My Beauty Best Teacher

One year later, it appears that Obama has abandoned his 'search' for an official Church and instead has decided to make up his own religion through his Blackberry. I won't judge his actions- that is up to other people to do. But I can pass on to you the information.

In the middle of the campaign for President, Barack Obama (D), quit Chicago's embattled Trinity United Church of Christ only weeks after a 'great speech' where he claimed that he would never abandon his pastor. That was months before he took office, and since then, he has not formally joined a new Church. Once regular churchgoers who weekly choose to sit in the pews listening to Jeremiah Wright bash America and rejoice in the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11, he has now publicly attended services in Washington just three times in the past year, by ABC News' count. He didn't even make it to Church on Christmas.

But, that does not mean that he does not worship something, after a fashion. Obama told ABC Nightline's Terry Moran that his personal BlackBerry, which he famously fought with the Secret Service to keep, has actually become a tool of keeping the faith during his first year in office.
"My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, Scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."

The President's chooser of religious readings to read is Joshua DuBois. His path to power, according to www.whorunsgov.com, started after he was “struck by the injustice” of the acquittal of four New York City police officers who had shot and killed unarmed Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo. After that, he protested 'social injustice', and that led him to be invited to become a pastor and preacher at the United Pentecostal Council of the Assemblies of God church. DuBois earned his bachelor’s degree in political science in 2003, and went on to Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, where he received his master’s in public affairs in 2005. He moved further south to Washington, D.C., to enroll in law school, going part-time to Georgetown University. At the same time in 2004, he worked as an intern in Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-N.J.) office and then as a fellow in Rep. Charles B. Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) office. After Obama's 2004 Convention speech, DuBois thought that Obama was going to be someone powerful, and so decided to hitch his star to Obama's wagon. He was hired as a legislative correspondent in Obama’s Senate office in May 2005. DuBois never completed his law degree, leaving instead to work on the 2008 Obama presidential campaign. In 2008, at the age of 25, DuBois was appointed director of religious affairs for the Obama campaign. After Obama became President, he was named the head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

President Obama is receiving his spiritual guidance from a young political operative who has degrees in political science and international relations (from the liberal-slanted Woodrow Wilson school) and became a religious figure through political protesting. He, like Obama, worked on a law degree but never was a lawyer of note, and his stated support of Obama stemmed from a purely objective calculation of how to obtain power over other people.

Obama's spiritual advisor has decided to focus the Office of Faith in the White House less on faith and churches and instead redirect its mission to supporting neighborhood and community groups like ACORN. He is also an active member in an evangelical anti-poverty organization called Sojourners, which is characterized as "a loose network of progressive-minded Christians" who have been meeting in Washington for the past few years.

So, every day this guy, Joshua DuBois picks "a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day" (as Obama said). Even though Obama is supposedly a devoted Christian, he begins each morning with "quotes from other faiths to reflect on," quotes picked by a progressive, liberal pastor with a thin resume of spiritual and religious accomplishments but a thicker resume of political activism and powerful connections.

I know I started this post by saying that I wasn't going to judge Obama and his faith, but I can't help but opine that I am indeed concerned about the type of spiritual guidance that Obama is receiving during his time in the great office of President of the United States of America.

Ebenezer Obadare writes in Elombah:

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country and one of the most corrupt in the world, is also one of the most religious. Poll after poll marks the increase of a powerful religiosity which is permeating every aspect of life in the country from politics to popular culture. But nowhere does Nigeria’s obsession with religion manifest itself more vigorously than on its university campuses.

More here

UPDATED: Wash. Post writer Bill Turque Confirms The Wash. Teacher's blog story: (click on link) "DCPS has confirmed Candi Peterson's weekend report in The Washington Teacher that Spingarn High School principal Blanca Reyes was replaced on Friday. No word yet on who will replace Washington. Lloyd Bryant will be the new assistant principal."

