

“It wasn’t required to pledge loyalty and renounce the U.S., they were simply spreading the culture of another country,” May told The Blaze. “In my mind it’s no different from memorizing a poem or memorizing a passage from Shakespeare.”

William Brinsdon took issue with that notion, saying if that’s the case it cheapens the pledge.

“You‘re taking their allegiance and their oath from Mexico and cheapening it just as a grade or words don’t mean anything,” he said.

May reiterated that the lesson was all done within the context of meeting the state requirements, and that the school did its duty providing Brenda with an alternative assignment when she objected.

“The students came away with a better understanding of the culture, heritage and customs of a neighboring country where Spanish is the primary language,” he said.

May added that the lesson was “well received” by other students and parents.

“There’s always going to be people that always feel a little bit differently,” May said.

William Brinsdon is still having a hard time fathoming the idea of reciting foreign pledges and anthems in a U.S. public school in the first place.

“Our kids don’t even know the [American] national anthem and here we are…teaching them to memorize and perform the national anthem for Mexico,” he said. “I just think it’s so backwards.”

The Blaze’s Jonathon M. Seidl contributed to this report.

This sort of thing doesn't happen in a far away land of extremes- it happens in schools every day in little ways. Check out my posts on this subject- Watching a Liberal Teacher Indoctrinate Youth or Tear Down that Poster- It has Christianity on It or True Story: Liberal Teacher Told me to Stop Spreading 'Propaganda' of Liberty.

The Real Children of Orwell are Occupying Wall Street Today

Originally I was going to put together a post about how the Occupy Wall Street movement has been endorsed by the American Nazi Party. It was news-worthy- the ANP said in a statement that

The fact that its these “lefties” as you call them, who are picking up the ball and running with it – only shows how much more in tune THEY are with the fed up masses of White Workers, than the fossilized, reactionary “right-wing”. WHO holds the WEALTH and POWER in this country – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO is therefore the #1 ENEMY who makes all this filth happen – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO therefore do WN need to FIGHT? My heart is right there with these people, perhaps someday the “movement” will SHOW the same COURAGE and DEDICATION that these people OUT THERE FIGHTING are SHOWING!

Yeah, so there is that out there, the fact that the fascists in the Nazi party clearly recognize that this movement fits into their goals and agenda. But really this isn't so much what I want to post about today, because when I was doing research for this post, I came across something more stunning, something that I had written about before after Obama's election as President and something that I think is relevant today.

In December 2008, I linked over to a piece at the American Thinker from Bruce Walker called Orwell's Children, and I think we should all take a minute to re-read it today, because it describes this Occupy Wall Street movement very well. Picture the people at these protests and rallies as you read the following (edited for brevity)...

It has been sixty years since George Orwell wrote his chilling dystopian classic, 1984....

...We are drifting into the sort of horrific future he described. Too many of us for comfort or solace have become just like the denizens of Jonestown: Orwell's children -- a new generation of creature enraged into constant militancy against eternal enemies, oblivious to the notion of a Blessed Creator, melded into the consciousness of the party hive, divorced from history, hypnotized by images, inoculated against reason, stripped of family, and existing only to serve the cause...

...There were specific elements necessary for nations with a heritage of freedom to slide into the most absolute and abject slavery. These elements existed in Nazi Germany, they existed in Soviet Russia, and they exist in our free democracies today. What are the characteristics of the Orwellian state?

Start with God. He must go.... A generation of Orwell's Children are growing up without thinking about God at all or thinking that God is a silly idea cherished by sillier old fogies.

Truth must go too. Nazis embraced the "Big Lie." Soviets denied that honesty, per se, mattered. In Orwell's Oceania, the Inner Party members learn to even lie to themselves and to hold utterly contradictory beliefs at the same time. Truth and honesty have little meaning to Orwell's Children in our world. All truth is relative, all honesty a sham.
Language must be brought to heel... Politically correct language is rampant.

Image and symbols replace words... We live in a word of symbols and images. Conservatives succeed in books and talk radio, media that deal in words- but Orwell's Children live in the realm of symbols and images...

..Immutable oppressors are the final nasty element in dystopia. Hitler blamed Jews for everything. Stalin blamed kulaks and his enemies in the party for everything. Subjects of Orwell's Oceania saw Emmanuel Goldstein as the eternal, immutable enemy of the party. Today there is a drearily predictable list of oppressors. Christians, men, white people, the "rich" (whatever that is supposed to mean), America, and Israel are oppressors and nothing can ever change that.

Orwell even told us, by name, the professionals who would lead us into the nightmare of 1984: "sociologists," "teachers," "bureaucrats," "journalists," "professional politicians," "scientists," "trade union organizers," "publicity experts," and "technicians." (The term "community organizer" was unknown to him.) Those who enslave were those who taught students, who created the news, who sat in the halls of government power, and who defined official "truth" (at least truth de jour.)

