My Beauty Best Teacher

The recent decision by the Obama administration to ask the Supreme Court to rule on Obamacare is the kind of high-risk action that only a desperate political man would make.

The New York Times:

The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a case concerning the 2010 health care overhaul law. The development, which came unexpectedly fast, makes it all but certain that the court will soon agree to hear one or more cases involving challenges to the law, with arguments by the spring and a decision by June, in time to land in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The Justice Department said the justices should hear its appeal of a decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, that struck down the centerpiece of the law by a 2-to-1 vote....

...The three federal courts of appeal that have issued decisions on the law so far have all reached different conclusions, with one upholding it, a second — the 11th Circuit— striking it down in part, and a third saying that threshold legal issues barred an immediate ruling. A fourth challenge to the law was heard last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit....

....The petition from the 26 states and a second one, from the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals, sought review on the issues they had lost in the 11th Circuit. The administration’s brief and those of the plaintiffs mostly addressed different questions and talked past one another. Each side now has a chance to respond and tell the court its views about whether the issues identified by its adversaries warrant review.

But almost all of the usual signs indicate that the court will agree to hear at least one challenge to the law: a federal appeals court has struck down a major piece of federal legislation, the lower courts are divided about its constitutionality, and all sides, including the federal government itself, agree that review is warranted....

If Obama had waited for the legal process to play out, it may well have been 2013 or 2014 before the Supreme Court weighed in on his signature piece of legislation, and in the meantime he could continue to claim that he passed a major law that addressed a key policy issue and tout all the benefits of the law (especially since all the benefits kick in immediately and all considerable and nation-crippling drawbacks kick in later and really start to destroy our nation the longer it is law). Oh, there would be Republicans and Tea Party people upset that he passed it into law- but they are going to be upset that he passed it into law, whether it stands or is overturned. The very confusion of it legality is the very sort of thing that a Saul Alinsky acolyte like Obama should be able to use to his advantage- he thrives on the sort of division, confusion, and double-speak that you can hear every day on left-wing talk show stations.

But Obama has decided that his Presidency is such trouble that the only way he can win re-election is if the Supreme Court swoops in and validates his signature law, and then he uses that to trumpet that he is right, because the man has no humility and loves nothing more than to trumpet himself (don't believe me- read his books).

Legal Insurrection has the following analysis, which I largely concur to:

From a purely political viewpoint, it is more important that the Supreme Court hear and decide the case prior to the 2012 election than it is which way the Court rules.

While of course throwing the mandate out is my strong (overwhelming) preference, politically for Republicans I don’t think it makes a huge difference which way the Court decides the case, as long as it decides the case prior to the 2012 election.

If the Supreme Court finds the mandate to be unconstitutional, it will deflate Obama’s presidency. In one fell swoop, the entirety of Obama’s agenda will come crashing down. It will be a political and personal humiliation.

If the Supreme Court upholds the mandate, Obama will be able to crow a little, but such a decision will leave the majority of people who hate the law with but one alternative: Throw Obama and Senate Democrats out in November 2012.

A pro-Obamacare ruling prior to the election will motivate the Republican base like nothing else, and will bring the independents along. If you thought the summer of 2009 was hot, just wait until the summer of 2012 if the only way for the nation to get out from under Obamacare is at the ballot box in November.

Legally, Republicans can lose in the Supreme Court on the Obamacare mandate. Policitally, Republicans cannot lose, so long as a decision is issued prior to the November 2012 election.

The only way that this doesn't become a winning play for the GOP is if they go with Romney, in which case the advantage may be negated whichever way the Court rules because Obama can successfully compare his plan to Romney's plan (although Romney's plan is legal and is the kind of experimentation that one expects from states, whereas Obama's plan has to be illegal and is the kind of overbearing tyranny one expects from dictators).

Regardless, the actions of Obama are to be applauded today- we'll now know sooner rather than later if the federal government has the right that I buy a shiny red ball, if it has the power to make me buy a GM car because it wants to support the union, we'll know if the government can stick a gun to my head and force me to buy solar panels or wind turbines, and we'll know if the government really has the power to take part of my salary that I work for and labor for to do whatever it tyrannically wants to do. Obama has made a gutsy call, because he is terrified that people are finally starting to see that the Emperor has no clothes, and actually our nation is better for him doing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is that serious.