In 3QuarksDaily Aditya Dev Sood writes about India's 'Mela Economy'...analogues of our Jua Kali's,Nnewi's ,Suame Magazine's and other under recognized informal networks? :

In the absence of malls and supermarkets, and given the diffuse distribution of the population in the countryside, a system of local weekly markets operates, which cycles through the countryside, so that on any given day you might be able to find a local market less than five kilometers away. You might go there to buy groceries or staples or fuel or essential tools and supplies, but you might also go to sell what was cooking or pickling or spinning or weaving or otherwise in preparation within the house. Most of the buyers at such santhey-s or haat-s or peth-s or similar weekly local markets might at the same time or on other days be sellers. The relationship between buyers and sellers is direct, and in principle at least, reversible. Through the propagation of the charkha, the manual spinning wheel, Gandhi's social philosophy expressly enjoined all of us users to also be creators of value. The village market and Gandhian economy, therefore, follows a decentralized peer-to-peer model, the very antithesis of the modern retail chain, and of late capitalist consumerism in general.

Mela-s are more festive, extensive and intensified versions of local markets, conducted to an annual rather than weekly calendar, often in alignment with harvest cycles. The people must have something to trade and something to trade with, for there to be a reason for a mela. The form of the mela seems to promote a kind of critical regionalism, similar to the wine concept of terroir: the kinds and varieties of goods available can be known on the basis of where they are from, the special techniques were employed in the creation, and the distinctive natural materials of which they are constituted.

More here
Image courtesy Times of India and Global Economy

Molara Wood's riposte to Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani’s "dont award another African a Nobel piece":

...it’s baffling that, nearly 25 years after Nigeria bagged her own Nobel through Soyinka, a Nigerian writer saw nothing wrong in suggesting that a Kenyan should not get the prize. Ngugi, Soyinka and Achebe have since the 60s formed the great tripod of the humanising literature of Black Africa. Soyinka has his Nobel, Man International Booker winner Achebe has been celebrated to the heavens for ‘Things Fall Apart’, and suddenly it’s a Nobel for Ngugi that will spell the death of African writing?
Nwaubani’s argument is deeply flawed; and it is regrettable that someone with a platform like the New York Times to postulate about Africa, chose to use her new-found international voice in this manner. The author of ‘I Do Not Come To You By Chance’ must realise that it will not be by chance that her argument will play into Western prejudices about Africa and African writing. ‘Oh, let’s not give another African a Nobel because, knowing no better, they’ll only copy themselves.’ Might as well go the whole hog and cite Shakespeare’s Iago: “These Moors are changeable in their wills.”

The United States government is forcing federal prisoners to make products that federal agencies have to buy, undercutting and driving out of business companies in Michigan and elsewhere.

Federal Prison Industries, Inc., also known as UNICOR, is a wholly owned government corporation created in 1934 by statute and Executive Order that produces goods and services from the labor of inmates of the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons. In fiscal year 2008, UNICOR employed 21,836 inmates and generated US$854.3 million in sales. UNICOR has 109 factories in federal prisons, producing about 175 different types of products and services, including electronics, green technology, automotive components, industrial products, and office furniture.

Under US laws and regulations, federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense, are required to purchase products offered by UNICOR. This "mandatory source clause" lets UNICOR unfairly compete with private businesses, all while paying substandard wages and require that inmates work in unsafe conditions.

I'm probably way off on this, but my dad produces furniture and automotive parts, and can't get a job, and I would hate to believe that a part of the reason for this is that the US government is employing slave labor to produce substandard quality goods in unsafe work conditions for resale to other government agencies.

Codrin Arsene reviews Ethnicity INC by Jean and John Comaroff:

What if, the authors ask, the future of ethnicity lies in its capacity to incorporate identity (incorporate as in creating a legal corporation based on ethnic grounds) and couple this normative shift with the progressive commodification of one’s ethnic group culture? The authors think that the new product could efficiently represent the interests of its members. They argue that the commodification of culture doubled by the branding of the newly marketed entities could trigger the formalization and the institutionalization of the consumption of culture in ways that would be beneficial to those creating and generating culture in the first place.