Orwell's Children live among us now, not in tiny numbers in weird Marxist cults like Jim Jones' People Temple, but as leaders of Congress, as the establishment of academia, as the producers of news and entertainment, as the administrators of public schools, as the "experts" in a thousand myriad and odd fields of putative "expertise." They infatuate our bored children with the only reality and the only diversion that many can find. They wait for the rest of us to grow older and to die....

Education, science, technological gadgetry, good medical care - all of this can not stop us from sliding into a massive Jonestown, a realized Oceania, a place marked by Dante's grim caution "Abandon hope, all you who enter here." We are all anchored in belief, but it is what we believe that matters. We can believe in the lies of Big Brother, which change each day with the needs of the party or we can believe in the truth of a living God. We can become the children of Orwell or the special creatures of God. Everything -- our nation, our world, our families, our communities -- flows from that choice.

Go back and look at the Occupy Wall Street movement with this lens- listen to the interviews from these people, look at the signs they hold up, and have conversations with them. They are inarticulate slogan-shouting, God-hating, lying children who endlessly talk about 'oppressors' that need to be overthrown by empowering an all powerful government to take property from those who they do not like, attack and kill those who they hate (like Jews), and control all of our choices through regulations and taxes. The people who go to these Occupy Wall Street rallies and support them and talk favorably of them are Orwell's Children, and are the enemies of the protection of life, liberty, and property, and deserve nothing but the full and complete opposition of all true patriots.

2011 US Budget Deficit 2nd Worse Ever: Assigning Blame

The good news about the budget for fiscal year of 2011 is that it did not set a record for the largest deficit ever. No, that record was set in 2009 at $1.412 trillion, when the Democrats who controlled Congress from 2006 passed a budget that lame-duck moderate Republican President Bush then signed into law- a budget that included the bank bailouts of a trillion dollars. 2011 was better than that awful year for governance- but only by a little bit, as the final deficit for fiscal year 2011 came in as the second highest deficit in the history of our nation, $1.299 trillion.

The Republicans are not blameless in this deficit- they have been in control of at least half of Congress since January of 2011, so they own most of this budget that resulted in the second highest single year deficit in the history of the United States- at a time when we're not fighting any new wars, not building any sort of major monuments, not engaged in any sort of national race for space or atomic bombs, and no longer passing massive stimulus bills and bank bailouts at the height of a major crisis. Nope, this 2011 deficit is just outright bad- just a lot of blown money and spending way beyond what is sustainable, and the GOP was party and parcel to this budget.

Oh, I know that they only control half of Congress and don't control the Presidency or the bureaucracy and walked into this mess- but if the GOP wants to blame Obama for the mess he has caused than it is only fair that they take a good share of the blame for the 2011 fiscal deficit. The 'budget deals' they signed into law were bad deals, and any GOP Congressman who stood to vote for those or who urged new spending programs should be held accountable.

Tea Party people, this doesn't mean that the GOP is just as bad as the Democrats or that there needs to be a third party- no, it means that the GOP must be held accountable in their primary elections by facing true conservative challenges and must be made to answer questions regarding their votes.

As must though as the GOP is not blameless for this utter disaster in governance, the Democrats are to be held in full blame for passing on these massive debts to our children and doing such a utter rotten job of managing money.

Democrats controlled the House of Representations from 2006 to 2010 (and apparently the fiscal year goes Oct-Oct, so they are to blame for the 2011 deficit from Oct-Jan), and controlled the Senate from 2006 to today so are to blame in full for the deficit of 2011. And US President Barack Obama is a Democrat and has been President since 2010, so shares blame for this as well.

The deficit in 2011 was $1.299 trillion.

The deficit in 2010 was $1.293 trillion.

The deficit in 2009 was $1.412 trillion.

The wrath of voters should fall on anyone part of this horrible mismanagement's in the ship of state, and since Bush and many of the Republicans from 2009 and prior are not on the ballot and it appears that their mistakes and bad policies have been continued and deepened and made normal by the Democrats, the wrath of voters should fall in full on the Democratic President, the Democrats in the Senate, and the big-spending GOPers and Democrats in the House who oversaw this travesty.

Comments Now Disabled Due to Hate

Although I very much enjoyed the thoughtful exchange of dialogue that occurred in our comment section, my blog has increasingly become a target for the hate-filled opponents of human life, liberty, and property protection.  Reading the comments from these sorts of individuals filled with with sadness and pity and many of them had to be removed due to foul language and disgusting references.

To spare my loyal readers from reading these comments and to save myself the time of reading their illogical, hate-filled, and demented comments, I have decided to disable the comment ability for this site, effective immediately.