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

There is something very important happening in Tunisia. On January 14, a spontaneous popular uprising ousted President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali from power and ended his decades of autocratic rule. For the first time, many in this nation have the freedom to speak and the freedom to demand justice for those who have been unjustly killed by Ali's regime. Although the ending to this story is uncertain- exactly how far does this revolution go and what kind of retribution will fall on Ali's party- the story is very much one that is hopeful and to be celebrated by those people who love and support freedom, liberty, and protection of property.

But it isn't being celebrated by many in America. President Barack Obama (Democrat) issued a weak statement praising “the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people”, and then turned around and made a phone call in support of Egypt's autocratic dictator Hosni Mubarak. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (Democrat) commented that the US was not “taking sides” in Tunisia, reinforcing that it is the policy of the (Democratic) administration not to support good in its battle with evil around the world.

It shouldn't come as a surprise though that Obama's (Democratic) administration is not being supportive or even very happy about the overthrow of an autocratic Middle-East dictator. Ali was 'our guy' a neo-liberal who ran a semi-modern nation and seemed to support us in our wars against extremism in the Middle-East, a description that also fits Mubarak and Egypt. Still, although he was 'our guy', his overthrow might lead to a 'better guy', and so the administration should have been able to react quickly and move decisively to support and praise the freedom movement in Tunisia.

But yet, Obama's (Democratic) administration isn't moving fast and quick and reacting to modern-day events in ways that would support the flowering of democracy and freedom and bring more life, liberty, and protection of property to more people of the world. Why?

Obama is stuck in the past- the past of his Harvard college years, the past of his term papers, the past of his Jerimiah Wright church, the past of his own rhetoric- and this uprising in Tunes, much like the uprising last year in Iran, wasn't expected or even smelled by his advisers and they lack the skill and intelligence and competence to change their policies on the fly. So they sit there, letting world events swirl around them, reacting to uprisings in ways that betray their lack of abilities and vision, and for that reason, voters should severely punish Obama and Democrats in Congress who supported him and his stuck-in-the-past policies.

The Middle-East has been opened to a revolution of freedom and liberty by the successful policies of Republicans and Bush, and Obama's administration has had these successes unfold and fall into his lap, where he has done nothing noteworthy to earn the Peace Prize that was awarded to him before his administration took its first steps. We demand more and better from our Presidents and his advisers- not lukewarm statements and bored non-interest, but real action and real policy and real support.

One wonders why Obama and his Democrats in Congress have been so reluctant to speak out against corrupt regimes that build their power by demonizing their enemies, speaking harshly against them, personally attacking them, criminalizing their political activities, transferring citizens wealth to favored constituents, confiscating the wealth of unfavored individuals, having no oversight to its actions, and in other ways acting as a corrupt and autocratic tyrannical regime that attacks the life, liberty, and property rights of its citizens. Perhaps Obama doesn't express his support for revolutions in Tunisia though because he and his cronies identify more with the autocrats and dictators who run them.

UPDATE: So it is now several days later, and Egypt and Yeman have both also broke out in revolutions, demanding an end to autocractic government and more democracy. Obama's response? No clue. As usual, Obama is reacting to events on the international stage rather than driving events, and doing so in a slow manner, demonstrating once again that he is imcompetent- he and his advisors don't know what they are talking about, don't know how to react to situations, don't do their homework, and don't understand what is going on- and that explains why we hear nothing about how the greatest nation in the world reacts to these revolutions around the world.

This blog is about my attempts to increase protection of private property from tyrannical and unjust takings by government, my attempts to increase protection of liberty and freedom and its practices from the tyrannical and unjust actions by government, and my attempts to protect life and celebrate the joys of being alive.

You see, I love people. Even though there are bad people out there and people that do bad things, I still believe deep in my heart that people are a blessing from God, made in his image and thus in a small way a glory to him, and that every person that is born is someone that should be treasured and loved as one of God's creations. As a teacher, I fully believe in the spirit of 'no child left behind' because I believe that every student should receive a great education no matter what their background. In high school I was part of the Free Tibet movement because I thought that the actions of the Chinese government against the culture and people of Tibet were wrong. Believing that the best way to prevent destructive wars and mass-murder dictators is through a strong military, I've been a big supporter of the military. I've weighed in from time to time on abortion. And I've celebrated the practices of living by putting up pictures of beautiful women and writing about fun movies or great books. Life is something that me, and many conservatives like me, value and support and love.