More here

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Ethnicity INC: or why ethnicity is not the bogeyman we were told it is" (loomnie.com)

No WTU Representative Assembly Meeting For You !

Obama, as he himself said, still is in the middle of fighting two wars, wars which, again according to him, are one of the main reasons for the massive deficit that he ran his first year. And yet, out of a State of the Union speech of 7171 words, he only used 90 of those words on the War on Terror in Afghanistan and only 93 words on the War on Terror in Iraq. That is 183 words out of 7171, or only 2.55% of his speech that was devoted to these two wars.

So what exactly did our wartime President say about these wars?

In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans - men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.

Summery: We are increasing our troop strength because its needed and is doing good things, but we're going to yank them out in a year, but not before we say hopeful things.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

Summery: After Bush's surge won the day in Iraq, which Obama opposed, we will pull our troops out. Everything else about this situation we will just pretend is not important enough to mention to Congress and the nation.

The War on Terror in Iraq and in Afghanistan has cost our nation a lot of political capital, a lot of money, and a lot of good men and women. Obama should have spent more than 2.55% of his historic first SOTU address on those subjects.

From United from Human Rights

Via 3QuarksDaily

As told by Guy Brandenburg, retired DCPS teacher. I couldn't have said it any better. Check out Guy's blog when you get a chance @ http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/

More slander, lies, and spin from Michelle Rhee

President Obama's State of the Union Address was the best ever. Not the actual address- that was the usual bunch of lies, rhetoric, and deception- but I watched the address with a crowd of over 150 people at a local event that was hosted by the Americans for Prosperity.

Americans for Prosperity, Rocky Raczkowski (Republican-candidate for the MI-9th), and the Core Principles-Center Right Coalition sponsored a State of the Union speech watch party at the Sheraton in Novi. Organized only a few days in advance, it drew anywhere from 150-200 people, who packed in the crowded room to watch Obama's speech on the big screen. A couple speakers spoke beforehand, and then the crowd watched his speech, hooting and hollering and making comments as he went.

With a crowd of Tea Partiers, of course they were critical of Obama's speech, especially his talk about the budget and the debt. People around me were engaging in conversations about economic theory and principles, history, and political theory and thought while we watched his speech. This crowd was not politicians and rich people, but rather good decent citizens who care about our nation and just want to see it prosperous and happy. The words that this group was using the most often in conversation by this group were 'liberty,' 'freedom,' 'citizen,' 'republic,' or 'responsibility.' It contrasted with President Obama's speech, which instead highlighted regulation, taxes, partisanship, and blame.

And this group wasn't a 'Republican' group either- every speaker spent time bashing the Republicans for their failures in office when they were in charge. We expect Democrats to raise taxes, put in place more regulations on our lives, and be corrupt, but we don't expect Republicans too, and so this group ripped into them as well.

As to what I thought about Obama's speech... I thought it was one of the most divisive, partisan speeches ever uttered to a joint session of Congress. Maybe Obama's teleprompter was to his left or maybe he just always looks left all the time, but if it not, it seemed to me he spent most of his speech staring down at the Republicans, brow-beating them and lecturing them. His little chin started drifting up, his shoulders got all narrow, and in this pose, he stared to the left for most of the speech, directly at the Republicans, lecturing them about subjects of which he has little to no knowledge or experience in. He pushed his agenda, spoke about everything in 'us vs' them tones, and spent little time laying out his vision or goals for the nation. I don't think he has any visions or goals, other than power and control, and he didn't disprove my theory in his SOTU address tonight.

There were parts that made me angry- when he took credit for the isolating of Iran when he wants to meet with them without precondition, or when he began to cite the Declaration of Independence and simply stopped with equality and fraternity, or when he said that every generation has fought for change but failed to mention that every generation that fought was fighting for freedom and liberty and not what he wants, or when he blamed Bush for the debt- but mostly I shook my head and thought to myself 'who actually believes this guy anymore.'

As I drove home from the AFP event, I listened to the radio, and heard a much better vision of America from the Republican response. If you haven't listened to their response yet, look it up and do so- the GOP's vision of America is a lot more hopeful, a lot more change for the better, a lot more free, and a lot more prosperous than the stuff Obama uttered tonight.