As always, I treasure your readership and hope that reading my blog at least once a week has become a habit for you and your friends and your family and that each day we can together do a little bit more to protect, strengthen, and grow the life, liberty, and prosperity of this great nation.

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Hate God?

The sign of the Occupy Wall Street protester shouts 'False Gods of Wall Street', but in other signs and in interviews and conversations, these protesters loudly shout that their real gods are people who run governments. They believe in government policy- see sign after sign encouraging more spending, more government programs, more government control of the economy and people, and sign after honoring and supporting 'the People'. The 'P' in 'People' is always capitalized, because they are not talking about supporting the people who go to work every day, pay their taxes, pay on their debts, and try to make a better world for their children- no, these Occupy protesters support the People, who believe that Men are Gods and that if Men were given power to control other Men, the world would be a better place.

In interview after interview that I have heard on the radio and in conversations with students and teachers who I know support these demonstrations, over and over I hear that these people don't believe in God and reject any sort of idea that God created all men equal and endowed them all with certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, the right to live in freedom and liberty and make free choices with the free will that God gave us all, and that we have to right to keep and earn property.

Their signs scream 'the People are too big to fail'- rejecting the premise that man is a fallen imperfect creature who is unable to 'fail' to build a paradise on Earth. These protesters listen to the serpent whisper in their ear that they are the 99%- they are the ones who have the real knowledge of what is going, and if they only listen to what the serpent whispers and believe that they are the ones who really know everything, then they won't need to listen to anything else. Try getting into a conversation with someone who supports OWS- they'll be intolerant of your views, refuse to listen to your arguments, become bored with the spirited exchange of ideas that you want to offer them, and concede nothing- because they have been told that they are the 99%, that they know everything, that they have all the arguments, and they Believe in a new god.

They reject the hand of god which is seen in the free decisions made in a free market- instead they want to empower the hand of man to control freedom and make decisions for others regarding what people are paid, what they receive as an entitlement, what sorts of healthcare plans they get, and who should be getting what. They are as godless as the communist states were, not believing in Him or his Will or his Dominion over men, instead believing that they are the Hope and Change that they have been waiting for, that They are the chosen people or 'the 99%', that they are infallible and not perfect just the way they are (and not the lazy pot smoking hippies who contribute nothing to society), and that if Men were put in power instead of the 'false gods' of capitalism and 'organized religion', then the world would be a better off.

On Sunday, while many in our nation go to Church, you can count on these people to be in some taxpayer funded park, pooping and peeing everywhere, living in filth and squalor while they shake their fists at the skies above them and curse God.

UPDATE: As predicted, via Weasel Zippers I read about and and saw a picture of how the 'Occupy Rome' movement has turned on the church and smashed a life-size statue of the Virgin Mary to demonstrate their displeasure with her. Is it because she wasn't providing enough jobs or was bailing out the banks? Nope, it's because these people hate God.

Data Reveals that SunPower Employees Donated to Democrats, then Got Massive Loans

The best way for a company today to secure billions in loans is to donate money to Democrats, who will then steer taxpayer money to these companies so that they can then donate thousands of dollars to Democrats. At least that is the lesson that SunPower Corporation demonstrates.

I first heard about SunPower on Sean Hannity's show, where he was talking about how SunPower is going to be twice the scandal that Solyndra is. SunPower is a company with headquarters in California that builds solar panels and employees over 1500 people. For the last several years, it has been unprofitable and bleeding cash and is now heavily in debt, with a business model that most analysts believe is unsuccessful. But yet the United States Department of Energy gave a last-minute loan to this company for $1.2 billion on the hope that it will suddenly become profitable and also because this loan will help SunPower to create jobs (at a cost of $80/million per job). Here is more information on SunPower, via Human Events:

How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.

The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization. If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain....

....According to the SunPower PAC filings for its activities in the 2010 midterm election campaign cycle, it donated more than $36,000. Of the $15,650 donated to House and Senate candidates, $14,650 went to Democrats, with these top recipients: $4,000 to Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), $3,000 to Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (D.-Ariz.) and $2,900 Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.)...

Most of the attention on SunPower centers on Democratic California Congressman George Miller, who has been a big proponent of SunPower, probably because it has a major manufacturing facility in Miller's district and his son happens to work for the company as a lobbyist- in fact, Congressman Miller has supported the very loans that pay his sons $178K/year salary!

But in reality, the story is not simply one of a Democratic Congressman who steers massive loans to a company his son works for- in reality, the story is that SunPower is yet another example of the sort of crony capitalism that the new Democratic Party and Barack Obama support.