On the other hand, there are those people out there who don't celebrate and love life. They are supportive of the ending of unborn lives. They supported the Soviet Union and China in their economic and social policies, even though many millions of people died because of those policies. They are against using military force to remove evil mass-murder killing dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan. And these people feel that adding more people to the United States is not a good thing.

Froma Harop may indeed be such a person who does not love life, liberty, and property. She could be characterized by many as a 'liberal' based on the sort of editorials that she writes in the Detroit News- editorials like "Dems need better pitch to tax the rich" and "Obama, Democrats saved the nation" and "(Health) Insurance requirement is fair" are clearly liberal. Liberals don't love life, liberty, and property- they love government and control and power. Froma Harop, who supports the national government taking property rights away from individuals through unjust tax policies or insurance mandates, who does not like liberty based on support she has for czars and regulations over our lives, not surprisingly also is not a big fan of people. In her editorial today called Fewer people good for us all, she writes:

...For Americans concerned with a loss of open space and thickening congestion, a 10 percent growth rate should seem darn high....

...I don't know many Americans, or noncitizen immigrants for that matter, who think that 100 million more people would make the United States a better place. If the U.S. population is slowing, let's celebrate — and hope it slows some more....

I would imagine that Harop, like Obama, believes that children are a mistake, and that the world be a lot better place if there were fewer people in it. Perhaps we spew too much carbon monoxide out of our mouths and are ruining the environment so we should all be killed; perhaps it is because we all are prosperous and doing things and that bothers Harop because she wants us all poor and controlled; perhaps it is because by adding all of these people, these treasures from God, we have demonstrated that our nation indeed is a great place because of its conservative traditions; but for whatever reason, rather than celebrate life and the expansion of it in America, liberals like Harop reveal their disdain for life, liberty, and property.

No wonder liberals don't like the reading of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, documents which celebrate and enshrine the ideas that the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and not to redistribute income, provide healthcare, tell me what I can and can not eat, protect the 'right to abort a child', or do all the other things that liberals would have the government do. They don't like reading these documents because unlike me and fellow conservatives like me, perhaps they don't love life as much as they sometimes pretend they do, as demonstrated by columns like the one by Froma Harop in today's Detroit News.

Cameroon becomes a tourism destination-Global Voices
"Copycat Dictators and Cartoon Democracies..." Alemayehu G. Mariam in Ethiopian Review
"Formal education is not advancing Africa"-Nana Yaw Asiedu
Ivory Coast's descent into madness-Richard Dowden
Taking a look at Land 'Grabs' in Africa-African Arguments
African Export Successes by William Easterly & Ariell Reshef

Back in the hellish years of Republican domination of our nation, back when economic growth was a respectable number, unemployment was low, and things generally were happier, there was a period of time for several months when our nation debated rules regarding whether or not public lands should be developed and how that development should work. Columnists wrote about it, policy advisers debated it, talking heads discussed it, and a rousing public debate was held in an open and free society on the issue. Ultimately, in 2003 Bush decided to order the Bureau of Land Management to allow more forests and wilderness lands to be open to road building, so that firefighters could more easily fight deadly forest fires that destroyed these forests and wilderness lands, and to restore the power to manage wilderness areas and forests back to the states, which had held this power from 1866 to 1979.

Look back at the historical record- go to http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Bush', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2002 to 2004, and you'll see this debate, see the analysis, see all the time and effort and due thought that a guy like Bush put into this small but important change on federal policy.

Today, with no discussion, analysis, thought, regard, public debate, open forum, editorials, round-table discussions, or any real analysis, the Obama administration decided to suddenly announce that the federal government was claiming once again the sole power to decide how all lands in our nation should be managed, including lands that environmentalists and fanatics think about pretending to claim are 'wilderness' or 'forest land', and in doing so will result in lower economic development of these lands, less jobs, less prosperity, more forest fires, less access to these lands for citizens enjoyment, less ability to manage them, and a general worsening of society. As is usual with Obama, his attempts through this policy to make the world a better place will in the end result in the world a far worse place, and as is usual with Obama, his actions were conducted in a manner more fitting of a despot or dictator than the leader of a free nation.