The picture is from the AFP event- I hope for you it was also the best State of the Union Address ever.

UPDATE: The Detroit Free Press covered this event- read their article on it by clicking here.

As a side note, one way that bias is introduced by the media is through misleading crowd counts. By my count, there were closer to 200 people at this event then there were (as the Freep notes) "about 150 people". The Freep is right about this though- "The catcalls, boos and ridicule from the crowd were frequent" and deserved.

Out of all of the broken promises of President Obama, this one is probably not the biggest to a lot of people. Out of all of the phony and lying rhetoric about hope and change, this latest policy announcement that kills hope and changes things for the worst is probably not the most backstabbing that he has uttered. But that does not mean that Obama's plans to destroy NASA's budget and redirect its mission away from exploration is not big or important to me.

Probably a lot of you didn't read this story, but it is the kind of backstabbing that is becoming familiar to those who follow Obama's policy actions. Obama is going to release a budget proposal Monday for NASA that will cancel the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020, cancel the Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, cancel the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon, cancel any hope for lunar landers or moon bases, and cancel any near future for Americans to explore and conquer outer space.

Instead, Obama will have NASA focus on studies and reports and analysis for future plans- in other words, do nothing and change nothing about our world and our future in it. Furthermore, NASA will be instructed to change its mission away from exploration of outer space to research and monitoring of climate change. That's right- Obama is turning NASA into yet another agency whose resources will be devoted to that failed religion of climate change.

These changes to policy are bad changes. NASA is not being instructed to do more with less, as Bush told NASA to do. NASA is being told to do nothing, or worse, spend its money and energy and expertise trying to reinforce failed theories. It isn't getting leaner and meaner it its quest to take humanity to the stars, but instead is being beaten down and embarrassed in a quest to make humanity less prosperous and happy.

And these changes are not what Obama promised while on the campaign. On the campaign, he lied through his teeth, told people what they want to hear, and was deceitful about his future intentions. In August of last year, then-Senator Barack Obama detailed a comprehensive space plan that included $2 billion in new funding to reinvigorate NASA and a promise to make space exploration and science a significantly higher priority if he is elected president. Since then, he has made NASA a low priority, not even bothering to name a director for NASA for several months, and instead of increasing funding by $2 billion, NASA's budget is going to be slashed.

This is why I call him the Bizzarro President- whatever he says, you can take to the bank that he is going to do the opposite of what he says. He is a serial liar, a deceitful snake, and an untrustworthy person. His word is meaningless, and his promises worth less.

Speaking to potential voters in Florida last year, who bought his lies and promises and voted for him, Obama said:

We cannot cede our leadership in space... (we need to keep) supporting continued funding for NASA; by speeding the development of the Shuttle's successor; and by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired.

Count the broken promises- I count 4 out of 4 statements. Once President, he is going to cede leadership in space, turning us away from exploration and development of the moon to work on reports, studies, and global warming. He is going to do the opposite of 'speed the development of the Shuttle successor'- instead, he is going to totally stop all development on it. And he isn't going to make sure that those good union folks who supported him so much have a job any more- by slashing funding and cancelling the building of new shuttles and rockets, it is projected that as many as 7,000 highly trained workers will lose their jobs after Obama's policies take effect.

For Obama, the rhetoric never matches the reality, and it doesn't with space policy either. In order to convince people that he was a real fan of space exploration and had a vision to take American forward in outer space, Obama said “I grew up on Star Trek!” I don't doubt that, but I think that what he learned from Star Trek was not a love of exploration, a sense of adventure, or the desire to conquer the stars, but rather I think he learned to love the communist-military government in that show. Obama does not want to take man boldly where he has never been before- he instead wants to make NASA into a government-run institution to prove global warming in order to realize the visions and dreams of Karl Marx and Mussolini.

President Obama has broke many promises, lied through his teeth often, and backstabbed supporters without the slightest hesitation. His latest policy decisions with regard to NASA are just another example of this.

