My Beauty Best Teacher

Here are ten consequences of a victory by President Barack Obama in November 2012 over Mitt Romney:

1. Obamacare will not be repealed. It is already being demonstrated to raise costs of healthcare and as its taxes and regulations sink deeper through the system, it will cause our healthcare system to increasingly be in a crisis, likely resulting in greater and greater government control to 'fix', until we have a massively inefficient and expensive and bad healthcare system.
2. The unprecedented levels of spending in Obama’s first four years will become the new floor, as America continues its experiment in reckless spending and adding up massive debt. The new normal of debt that Obama has established- $1 trillion a year of living beyond our means as a nation- will erode the value of our currency, lead to higher interest rates, lessen our national security, and eventually cause our nation to collapse. Four more years at our current levels might just about do it.
3. Job creators will face massive tax increases and more Americans will come off the tax rolls—resulting in fewer citizens with a stake in keeping taxes low and more with a stake in protecting benefits. The Bush tax cuts and other tax cuts may be allowed to expire while Obama and the Democrats who still support his failing policies will push for more taxes, fees, and fines to pay for the exploding cost of employing more and more government workers and providing ever more 'free' services and products to citizens.
4. Government dependency, already at record levels, will continue to grow. Based on the results of his first 4 years as President in which record numbers of people went on welfare, more people will go on food stamps and bridge cards and lifelong unemployment and other government programs. They will not gain job skills and any skills they have will be eroded by time, rendering them unemployable, unhappy, and dependent on elites above to provide them with what they need to live. They'll become slaves to the state, living in permanent poverty, and I don't think we can afford four more years of accepting this.
5. Four more years that we have already lost in dealing with the looming and inevitable entitlement crisis will become eight. The reforms needed for strong and healthy Social Security and Medicare programs  will need to be in place many years to avoid the collapse that is coming, and the delay of electing Obama on a myth of hope and change has already set our nation back a critical 4 years- another 4 years of Obama might change the conversation from 'implement reforms to keep these programs' to 'its a crisis and we're facing a collapse.'
6. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands. As Obama stated in March, no President wanting to win re-election wants high gas prices- but a President not needing to win re-election because he is a lame duck for four years will not need to worry about high gas prices, and he is sure to wage a war to drive up the cost of gas. The cost of gasoline is a very regressive tax, which means when it goes up it hurts the poor more than the rich, and the effects of 4 more years of Obama will be a more unequal society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
7. He will unleash the Environmental Protection Agency to impose crushing new burdens on U.S. business. Already the EPA is an agency just barely under control, in every way it can waging its green communist war against freedom and liberty and property. Another 4 years of executive orders and ever expanding budgets will make this agency uncontrollable and its regulations and policies will be a corrupting influence on any potential economic growth.
8. President Obama will continue and heighten his administration’s assault on religious freedom, expanding it into other areas in his effort to wipe out the influence of Christians in our nation. Already liberals and progressives speak about removing the 'tax-exempt' status from Churches, closing down all religious schools, and increasing the wall of separation that already exists between church and state. Eventually, once organized religion- mainly Christianity, especially Catholicism-  is walled off and isolated, personalized and demonized, he can finally kill God and replace him with himself or one of his idols.
9. Another 4 more years of Obama will gut the Defense Department, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower. Already under Obama we have abandoned our long-held policy of fighting two wars; another 4 years of Obama may lead to our inability to fight one war successfully. While the military is cut, Obama as commander-in-chief focuses on making it more gay-friendly and more green, and another four more years of this may result in the US losing its ability to protect its citizens and interests around the globe.
10. Obama could have the opportunity to appoint more Supreme Court justices, and we have seen from President Obama's past two picks for the judicial branch that he does not even pretend to try to appoint moderates and independents, rather fighting hard to advance and appoint the most partisan and extreme judges in our system. If he is given another four more years by winning re-election in November, we could be looking at a majority of the court that agrees with current liberal Justices who argue that the US Constitution is inferior to the constitutions of other states and that we should use international law instead of US law when making decisions for our nation. This extreme and rogue and partisan Court of unaccountable and unelected lawyers will be a great threat to your life, liberty, and property.