By contrast, type in http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Obama', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2009 to 2010, and you'll see the lack of debate, the absence of analysis, no time and effort and due thought that a guy like Obama put into this small but important change on federal policy- par for the course for a despotic dictator, but not at all what a nation of free people should tolerate from our President. Of course, liberals and Democrats cheer this, but then again, they cheer and support and like it when unelected bureaucrats, life-time appoint judges, and dictators make choices for free people, usurp their authority, and violate their sovereignty.

Our nation slips bit by bit into tyranny, and the damage to our Republic is growing so great I fear that we will never again be able to recover from it. The damage comes in ways large and known, such as Obamacare or the Porkulus bills, and in ways small and hidden, such as the EPA unilaterally rejecting Congress' role in our system of government and deciding that it will install cap-and-tax on us, or the EPA violating the 10th amendment and attacking Texas, or the FCC seizing control of the internet in violation of a liberal Congress' will. Obama is a Democrat, his actions can not be checked because citizens of some states voted Democrat in the last election, and our only hope that actions such as these can be mitigated is because some residents of some states voted Republican. Republicans have their problems and commit their fair share of blunders and bad decisions to, but it is the Democratic Party and their elected officials who today represent the greatest threat to your life, liberty, and property.

Not sure if this was one of the decisions that made it in Bush's book- I still need to read Decision Points.

Over at CIPE:

Elections are a key component of democracy. Without democratic institutions to operate between voting periods, however, elections will only produce the shell of democracy without the benefits of a truly accountable government.Institutions such as representation systems, consultation committees, and comment-and-notice periods ensure that policymakers must confer with their citizens and other elected officials before making policy. Without these institutions and practices, elected lawmakers can behave like dictators, enacting and implementing policies as they see fit.

More here

In Aid Watch:

It’s sure was nice to see mainly Ethiopians vigorously participating in a debate about Ethiopia, in contrast to the usual Old White Men debating Africa. The Meles visit to Columbia had the unintentional effect of promoting this debate...[continue reading]

Watch related videos:

Minus: Realism factor was zero. Plus: Pure sweet awesomeness factor was 5000. Walking out of the theatre, I echoed others who commented that "this movie oozes testosterone," or "I think I grew a third ball," or even "if all the most kick-butt guys in the world pooled their DNA into one pure kick-butt kid, this movie would be the story of his life." I'm not kidding- this is the best guy's guy movie I've seen in years, just pure out fun, laugh out loud in sheer delight at how incredibly and unapologetically manly it is.

Of course it is all the actors who make it that way- Sylvester Stallone is a man, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis face off with him, Dolph Lundgren has been beaten with the ugly/cool stick, Mickey Rourke is the soul of the Expendables, and Jet Li looks like he was born for that part, Jason Statham is a touch of new age, Terry Crews is scary sweet, Randy Couture is an MMA guy, and Steve Austin is a WWE guy. I'm not going to spoil the movie by telling you the plot, but there are a couple scenes that stand out- the duel between Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren, the duel between Steve Austin and Stallone, the duel between Gary Daniels (a kickboxer) and Jet Li, the blowing up of everything, the shooting up of everything, the knife work and knife throwing, and maybe the sweetest use of a AA12 shotgun ever.

This movie isn't the most realistic and won't push any sort of message on you (unless you consider killing third-world dictators and drug dealers some sort of message), but is the funnest ride you'll have in under 2 hours this summer. I can't wait for the sequel! Go see The Expendables today!

In The Secret to Doing Well on Government and Civics Tests: A Grader Tells All I wrote:

Once, a student asked me how I could consider myself a conservative, when conservatives are such bad people (in their opinion). I said that I wish I could be a socialist, or a liberal, but sadly, those ideologies are false- they do not describe the reality of the world that I see about me. An ideology is a way of looking at the world, a lens through which you can view things, and if the lens is wrong or incorrect, you won't see the true reality of the world. Liberals don't see the true reality of the world around them- in fact, most outright reject that there is any sort of true reality to the world and that everything in it is just subjective- and so whenever they advance their theories, make predictions, or shape policy, they are always wrong, because their lens is wrong. I'd love for them to be right- if only money grew on trees and that paying people to stay home and do nothing made society a better place to live and criminals could be released early from prisons and holding hands and singing a song made evil dictators be nice- but sadly, that isn't the way the world really works. To be right, to be correct, you have to be conservative.