In CIPE:

Rahel Weldeab, second place winner of the 2009 CIPE International Essay Competition talks about the importance of fostering a sense of citizenship among Eritrea’s youth.
She says, “Active citizenship on the part of the youth ensures that their voices are heard; such participation develops and strengthens the opportunities for young people to learn their rights and responsibilities.”

Article at a Glance

• Citizenship is not innate; it needs to be taught and cultivated in young people through civic education and leadership training.

• Citizenship includes both rights and responsibilities; for youth to become active citizens, they need to be given a voice in decision-making processes that affect them.

• In order for young people to develop a sense of citizenship, they must first realize the positive role they can play through active civic participation.

More here

John Locke said that the purpose of government is to protect and enforce our natural rights, mainly our right to live, our right to live free from interference in our lives, and our right to earn and keep property. Here is his argument, shortened for time. Imagine that you live in a state of nature, a place where there are no laws or government. If someone killed you, it wouldn't matter if there were no laws, because it would be wrong- that means that there are rights that exist before and after government. If you went to Mars, and there were no laws, and someone put you in a cage, that would be wrong- they would have violated your natural right to liberty. And if you go into the middle of outerspace and someone robs you, that would be wrong, because your right to earn and keep property existed before government was ever around and exists even if government isn't there. These rights do not come from the government, and it is not the lawful creator or destroyer of those rights.

So, continuing the lecture, given that we have these natural rights, and given that in a state of nature they may be inadequately protected, the rational thing to do is to agree (ie, to consent) to give up our right to enforce our rights to a government, which will be better able to protect these rights. We do not give up our natural rights- we simply give up the power to enforce them. Therefore, the only reason why government exists is to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property.

That is not to say that government should do nothing. One could convince me that providing a bare-bones safety net of welfare (food stamps or medical care) helps to protect life. One might be able to convince me that liberal rights for criminals could better protect my liberty. And one might even convince me that paying for fire and police services help to protect my property better. As you can see, I'm not a fringe nut- I'm more of a Reagan Republican. That being said, think about what government does right now, what Obama wants government to do, and what your Congressman votes for government to do- do they believe that the purpose of government is to protect your life, your liberty, and your wealth?

Obama is going to give a State of the Union address tomorrow- I predict that in it, he is going to talk about how the government can take more of your property (or some other sovereign individual in our nation), control more of your liberty (or someone else's that you may or may not know), and quite possibly might let slip that he is changing the rules regarding the valuing of human lives (pro-choice and all that stuff).

Call up your Congressman and ask him if he believes that the sole purpose of government is to protect your life, liberty, and property. He better say "heck yah!", or else you better donate to his opponent next election and knock door-to-door so that you can throw him out of office.

Listen to a great interview with 760 WJR's Frank Beckmen as he speaks with Amity Schlaes, Senior Fellow for Economic History at the Council on Foreign Relations, about Obama and if he is repeating Roosevelt's mistakes, and you'll see why I am getting so upset about property rights violations by the Obama administration.

Life, liberty, and property. Remember those words.

Most likely, the Governor of your state will have a 'State of the State' address coming up soon. If you have a liberal or Democrat Governor who is out of touch with reality too, I suggest that you contact your local taxpayers association group or organize something similar to this yourself. Via the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, written by the great libertarian Republican Leon Drolet:

On February 3, Governor Granholm will present her eighth State of the State Address to Lansing lawmakers. there are fancy receptions prior to the Governor's speech featuring rich hors d'oeuvres and premium bars. Politicians dress in their finest clothes and bring their families and friends to the Capitol to attend the parties. Every state representative gets to bring a special guest - usually a big financial donor - to sit next to them in the House chamber during the governor's speech. It is all very nice. You are not invited.

You see, the State of the State Address isn't about you or your family. Much of the Governor's speech is about the government's budget, not YOUR budget. When Governor Granholm talks about helping the economy, she means giving special tax breaks and subsidies to politically connected and politically-correct companies while raising taxes on every family and business that doesn't have a solar-powered windmill and a healthy lobbying fund.