You and your family and friends should be opposing President Barack Obama and working to remove him from power because of consequences above, which are all policy options that President Obama freely chooses to engage in. Most of these policies he pushed for when his party controlled all of Congress, and even today his party still controls the Senate. No one forced him to adopt the policies above, which will have the logical and reasonable consequences I detailed. Racism, partisanship, extremism, and dislike for the guy personally are not to be found in my analysis above. Rather my analysis is based on logic, history, reason, and results, from those principles we can see the consequences of President Barack Obama winning re-election in 2012, and knowing this, we should all oppose him and vote for his likely Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: Thank you for linking Right Wing News and Adrienne's Catholic Corner!

Last year I wrote the following in a post called "Bombshell" Experiment: Global Climate Change Caused by Cloud Cover:

Times have to be getting rough on those who worship the Green God; science and reasoning are killing their religion in a way that it never could do with Christianity. For years people have been preaching that humans are the cause of global warming, that global warming is bad, and that the only way to reverse this climate change is to repent and tithe. Symbols of the evil of humans abound to these true believers- SUV's, air conditioning, electric power, comfort, happiness, etc- and these modern-day followers of Mandaeanism inevitably preach that humanity is responsible and needs to turn towards communism in order to stop the rise of the seas and the heating of the earth.

But it turns out this entire religion is built on a false premise- humans are largely not responsible for the changing of the climate and thus bear no obligation to give up any sort of symbols of progress to fix a problem that isn't theirs to fix. That doesn't mean that humans can pollute as much they want- there is still the tragedy of the commons, which can be solved by stronger rule of law and more property rights, which is the exact opposite of what environmentalists preach. But it does mean that government policies discouraging certain things and encouraging other things are built on a faulty foundation of unreality that will do more harm to society than good if continued.

Humans are not responsible for any sort of change in climate, and thus we should dash the dreams of Democrats and liberals and environmentalists and wake them out of their paradise world of railroads, bike paths, windmills, and other relics of the 1800's. CAFE standards, denying permits to mining and drilling companies, using the laws of the national government to stop developments everywhere, and cap-and-trade schemes are unreal, in the sense that they do not reflect the reality of the world. The only thing that these policies do in reality are empower elites in society to take and keep control of the means of production in order to put in place a more unjust world where life, liberty, and personal property is attacked- they do not do anything to the temperature of the globe or the environment or the climate.

The reason that these policies do not work is because humans are not responsible for any sort of changes in climate- the sun is. Shout it from the rooftops and yell it with passion at any environmentalist or liberal or Democrat whose party has been captured by these believers in the false Green God-

THE SUN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH!

Today on RealClearPolitics, I read a good article that touches on this subject again. Here is part of the article called The Galileo of Global Warming:

...Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who seems to have discovered the most important factor that actually regulates Earth's climate, and who is quietly in the process of proving it.

I linked last year to Svensmark's latest big breakthrough, but I didn't get a chance to discuss it much, so I want to give a little more detail now, then show one of the recent consequences of Svensmark's achievement.

Let me briefly sum up Svensmark's theory. The temperature of the Earth, he argues, is regulated by the intensity of solar radiation, but not in the obvious way. It is not that the increase is solar radiation heats the Earth directly. (It does, of course, but not to a sufficient degree to explain climate variations.) Rather, an increase in solar radiation extends the Sun's magnetic field, which shields Earth from cosmic rays (highly energetic, fast-moving charged particles that come from deep space). How does this affect the climate? Here is the crux of Svensmark's argument. When cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, he argues, their impact on air molecules creates nucleation sites for the condensation of water vapor, leading to an increase in cloud-formation. Since clouds tend to bounce solar radiation back into space, increased cloud cover cools the Earth, while decreased cloud cover makes the Earth warmer.