Okay, so let's examine this theory in the context of whether or not the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 provides more public taxpayer money to increase abortions. In my post Obama's Health Care Plan Attacks Life, Liberty, and Property I claimed that the act did subsidize abortions. In speech after speech, and with an executive order signed under oath of office, President Barack Obama claimed that the act did not subsidize abortions. I'm a conservative and view things through a conservative lens; Obama is a liberal and views things through a liberal lens. So, which lens is correct and which one is incorrect? Does the Health Care Act provide public taxpayer money for abortions? Does it allow the government to increase the amount of money taken from from pro-life individuals and give it others so that they can kill unborn babies? Turns out it does. It looks like I was right, and the President was wrong.

Via theblogprof That was fast! Obama approves first taxpayer-funded abortion under ObamaCare that he promised would never happen, from LifeNews Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law:

The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.


The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March. It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

Looks like I was right. The healthcare plan passed by the Democrats does attack life, liberty, and property.

George Ayittey writes:

Although all dictators are bad in their own way, there's one insidious aspect of despotism that is most infuriating and galling to me: the disturbing frequency with which many despots, as in Kyrgyzstan, began their careers as erstwhile "freedom fighters" who were supposed to have liberated their people. Back in 2005, Bakiyev rode the crest of the so-called Tulip Revolution to oust the previous dictator. So familiar are Africans with this phenomenon that we have another saying: "We struggle very hard to remove one cockroach from power, and the next rat comes to do the same thing. Haba!" Darn!

More here
Photo courtesy of FP

Occasionally companies hire me to work on tests for them. I can't be too specific- confidentiality and all that- but I can tell you that after working on these tests I gain valuable insights into how to do well on them. And for anyone that is interested, I'm going to pass on a huge tip on how to do well on any government or civics test- be a conservative.

That's right, after grading thousands of tests over a period of many years, it suddenly hit me me- the number one way that a student could improve their score on many of these tests on government and civics is to be a conservative instead of a liberal.

Before you just laugh and reject my thesis, hear me out. Liberals (Democrats, progressives, communists, socialists, progressives, whatever you want to call them) tend to get a lot of questions wrong on government and civics tests because in order to be a liberal you have to buy into certain myths, lack important information about history and economics, or have an elitist or judgemental personality that does not lend itself well to open, honest, unbiased tests.

For example, when students are asked about group voting tendencies on a test question, liberal students reply that every group in society is moving Democrat because Democrats are right on all the issues, and that only racists and evil businessman still vote Republican or conservative. Conservative students reply that some groups are moving Democrat because of their stance on some issues and other groups are moving Republican because of their stance on some issues- which is the correct answer. The only difference- being a liberal makes you put the wrong answer down.

Another question asked about federalism and limited government. Liberals answer that federalism does not exist any more and that limited government is an outdated answer that no one believes in any more. They write this because they think this is correct- they base their answer on faulty information. Conservative students reply with discussions on how federalism has changed and how limited government has changed, which again is the correct answer.

Liberal students reply to questions about fiscal policy by asserting that raising taxes and raising spending makes the economy go up and lowering taxes and lowering spending makes the economy go down. Conservative students discuss Keynesian theory vs Hayek, which again is the correct answer.

When asked virtually any question about civics and government, a liberal student's answer is filled with inaccurate information, myths, lies, distortions of the truth, and falsehoods. That's not to say that conservatives don't also do this, but one thing that I have noticed about conservatives is that they do this much less and attempt to provide evidence to support any assertions they make, whereas liberals, because they know they are right, throw off multiple lies, hoping one will stick.

Once, a student asked me how I could consider myself a conservative, when conservatives are such bad people (in their opinion). I said that I wish I could be a socialist, or a liberal, but sadly, those ideologies are false- they do not describe the reality of the world that I see about me. An ideology is a way of looking at the world, a lens through which you can view things, and if the lens is wrong or incorrect, you won't see the true reality of the world. Liberals don't see the true reality of the world around them- in fact, most outright reject that there is any sort of true reality to the world and that everything in it is just subjective- and so whenever they advance their theories, make predictions, or shape policy, they are always wrong, because their lens is wrong. I'd love for them to be right- if only money grew on trees and that paying people to stay home and do nothing made society a better place to live and criminals could be released early from prisons and holding hands and singing a song made evil dictators be nice- but sadly, that isn't the way the world really works. To be right, to be correct, you have to be conservative.

And on thousands of tests that students are taking all around the country on government and civics, that is the biggest difference between a student doing well and a student doing poorly- the ability to see the world correctly by being a conservative and not a liberal.