Let's seize the day of February 3rd away from Governor Granholm and the political class in Lansing.

On the evening of February 3rd, at the very same moment that Governor Granholm begins her speech, the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, and other activist groups like Common Sense in Government, are hosting a different speech outside the Capitol Building. This speech will be a "State of the Citizens Address" where everyday citizens will gather to air their grievances against Governor Granholm and Lansing's government class - and you are absolutely invited!

The protest starts in front of the Capitol Building at 6:30PM and the 'State of the Citizen Address' starts promptly at 7:00PM. Go to www.makelansinglisten.com for more information. Also, check out the great youtube video here.

Friends, it is time to seize the day. It's time to drive to Lansing (dress VERY warm!), and join us outside on the steps of the State Capitol Building. Bring your protest signs and join with fellow frustrated taxpayers in demanding an end to Lansing's failed policies of tax hikes, spending increases and broken promises.

Bring your family, friends and coworkers. The more people we have at this 'State of the Citizen Address', the more the media and (most importantly) the politicians inside the Capitol will pay attention.

Also, call your state representative and state senator and invite them to come too. Tell them that, if they want to really represent you, they should leave their seat on the House floor vacant and go outside and listen to the people. They might tell you that they "have an obligation to attend the Governor's State of the State Address" or that it "would be disrespectful" to miss it. Politely inform them that their obligation is to the citizens, not the Governor. And that we are not asking anyone to interrupt or be rude during the Governor's speech - we are asking them to simply not attend. And to join the citizens outside, instead.

Michigan taxpayers need you to step up. Our economy, our future, need you to step up. Let's do it. Let's rescue Michigan. Let's seize the day on February 3rd! You are invited.

This is a great idea, and I wanted to let you all know about it now, so that you can plan on being there if you live in Michigan, or if you are from another state so that you can begin to plan your own.

Democratic US President Barack Obama continues in his quest to be a "a really good one-term president (as judged by liberal progressives that only make up 20% of the US population) rather than a mediocre two-term president (as judged by voters after evaluating him after 4 years)," as he told ABC's "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview recently. His newest effort in his quest to be a one-term President is that he will announce that he wants a three-year freeze on discretionary, non-security spending.

Now, this is not a bad thing, and Republicans should support him in this. About $447 billion of US government spending is 'discretionary, non-security funding'- the rest is mandated by law (the entitlements) or related to defense, intelligence, veterans or national security issues. Obama is promising to veto any budget that Congress submits to him that spends over that threshold, not adjusted for inflation, over the next three years. All of this is good, and a step in the right direction, and Republicans should support him with this effort.

But, this effort is laughable for many reasons. Obama has already greatly expanded the amount of 'discretionary, non-security funding' in his first year, and all that money is still sloshing around finding its ways to corrupt individuals and buying votes while contributing to the massive debts that is driving our nation into bankruptcy. Freezing it now, after its massive expansion, isn't that much of an effort by Obama.

And it isn't like he is 'really' freezing spending- he is freezing the mind-numbing growth in spending after his wild orgy of spending first year. Spending on 'discretionary, non-security' spending will continue at a rapid and high clip of $447 billion a year, a staggering amount already by any real measure. Oh, and it is not a 'hard' spending cap- inflationary increases of 3% a year or whatever inflation is is apparently not going to count towards the 'freeze'. 3% a year of 447 is $13 billion, over 3 years, means that the 'freeze' will only grow this portion of the budget $40 billion over the next 3 years. One has to wonder how much he was intending to grow 'discretionary, non-security' spending while running massive deficits a year before this freeze.

Oh, and this freeze, which is expected to save a couple hundred billion from the budget, would not even make a dent in controlling spending if the President manages to ram through a trillion dollar healthcare bill that no one wants. It is wrong to characterize someone as 'fighting debt' or 'spending money wisely' when on one hand they want to 'freeze' spending growth and on the other hand they want to push through a massive bloated spending increase.