A quick look on OpenSecrets.org demonstrates how the corrupt system of government that Democrats run actually works. Opensecrets tracks how much money donors give to political candidates. To reward all of my loyal readers, I went ahead and did some research for you on OpenSecrets to find out just how politically connected SunPower was so that we can speculate using real numbers on how much of a role their political donations might have played in securing taxpayer-backed loans for their unprofitable business.

Using OpenSecrets,org, I searched the 2008, 2010, and 2012 cycles, and then under 'occupation' type I wrote in 'sunpower', and was happy to see 156 entries for people who work at SunPower. These entries indicate employees of SunPower who gave money in these campaign cycles. I sorted all of the 156 entries into six columns to help me to better understand the data.

The first column that I created was of the total amount of money that employees of SolarPower gave to Republicans. This amount came to $250, given to the Republican National Committee.

The second column was the total amount of money that employees of SolarPower gave to Democrats from 2008-2012. This amount comes to $82,700, most of it going to President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign or the Democratic National Commitee.

The third column that I created represented money given to liberal/Democrat interest groups that primarily donate money to Democrats- this amounted to $15,750.

The fourth column showed that the amount of money given to conservative/GOP interest groups was $500.

Employees of SunPower also gave $83,006 to a political action committee that was set up called SunPower PAC, which in turn has donated heavily to Democrats (SunPower PAC has given $16.7K to Democrats vs $6K to GOP).

Employees of SunPower also gave $45,700 to a political action committee called Solar Energy Industries Association, which has also given more heavily to Democrats (2006-2012, $105.9K to Democrats vs $54K to the GOP).

The data is pretty clear- donating money to Democrats, in particular to Barack Obama, assures your company will receive massive loans regardless if your company is profitable or a good investment.

Under this Democratic administration, supported by these Democrats in Congress, the way to wealth, loans, high pay, and job security is to donate money to the Democratic party and then have them use the power of government to grant you these things. If the GOP were to do these things, it would be wrong too, but the reality of the situation is that it is not a GOP administration overseen and supported by a GOP Congress acting in such a corrupt manner, it is a Democrat with oversight and support from Democrats. 'Hypothetical Corrupt Republican' isn't on the ballot in 2012- Barack Obama is, and it really doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, because they haven't demonstrated this level of corruption yet, whereas Barack Obama has. Voters need to vote out these Democrats who have used campaign donations and family connections to corrupt the usual decision-making process for granting government loans and turned our once great nation of the free and the brave into the home of the corrupt and bought-off.

For those who are new to my blog, I've written about this topic before- see my posts State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism, Syndicaliam, Corporatism... Obamaism or The Third Way: Obama and Fascism.

UPDATE: The Detroit News today ran another editorial about Solyndra, in it pointing out that

...in October last year, Solyndra donated $7,500 to the California Democratic Party and that company employees had kicked in $20,000 to Democratic candidates. They also contributed to the Republicans. But the Times said records show about 72 percent of the company's political contributions went to the Democrats and only 27 percent to Republicans. Contributing to Solyndra's failure were allegations that once it received the government-backed loans, it spent funds willy-nilly, including on a new $700 million plant deemed unnecessary by some company insiders....

That's how it works boys and girls- donate money to Democrats, get massive loans, pay yourself big salaries and live life large, and then get out before it all goes under, leaving taxpayers holding the bill. That's what you get when you vote Democrat (and sometimes for squishy GOPers too).

Data Flatly Proves Wrong Blaming GOP for Teacher Salaries in Michigan

It is accepted as gospel among all teachers in Michigan that the reason why teachers are paid so low in Michigan is because of Republicans. Right now, the reason why teachers salaries are low is because of Michigan Governor Rick Sydner, who is a Republican. Before that, the reason why teacher salaries were low was because of US President George Bush, who was a Republican. Before that, the reason why teacher salaries were low was because of Michigan Governor John Engler, who is a Republican. Get into any conversation at all with any Michigan teacher, and they will at some point voice the opinion that it is because of Republicans that they are paid so low and that is why all Republicans must be opposed with all the power and strength and campaign donations that teachers can muster.

The only problem with this narrative is that it is flat wrong.

After confronting yet another liberal teacher espousing such views, I went to the Michigan Department of Education's Bulletin 1014, which tracks teachers salaries, and wrote them down for all years they had (2009-2010 to 1997-1998). Then I went to an online inflation calculator and recalculated those salaries based on 2011 inflation numbers. After that I created a column on my spreadsheet and recorded what political party the President of the United States was, and then did another column for the Governor of Michigan. Here is the data:

The single greatest year for average teacher salary in Michigan was under a Democrat President and a Republican Governor (2000). The second best year was under a Republican President and a Republican Governor (2001). The third best year was under a Republican President and a Republican Governor (2002).