So if Svensmark is right, lower solar radiation means more cosmic rays, more clouds, and a cooler Earth, while higher solar radiation means fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer Earth.

Those who have followed the global warming controversy over the years may recall that cloud-formation is one of the major gaps in the computerized climate "models" used by the consensus scientists to predict global warming. They have never had a theory to explain how and why clouds form or to account accurately for their effect on the climate. Svensmark has smashed through this glaring gap in their theory.

Like I said, Svensmark hasn't just put this theory out there. He has been working to prove it. He has done some studies that attempted to track measurements of cosmic ray flux against surface temperature and cloud cover, with some success. But his big breakthrough last year was a long-awaited experiment at Switzerland's CERN particle accelerator that demonstrated the most controversial part of Svensmark's theory.

It is widely accepted that the Sun's magnetic field helps shield Earth from cosmic rays, and it is also widely accepted that increased cloud cover cools the Earth (though expect this to suddenly come into question as Svensmarks' theory gains ground). What Svensmark needed to demonstrate was that cosmic rays form nucleation sites that seed clouds.

Hence the aptly named CLOUD experiment performed at CERN last year, with the results published last August. The experiment was actually more than a decade in the making, but as Lawrence Solomon explains, it was help back for years by the scientific bureaucracy because of its potentially unwelcome results.

The results are indeed unwelcome, at least for the advocates of the global warming consensus. Anthony Watts explained the experiment at his blog, Watts Up With That? The CLOUD experiment used CERN's particle accelerator to send a beam of artificially generated charged particles—simulated cosmic rays—into a gas-filled chamber and then measured the formation of aerosols, the kind of compounds that can serve as cloud nucleation sites. It found a direct and very significant relationship.

This is not a total demonstration of Svensmark's theory. The Nature paper on the CLOUD experiment notes that "the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic vapors in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions experimentally." But last year's result is a clear demonstration of a crucial step in Svensmark's theory...

Full disclosure- I don't worship the Green God and don't hold true to the tenants of True Science, so emailing me to extol the virtues of your religion and way of life won't have any effect.

To loosely quote Mr. Universe, there is no official government news- the kind of puppet theatre that the government jesters push through their various institutions to the sleepwalking masses of morons- there is only the truth of the signal- what we see, what we know, and what is reality. And you can't stop the signal.

Henrik Svensmark is also the author of The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change.

Today on the Ed Schultz show Ed was interviewing some expert, and the two liberal Democrats agreed with one another that the problem with our current political system was not the fact that our national government is exceeding its limited powers and spending too much money, but rather the problem with our current political system is that our national government is not efficiently and effectively systematically looting the wealth from productive members of our society and giving that wealth to those who are politically favored.

Is this what modern day liberalism is? Is this what the modern day Democratic Party has become? Is this the goal of President Obama and the new-Democrats in Congress? Is this what their policies and laws and orders are attempting to achieve?

Oh, I know that Schultz and the expert (I didn't catch his name) don't 'represent' the Democratic Party any more than Rush or Sean do the Republican Party. But even still, it is a sign of what I am fighting against and what I am pushing back against, and it is distressing to hear that these people support what President Obama and the Pelosi-led Democrats in Congress are trying to do- they are pushing for the United States government to put in place laws and policies that more efficiently and effectively loot the wealth from those people who have earned it in order to transfer that wealth to those people whom it favors.

That's tyranny and corruption and despotism, boys and girls, plain and simple, and I mean to fight it, just like my forefathers did before me. Although the Republican Party is not perfect- far from it- it is the only party in our system that serves as a means of blocking the attempts by Democrats and liberals of turning me into a slave of the state- voting Republican in the upcoming elections is the only real way today of making it so that my labor and time and effort and energies are my own and serve my purposes and that the fruits of my labor and the product of my time and effort and the wealth that my energies produce are not taken from me to be given to someone else.