To be perfectly honest, you have to wonder if this is yet another promise that Obama intends on breaking. During his campaign for President, he ridiculed his opponent, the moderate Republican John McCain, for calling for a spending freeze, which is the very thing that he is calling for now. One wonders what has changed, other than his poll numbers or experience in office, to reverse his position.

In Sahara Reporters Rudolf Ogoo Okonkwo writes:

A revolution is not an intellectual activity. It is not something you can will into existence by standing on the sideline, even if you are cheering. Revolution requires action, commitment and sacrifice.If you are not taking action; if you are not making serious sacrifices; if you are not committed for a long-haul, you are just a mere reactionary.Initiating a revolution is like planning a coup. You want to change the dominant order of things. The beneficiaries of the current order will not sit back and watch you throw them out. They will put up fierce resistance because their way of life is threatened.

More here

After the Republican resurgence of 2009, it is worthwhile to think about what this means for 2012. After all, if everything continues as it is going, Barry is a happy one-termer, a guy who did as much damage as possible to the American Republic as possible in 4 short years before voters throw him out and turn to a Republican to begin the probably hopeless task of digging our nation out of the problems of Barry's term.

So, what sorts of people can the Republican party look to for leadership in 2012? Bill Schneider, writing in the National Journal Magazine, says:

What Republicans need in 2012 is a conservative version of Obama. There were high hopes for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, but he flunked his screen test last year. And Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has not yet lit any fires. Right now, the "tea party" movement is trying to energize -- or take over -- the Republican Party. But it doesn't have a leader with presidential stature. Still, you can bet that, after November 2, a major national publication will come out with a cover story showcasing "The New Faces of the GOP." Who will they be? We don't know yet. First they have to get nominated for an office open in 2010. Then they have to win.

Winning Edward Kennedy's Senate seat puts Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown at the top of the list. Marco Rubio will likewise be on the top tier if he beats Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in their state's Republican Senate primary and then wins the election. Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey might be also if he bumps off Sen. Arlen Specter. And so would any Republican who defeats Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. South Dakota's John Thune holds an honorary place on the list for having defeated Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

There is likely to be a whole class of new Republican governors to talk about. Already enrolled: Bob McDonnell, who won election in Virginia in November. Other key members would include Scott McInniss if he wins in Colorado. Ditto for Ohio's John Kasich, Massachusetts' Charlie Baker, and Nevada's Brian Sandoval.

Although Schneider makes a good argument, I disagree with him. Republicans don't need a 'conservative Obama'- we already have seen what happens when you put an inexperienced idealistic rube in office, and it isn't pretty. We don't need a 'new fresh face' or even someone 'from outside the establishment.' What the Republicans need to do is put a responsible, solid, experienced, and learned President in the White House- not someone who is going to set the world on fire and be a revolutionary, but one who will start the task of 8 years of solid, steady, digging.

Everyone knows that it takes years and years of steady investing and growth to build up wealth, but it only takes a short amount of time of reckless spending to burn through it. That's the situation facing America right now. George Bush wasn't pretty and didn't set the world on fire, but after 8 years as President, he left American marginally better than he found it. That's tough to do- I don't think that Obama is going to do that, Carter didn't do it, Ford didn't do it, Nixon didn't do it, and LBJ didn't do it.

So who should the Republicans nominate in 2012? The guy they should have nominated in 2008- Mitt Romney. He has experience pulling debt-destroyed disasters of the of fire and making them successful (Olympics), he has experience running states (MA), and he has a solid, although not overwhelming, conservative record. Don't get greedy people, and don't fall for the glitz and glam of a fancy new candidate- that's what Democrats do. Republicans are responsible, reasonable, calm, and rational, and that means that our pick for 2012 should be Mitt.

This just in. NBC Channel 4 is hunting down Chancellor Michelle Rhee to get her statement about the remarks that she made about DC teachers molesting students, abusing students and abusing their leave. Please check them out tonight on channel 4 @ 5 and 6 pm.