The single worst year for average teacher salary in Michigan was under a Republican President and a Democrat Governor (2006). The second worst year was under a Republican President and a Democrat Governor (2005). The third worst year was under a Republican President and a Democrat Governor (2004).

The average salary for Michigan teachers from 1997 to 2009 under a Democrat US President was 65555. Under a Republican President it was 64354. The average salary for a Michigan teacher from 1997 to 2009 under a Democrat Michigan Governor was 64077. Under a Republican Governor it was 65678. My analysis of this is that it appears better for teachers to have a Democratic President, but it is even more of an advantage for teachers salary to have a Republican Governor.

Clearly, having a Democrat as Governor seems to be the single worst thing for teacher salaries in Michigan.

These numbers by themselves are instructive, but again, what prompted me to perform this data analysis was the fact that almost all Michigan teachers would bet quite a bit of money that the evidence is overwhelming that the single best thing for teacher salaries in Michigan is for there to be a Democrat Governor, and that it is absolutely vital that there also be a Democrat President. This narrative has been proven wrong, utterly and completely wrong, by this little data analysis that I performed today, and any teacher that espouses that 'it was Engler's fault that Michigan teachers were paid so little' or that 'it is Snyder's fault that Michigan teachers are paid so little' is ignoring the reality that under Engler teachers were paid well and that under Granholm they were not, and that the data proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

When the numbers come up for the 2010-2011 year, it will be interesting, because I imagine we'll see some cuts that can be attributed to a Democratic President and Governor. I'll wait for that data though rather than being a typical liberal and just speculating without any logic, numbers, reason, or information.

V, Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Hitler, and Lenin- Birds of the Same Feather?

For many years, many of my students and several of my fellow teachers have been telling me that I have to see the movie V for Vendetta, because I would really like it. They assured me that this movie would be the movie for our generation, a movie that spoke to us and informed us and gave us a hero to cheer for. Students and several fellow teachers see V as a hero and saw him as the good guy of that movie. But they are wrong, horribly wrong, and their celebration of V as a hero will lead them and our nation into destruction.

V is a nonhuman, godlike figure who mentally abuses and rapes women. He hides his face from others, relies on wealth taken from others to live a life of luxury, produces no goods or products or services, and prefers to kill his victims using knives rather than guns simply because he is sadistic in nature. His vision of the world is one that involves blowing up authority and replacing it with an even more sinister and brutal authority, mixing anarchy and dictatorship to achieve his goals.

He does not submit to a candid world his ideals and ideas for their consideration, arguing in favor of natural rights of men and the goodness of mankind- rather, he tells people what he is going to do, imposing his will on the situation, and does so because he views all of man as fallen and wrong.

The same people that rave about V being a hero are the same people who look to the Arab Spring for inspiration and guidance, as if small groups of very active people overthrowing a dictator to replace that dictator with an army-led government influenced by fanatical terrorists is really an instructive example of any sort. Libya will be run by just the other tribe and will be as vindictive and tyrannical as before, Egypt has empowered the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army and is burning churches and attacking civilians from other nations, and Tunisia continues to tumble through anarchy- and that is what many students and teachers want for America.

Heroes are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Ronald Reagan- these people, whether you agreed with their policies or not, they fought and defeated evil enemies in the open, being human, and resting the strength of their victory on the power of the individual. Our Founding Fathers were heroes- they wore uniforms and fought and defeated a superior enemy on the basis of their superiority in principles and beliefs and ideals- they did not remove their dog tags and hide behind masks and rape women in the streets in their fight for 'freedom.'

Nor did our Founding Fathers or any of the great heroes of our nation dress up like zombies or glorify those who do- the same people who glorify the Arab Spring and V for Vendetta now pretend that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is some sort of noble enterprise, and not just a delusional carnival of antisemitic rich who wish to smash one group (Wall Street) only to put in place a more horrifying and inhuman system (an all powerful government that will take people's wealth and property and control their actions in the name of 'fairness' or 'the environment').

V, Occupy Wall Street, and the Arab Spring- they may all sound appealing, but so did Lenin and Communism and Hitler and Fascism when they first came about, and we all know exactly how those enterprises turned out. I have nothing but scorn and pity for those who support or like these groups- they have valid concerns and valid criticisms of the system they find themselves in, but they have decided to support the wrong side and history will judge them as doing so.

Obama's 2005 Speech on Nuclear Option Reveals Utter Hypocrisy

The following is the complete text of a Statement from Senator Barack Obama on the topic of Foreign Policy and Defense, delivered on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, regarding the so-called 'nuclear option' that was just invoked by now-President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the US Senate with his support. President Barack Obama's own words condemn him and his own parties actions, and in the strongest possible sense convict him of utter hypocrisy. Here is the statement:

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications the nuclear option would have on this chamber and this country. I urge you to think not just about winning every debate, but about protecting free and democratic debate.