Let's dress up this pig here and put some lipstick on it- the election of 2012 is a going to be a key one, an election that will determine the future of our nation, and it is not simply enough for President Obama and the Democrats to lose- no, the Democrats must suffer historic losses such that they learn that the purpose of the United States government is not to systematically loot the wealth of others in order to give it to those who did not earn it, but rather the purpose of the United States government is to protect my life, liberty, and property so that I may achieve the fullest of my God-given abilities.

This two party system has run its course, and the modern day Democratic Party must be destroyed, to be replaced by a Tea Party dominated conservative party that will battle for offices and power with a moderate Republican Party. No longer can our nation tolerate people on the radio who advocate for higher taxes so that older people can live comfortably on wealth they did not earn; no longer can our nation tolerate politicians who advocate for more land regulations and environmental policies so that property ownership becomes more costly; no longer can our nation support people who want corporations and businesses to pay so that they can collect money in the form of unemployment insurance and welfare even when they did not pay for these things; and no longer can the debate be about how tyrannical and despotic the government should be but rather why we should allow people who dodge taxes to create our very tax policies.

Liberals and the party that they have seized control of might believe and argue that the United States government should systematically loot those who have property and transfer it to others- but I don't, and I ask you to support me in 2012 by rejecting Democrats up and down the ballot by voting Republican.

Since my first post over FlipSnack -- SnackTools's free eBook-making website -- I have been excited about trying other applications by SnackTools. My last review -- PodSnack -- was a bit of a bust. (Although I think it's neat, I don't think it can have much real value to me in the classroom. Darn.) I'm hoping this post, featuring PhotoSnack, will be better!

Put simply, PhotoSnack is a photo-slideshow-maker.  I know there are lots of photo-slideshow-makers available on the webs, but I really like that users who have signed up for any of SnackTools's other applications would have easy access to PhotoSnack. That's just one less username and password we'd have to remember, and God knows teachers have enough on their minds already! :)

Before I begin talking about all the details of this website, let me list a few ways you may be able to use PhotoSnack in your classroom:

• Attach it to your "virtual 'fridge" and play a slideshow of outstanding student work.
• Attach pictures from last year's class -- having a blast, of course -- and show it on the first day of school to let your students know what they're in for this year!
• Attach pictures of your current students working hard and/or having a ball and show it on Open House Night or on the class website.
• Upload samples of a student's work (like a mini, photo-portfolio) and show it during P/T conferences to help parents get a better grasp of what kind of work their child is producing in class.

OK, now that we have some ideas, let's dive into the logistics of PhotoSnack.

Here are some cool features:

1. You can use it for free. 
2. You can add music to the background of your slideshow, if you'd like.
3. Import photos from several different (and common) photo-hosting websites. 
4. You can download the slideshow to the computer and burn it onto a DVD (a cool goodbye present for students on the last day of school!). 
5. Add titles and captions to each photo if you want.
6. You can publish it on several different websites (think: personal website and social media websites). There's an embed code so that viewers can actually see the slideshow on your website instead of having to follow an external link to see anything.
7. It uses Flash when posted on regular websites. Still looking for information about viewing it on iPhone/iPad....
8. There are several customization options so that you can personalize the slideshow(s) in a variety of ways. 
9. The end result looks very professional! 
10. Can add up to 100 photos to each slideshow
11. Many, many people can view your slideshow for free. The way I understand it, people with a free membership can have a max of 25,000 views per day on sites external to PhotoSnack (VIP members get 50,000 views). Pretty convenient. I don't ever expect to reach that 25,000 view maximum, anyway, so I don't see this as a problem. 
12. Besides all the customization options inside the slideshow, you can decide which type of album you'd like to be featured in the show: professional photo album, product presentation, personal portfolio, real estate slideshow, or web-designer portfolio. 
13. There are several widget-options you can use to display your show(s) on your websites.