Bopreneur writes:

I hope that we can end poverty, but I believe it will happen one family at a time, one business at a time, one community at a time. The path of human development is a frustratingly slow one. To figure out how to improve income or health for a thousand people is worthy work, and should be celebrated, even if it doesn't "scale up" to millions. The venture that has served 1,000 people has a better chance than the idea that has served none.

More here

George Ayittey writes in FP:

Africa only has to look within to find the causes for radicalization. About 60 percent of Africa's nearly 1 billion people are less than 30 years old. In the past few decades, these young people have become increasingly disaffected, lost, and restless, and who can blame them? Poorly educated and jobless, they have few role models with moral stature. The value system has collapsed. Hard work and entrepreneurship no longer assure success and wealth. Political connections matter. The richest men in Africa are often heads of state and ministers. Of the 209 African heads of state since 1960, fewer than 15 can be classified as good, clean leaders. The rest -- an assortment of military brutes, briefcase bandits, and crackpot democrats -- are decidedly uninspiring.

More here

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Ethnicity INC: or why ethnicity is not the bogeyman we were told it is" (loomnie.com)
• Africa Past and Present (my-beauty-best-teacher.blogspot.com)

JANUARY 22, 2010

Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people. Oakland County (MI) government needs to wake up and realize this.

If you need a marriage license, a death certificate, or a birth certificate, you should go to Oakland County Government. If you pay your property taxes or get a map of the county, you should go to Oakland County Government. If you need to pay a ticket, find out about the court systems, or look through campaign finances of local elected officials, go to Oakland County Government. If you want a county park or recreation area, go to Oakland County Government. Oakland County Government should be in charge of sewers, elections, roads, libraries, jails, morgues, and children's services.

But, Oakland County should not be manage an airport. It should not be in the movie making business (Office of Arts and Film). It should not be helping to sell industrial or residential properties, or listing foreclosed homes. It should not be speculating in business ventures, gambling on what kinds of industries to support with investments or tax breaks, and should not be picking and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. Oakland County Government should not be running job placement services, or teaching people how to use a computer, or providing charity for veterans.

These are all worthy and noble efforts- but Oakland County Government should not be doing them, private businesses or private charities should, as they are better able to, provide better services, and do so more efficiently.

And Oakland County Government should not be in the business of providing healthcare to citizens. This is important, and one would hope that an employer would provide this to its employees or the healthcare would be priced so that an individual could afford it, but it is not the business of county government to provide these services.

Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people.

Today I was listening to a speech by House Republican leader John Boehner. He said

Democrats believe that government knows best how to spend your money. They believe that we are just one new tax, one more czar, and one giant bureaucracy away from solving all of your problems. That's not America. For months, an American revolution has been brewing- one born from the American peoples opposition to greater government control over our economy and our lives.

Democrats are people who think they are better than you. They think they are better able to make decisions about your education, your healthcare choices, your economic decisions, or your energy decisions. A Republican says that you were born free and that government is supposed to protect your life, liberty, and property- a Democrat says that you were born free, but now you bust be controlled, and that your liberty and property is not yours to freely deal with, but instead will be controlled by Democrats through the power and authority and force of the government.

YOU WILL BUY A SMALL ELECTRIC CAR, the Democrat yells. YOU WILL NOT TURN YOUR AIR UP, yells the Democrat. YOU WILL SEND YOUR STUDENT TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL, the Democrat chants. YOU WILL GIVE ME MONEY SO THAT I CAN GIVE YOUR MONEY TO SOMEONE ELSE, the Democrat intones. YOU WILL GIVE MORE MONEY IN 'CHARITY' TO POOR PEOPLE, the Democrat demands. Democrats believe that they know best.

And the way to make the world better, according to Democrats, is to just raise taxes a bit more on some certain group, or to pass another regulation, or to control your health and reproductive decisions. Democrats, at least today as we can see them under Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, talk over and over about how they want to take away your property (or someone else's), take away your liberty and choices, and take away the right to life (taxpayer money for abortions, death panels, etc).

This is a tyranny. And the response to a tyranny is a revolution. Vote the bums out in 2010.