During my Senate campaign, I had the privilege and the opportunity to meet Americans from all walks of life and both ends of the political spectrum. They told me about their lives, about their hopes, about the issues that mattered to them, and they also told me what they think about Washington.

Because you've all heard it yourselves, I know it won't surprise many of you to learn that a lot of people don't think much gets done around here about the issues they care most about. They think the atmosphere has become too partisan, the arguments have become too nasty, and the political agendas have become too petty.

And while I haven't been here too long, I've noticed that partisan debate is sharp, and dissent is not always well-received. Honest differences of opinion and principled compromise often seem to be the victim of a determination to score points against one's opponents.

But the American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And at the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done.

What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster - if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate - then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber. But we need to rise above an "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones wearing our party label.

The fact is that both parties have worked together to confirm 95% of this President's judicial nominees. The Senate has accepted 205 of his 214 selections. In fact, we just confirmed another one judge this week by a vote of 95-0. Overall, this is a better record than any President's had in the last 25 years. For a President who received 51% of the vote and a Senate chamber made up of 55% of the President's party, I'd say that confirming 95% of your judicial nominations is a record I'd be pretty happy with.

Again, I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, this is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority.

Mr. President, I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it's good for our democracy.

Right now, we're faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we've ever had, all while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe.

These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we don't all agree how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere of Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interests, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more. Thank you.

Democrats routinely blasted GOP's efforts to invoke the nuclear option, which they considered but never implemented. I mean, come on- in 2005 Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the thought of eliminating the filibuster is just another sign of the "arrogance of power of this Republican administration" (source)- but today he did something that not even the GOP was arrogant enough to do and showed that although the GOP might be bad, the Democrats are far far far worse when in power.

I expect the influential liberal website MoveOn.org, who was instrumental in the elections of Barack Obama in 2008 and Democrats for years before and after, to immediatily condemn this action and demand that all of their members contact their Senators to oppose this action, like they demanded their members to do in 2005! They won't though, because MoveOn.org is as rotten to the core as the entire Democratic Party.

The Democrats reveal their utter contempt for the American people- they didn't discuss this option, they didn't talk about it beforehand, they just suddenly invoked the nuclear option when no one was looking, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you give this party an inch, they'll put us under a tyranny.

UPDATE: This is a response to the story now running on www.memeorandum.com regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid triggering a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules. Reid triggered this option because he was upset that McConnell wanted to force the Democrats to vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which apparently is so radioactive and bad that even Senate Democrats don't want to vote on it and will do anything, I mean ANYTHING, rather than vote on it. That's how bad President Obama is and how badly a job he is doing as chief executive of our nation.

America is a Republic- It Shouldn't Matter if Most Want to Tax Millionaires More

According to a recent poll by CBS, most Americans believe that taxes on millionaires should be increased in order to reduce the deficit. When asked "should taxes on millionaires be raised in order to lower the the deficit," 64% of those responding to this poll said "yes." This is exactly why our founding fathers rejected a democracy in favor of building a republic.

When our founding fathers built our nation, they knew from history that democracies inevitably fail. Democracies are governments built on majority rule, where the majority has the power to decide what to do with your property, your liberties, and eventually your life. In a democracy, votes are held, and if the majority decides that they want to take more of your money, property, wealth, or business in order to 'lower the deficit', that is exactly what happens. Although those who are voting played no part in you earning this wealth and those who are voting did not expend any effort for you to gain this wealth, they derive their power from the fact that there are more of them than you, and majority rules. On this basis, they feel that they can gather as mobs and demand higher taxes on you and more control over your choices, simply because there are more of them than you. This sort of mob rule is exactly the sort of rule that was common in ancient Greece and common at the end of the Roman Republic, and eventually both of these republics-turned-democracies slide into governments ruled by Caesars and Tyrants.

Our founding fathers knew this was the nature of man and knew that although democracies and majority rule have some favorable aspects to them, the only way that people's lives, liberty, and property could be properly protected is by building a republic. A republic is a government where political power is limited by the law, which sets up a government of limited powers that is frequently checked by separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. In a republic, minority rights are protected and the government is unable to threaten your life, liberty, and property because it lacks the power and capacity to do so- it does not rule on majority rule, but rather rules based on the majority properly running a firmly established and defined political entity which performs certain needed tasks well, such as national defense and establishing police services, but which does not have the real power to inject itself into tasks which it can not do well, like setting up social values and controlling the free market of exchange. In a republic, the government lacks the capacity and power to take money from those who earn it simply because they have it- rather, taxes are raised on people because it is argued that those people benefit the most from the services of the state so should pay more. This argument only works to a certain point, and assumes that even the poor pay taxes into the system to a rate comparable to what the services that they receive from the state- it is not just 'loot the rich because they have money and there is more of us than them.'