PhotoSnack allows users to upload documents in a few different formats: .jpg, .gif, and .png. No file over 10 MB may be uploaded to the slideshow.

Now that you know about all the great features, let me give you some details about the $$ involved:

• There is a free version, but, as with most websites, there are a few limitations. The free version puts a watermark on all slideshows. I didn't see an additional upload limit; it appears that the free version also has an upload limit of 100 photos, just like the paid version! Whoo-hoo!
• You can have the watermark removed from individual slideshow by purchasing points. It costs 6 points in order to do this, and the price of the points varies, based on how many you purchase at a time. (A purchase of 10 points will run you $19, a purchase of 25 points will run you $39, a purchase of 50 points will run you $49...you get the picture. There's a slight discount when you buy points in bulk.)
• If you don't want to mess with the limitations at all, you can always purchase a VIP membership for $14/month. This membership actually gives you premium access to all of SnackTools's apps, so you're getting quite a bit for your money. (Although, I'd really appreciate the ability to just buy a premium membership to ONE app, but maybe they'll implement that later!)

 Overall, I really like the ease and convenience of PhotoSnack. Like I said, there is no shortage of photo-slideshow-making websites available on the web, but I like that this one can pull photos from a variety of popular photo-hosting websites and you can access it through your SnackTools's username and password. Pretty nifty!

My sense of humor is a bit off, just to warn you, but here are some of what I think are my funniest posts of 2011, filled with a sense of wit and sarcasm and fun. Enjoy.

BREAKING: Barack Obama Time Travels from January to Scold Barack Obama of February of his Lack of Civility in Wisconsin Budget Battle

BREAKING FAKE NEWS: In an unusual move for a sitting President of the United States, Democratic President Barack Obama time traveled from January of 2011 to February 2011 in order to to scold Democratic President Barack Obama for his political finger-pointing and lack of civility and honesty regarding the public discourse over the budget situation in Wisconsin.

January Obama reportedly said to February Obama "(We should all) strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents... more civility in our public discourse... only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."

In reply, February Obama said to January Obama "Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions..." and then DNC's Organizing for America arm -- the organization and people who were behind Obama's 2008 campaign -- began playing an active role in organizing protests...

(the rest of the post is a long hypothetical conversation between time-traveling Obama's which quotes from him at different times to reveal his shameless hypocrisy in an amusing way)

EXCLUSIVE: Obama Prepared to Demand France Return to 1917 Borders

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

(the fake speech is quite long- I took the speech that Obama gave at the AIPAC policy conference in May of 2011 and simply edited it a bit- but here is my favorite part of it)

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

(for similar fun, see John Lillpop's post "Obama to Call for Return of U.S. –Mexico Borders to 1843?")

Obama's Belief in 'Bad Luck' Part of What Religion Exactly?

"We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck."

If bad luck is the reason that our nation has struggled lately, I wondered to myself just what exactly our President and Commander-in-Chief was doing to combat this recent run of bad luck.

Never in my knowledge has any other President had to battle 'bad luck' before- a google search of past Presidents' speeches did not turn up any results of past Presidents, whether they were Republican like George W Bush or Ronald Reagan or Democrats like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, ever blaming 'bad luck' for the problems that the United States faced. Perhaps it was because these past Presidents were religious people, who did not believe in paganism and 'luck' so much as the divine will of God and his plan...

(the rest of the post is a serious attempt by me to investigate the role that karma and luck play in the President of the United States worldview and understand what sorts of policies he will put in place to battle bad karma and bad luck- it's a joke because he's a joke)

Scientists Filling Roles Priests Once Filled?

(I'll be honest, this post was simply an excuse to bring up an earlier funny post I wrote called Is Al Gore the Re-incarnation of the Xhosa Prophetess Nongqawuse?, but it remains relevant still)

...increasingly, scientists are filling a role in our society once reserved from priests- they tell fortunes based on reading omens in the weather, they tell the future (inaccurately) based on models they create, they punish unbelievers and reward those agree with them without questioning, they build themselves great temples on universities designed to add prestige to their profession, they advise people regarding the proper sacrifices to make in order to appease the angered science gods, they peddle myths and run secret societies, and they hold to a worldview that does not allow any other challengers.