Our nation is approaching a key election in 2012, much as Rome faced a key turning point in its history when Lucius Sergius Catilina attempted to overthrow the Roman Republic by playing to the lures of democracy and populism. Catiline rallied the poor to his banner by arguing for debt relief for the poor people of Rome, and many supported him because there are always more people who are poor than there are people who are truly wealthy. Because of the destructive policies of the government, which had collapsed the housing market and had taxed and regulated the small farms and small businesses to the brink of destruction, there were many people out of work who listened to the siren song of 'support me, I'll claim majority rule, and take from those who have wealth and give to those who do not.' Thankfully, Rome had an ardent defender of the Republic in a man like Cicero, and the conspiracy was foiled, but I believe that it had come close enough to succeeding to inspire men like Julius Caesar and Pompey to try again soon after, and they were successful in harassing the forces of democracy to institute a dictatorship over the masses.

So, after reading that the majority of Americans believe that taxes on millionaires should be increased in order to reduce the deficit, I once again thankful that our nation is a Republic- if only we can keep it that way.

Obama is Wrong: You Do Have an Inherent Right to Property

In a recent interview with ABC, President Barack Obama was talking about the fee that Bank of America believes is now necessary to charge customers because of recent changes to bank card fees imposed by Democrats in the Dodd-Frank bill':

“This is exactly why we need this Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that we set up that is ready to go," he said. "... (petty government bureaucrats) can stop (the fees being charged by private banks) because if (petty government bureaucrats) say to the banks, ‘You don't have some inherent right just to – you know, get a certain amount of profit. If your customers – are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently.”

I made some changes- I removed the word 'you' that Obama used and replaced it with what I thought he meant, and I removed the word 'it' and replaced it with what the 'it' was.

As you can see from this statement, the President does not believe that privately owned and operated companies in the United States have an inherent right to create wealth. He believes that wealth did not exist before the government was around and does not exist after government is not around- if Obama and a bunch of hard workers landed on a deserted island that was in a state of nature, he would believe that he would be morally correct to take the fruits of the labor of others since they have no inherent right to what their own labor produces. Obama thinks that government has the right to take from others, whether they created that wealth through their own actions or not, because he thinks that wealth and prosperity is created and sustained by government policies, even though all experience hath shown that this is incorrect.

America was founded on different ideals- our nation was founded on the idea that property existed before the government and will continue to exist after government, and that even in a state of nature with no government, people do have an inherent fundamental natural right to the property that they create through their actions. If a bank charges a fee and gets a profit from this, they have every right to keep that profit, as it is their inherent natural right to create and keep property in our nation, free from government intervention and threats of confiscation. Only in tyrannical governments are the rights of life, liberty, and property not protected, and tyrannical governments then are those which have less happy lives, less free people, and are always considerably poorer in property than those nations which have embraced natural rights philosophy like our founding fathers did.

As we all know, in order to support yourself through reason and stay alive in a society, you must be able to own and use the product of your labor- you must be able to create wealth and keep that wealth in order to live and live free. If the tools of your survival and the products of your hard work are subject to random confiscation by the Obama administration, then your life also becomes subject to possible random destruction- or to put it another way, the tyrannical nature of the Obama administration to target businesses as 'enemies' is making our nation more poor and bit by bit making your life more miserable and less rich in goods and happiness and freedom.

Obama is increasingly by his own statements demonstrating his unfitness for the office of President of the United States of America; 2012 can't come fast enough to get rid of this guy.

Obama Presidency by the Numbers

Via powerlineblog I saw this video that the Minnesota Majority put together. It is 3 minutes long and represents a series of heavy body blows to the Obama administration, using Obama's own words and assessments and statements to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that he should not even be a nominee for a second term of office. It doesn't matter who the GOP goes with- this video shows how bad Obama has been for America during his 3 years in office:

Sarah Palin for Secretary of Energy

Sarah Palin is not running for President, nor should she- she has a thin resume, has represented very few people, has little executive experience, is not electable in a general election, and has a sometimes shaky grasp of complicated policies. Don't misunderstand me though- I like Sarah Palin- it isn't her fault few people live in Alaska, her unfavorable numbers are mostly the result of a deplorable media campaign to smear her, and every year she is demonstrating more knowledge of important policies. But there are better choices out there for President right now for the Republican Party- Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

This does not mean though that Sarah Palin doesn't matter- quite the contrary, she has a large and devoted following, she has a knack for phrases and sayings that we common people can relate to, and in the coming 2012 election she will be a force to reckon with. But after 2012 is when I really think we'll be able to really see the future of Sarah Palin, when she is appointed as Secretary of Energy for the new GOP President.

Democrat President Barack Obama decided after he became President to surround himself with weak talent and people would would not outshine his brilliance, but the new Republican President won't likely make this mistake, and instead will stock his cabinet with talent to cultivate so that in 2020 the GOP will have a new generation of leaders that will blow the current generation of place-holders out of the way. Sarah Palin is one of this next generation.

Sarah Palin has extensive experience in energy policy already, and a reputation of being a fair and shrewd policy maker in this area. She is only 47, and after being Secretary of Energy for 8 years and putting in place policies that encourage drilling, nuclear power, and pro-growth energy, she will be one of the key reasons why America will have recovered from the malaise that marked the Obama years. At 55, she could run for President then, or even wait more and run in 2024, combining her energy and drive and common sense with an extensive resume of policy implementation and leadership of a major cabinet level position.

Sarah Palin for Secretary of Energy!

UPDATE: Rather than get into a war of words with my readers, whom I really do treasure for coming to my site, I thought it might be helpful to remind everyone of how great Palin could be:


UPDATE II: Turns out that I am no dummy- via Memeorandum I see from ABC News that Sarah Palin announced for a fact that she is not running for President in 2012, just like I wrote above, counter to much media speculation.

Obama Golfs for 73rd Time While President

For the record, I haven't really ever mentioned before anything regarding President Obama playing golf. It is understandable for the guy to get out on the links from time to time and play a round- it is a great to unwind, get some exercise, discuss issues and policy outside of the office or simply make a better connection with someone, and if it is his hobby I really can't fault him for enjoying it so much.

But this last weekend President Barack Obama played his 73rd round of golf since taking office almost 3 years ago. That's a lot of golf- let's round it a bit and call it 25 rounds of golf a year, or a round a golf every other week on average. Although it isn't really fair to compare his amount of golf to President Bush because they are different people and had different hobbies, it is surprising to compare President Bush's 24 rounds in 8 years against Obama's 73 rounds in 3 years- that's a lot of golf.

It's not just the cost to taxpayers for Obama playing golf- green fees, a cart, security, balls, clubs, etc- and it isn't the amount of time that he is spending golf- several hours at a time, maybe 4 or 5 hours if he plays 18 holes and stops for a nice lunch- but it is that he has the gall to lecture the nation daily on 'the rich' and 'living within our means' and that our nation's problems are the result of 'extravagence' and 'corporate greed.' Watering golf courses and hiring lawn mowers to keep them trimmed nicely isn't environmentally friendly, I imagine, and chasing a little white ball over a fake wilderness might be fun, but he does this without his family- leaving his wife and kids at home- and doesn't appear to golf with a usual group of friends so I worry that the guy is lonely.

73 rounds of golf is too much, Mr. Obama. If I could be so bold, perhaps you should spend more time with your friends, your family, and on your job.

Ford Forced to Pull Advertisement by the White House?

Vladimir Putin is going to take back power in Russia, the Middle East continues to collapse, Europe is facing maybe perhaps its worst financial crisis in decades, China continues to build up its armed forces... and President Obama and his administration is putting the pressure on Ford Motor Company to stop running a commercial which is critical of GM and Chrysler for taking taxpayer money and breaking long-established bankruptcy laws in order to stay in business.

Via the Detroit News:

For the only Detroit automaker that "didn't take the money" of the federal auto bailouts, Ford Motor Co. keeps paying a price for its comparative success and self-reliant turnaround.

There's no help from American taxpayers to help lighten its debt load, giving crosstown rivals comparatively better credit ratings and a financial edge Ford is working diligently to erase all on its own. There's no clause barring a strike by hourly workers amid this fall's national contract talks with the United Auto Workers — a by-product of the taxpayer-financed bailout that General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC retain until 2015. And there's no assurance the Dearborn automaker can use the commercially advantageous fact that it didn't "take the money" proffered by the Obama Treasury Department and use it in TV ads angling to sell cars and trucks. Not if the campaign takes a whack at its Detroit rivals and suggests that Ford no longer supports the Obama administration bailouts it backed in public statements and sworn congressional testimony.

As part of a campaign featuring "real people" explaining their decision to buy the Blue Oval, a guy named "Chris" says he "wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government," according the text of the ad, launched in early September.

"I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work."

That's what some of America is about, evidently. Because Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early '09 and again when the ad flap arose. And more.

With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can't have that.

The ad (was) pulled in response to White House questions...

That's right- the White House is busy occupying its time with silencing anyone domestically who speaks out against its policies, even if they are private businesses and they have valid criticisms. The Democratic Party is putting this administration forward as their best choice to continue running our nation- that fact right there should tell you everything you need to know about which party to vote against in the coming 2012 election.