It should be no surprise that scientists are filling this role- for thousands of years, humans have turned to priests, shamans, fortune-tellers, soothsayers, magicians, witch-doctors, and religious types of all sorts. These sorts prey on those who are looking for hope, looking for direction, looking for someone to tell them the right way to live their own lives, and these scientists fill that role- many have, after all, devoted their lives to killing the Christian God and subverting his people, and now they rush into that vacuum with their own creation myths, sacred beliefs, sacrifices, and class of keepers of the eternal flame of truth....

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

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... So today let's get to know a little bit better our Science Czar, John Holdren...

...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...

(Here I am simply amused by the phrase Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes, as if this is some sort of pseudo-scientific system out there- check out Powerline's post on this for more)

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

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

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

(you'll have to read the post to get the joke- you'll chuckle, I am positive)

Funny Rick Synder Story about Bureaucrats

Yesterday I got a chance to sit down and talk for a bit with Michigan Governor Rick Synder and he told me a pretty funny story. I'm going to try my best to rely it to you...

(it's a good story- I can't improve it in any way by summarizing it for you, so just read the post)

Hopefully these all brought you a chuckle to start off the year, and you all will be sure to regularly read A Conservative Teacher for insight, humor, and a dose of reality.

In my post America's Youth Will Rue the Day They Voted for Obama I wrote:

...(the national debt piled up under the recent budgets of President Obama) is going to destroy the life, liberty, and property of my children and grandchildren. They are going to grow up in a world less secure because our nation will owe money to nations ranging from Middle Eastern oil dictatorships to communist China, our children will have lesser fire and police and hospital and library services than we enjoy today, inflation will destroy savings and inheritances and businesses passed on, Social Security will be gone (or exist in a much diminished manner), Medicare will be gone (or exist in a much diminished manner), higher education will be too expensive except for the richest of the youth, and our society will be one which rewards those children whose parents have political connections and not those children who work hard and innovate. A Leviathan will rule over my children and grandchildren, controlling their actions and dictating to them in a poor society that is yet a shadow of what America used to be, all thanks to liberal and progressives and their failed policies which have destroyed the financial and moral foundations of nations, states, and cities already....

...our nation will fall father and farther behind in developing energy and be forced to transfer more and more wealth to tyrants overseas just because Obama and the Democrats are slaves to a failed Green God religion and its corrupting influence.

The very nature of Obamacare is to transfer wealth from young to old, by forcing healthy members of society who are choosing not to buy healthcare to buy healthcare and subsidize the old people in society who use it. The promise is there that someday they'll also get to join in the intergenerational theft, but when America's debt soars ever higher, that promise will not be followed through on, and besides, promises of intergenerational theft are still nothing more than theft.

America's youth will rue the day that they voted for Barack Obama on a naive promise of hope and change and togetherness. They will rue the day....

My prediction was that someday in the future, America's youth will look back on the election of 2008 and think to themselves that they should not have voted for him because in this distant future America's youth will be unemployed and facing crumbling foundations and massive debt. My prediction was wrong- it turns out, America's youth should be ruing the day right now that they voted for Obama, because now none of them have jobs:

Just 55.3 percent of Americans between 16 and 29 have jobs.

That means that almost half of all young people are not getting any job experience and are not gaining critical job skills, and in the decades to come, now will be a lost period during which the future did not set themselves up for a brighter future. Instead the young are draining the resources of other productive people in society by living at home and eating food paid for by their parents, who could have been using using that money to invest or save for retirement or give to charity.

Although I was not able to find any information to compare 55.3% to from the Department of Labor, I was able to find a paper which suggests a pre-Obama employment rate for 16 to 29 year olds of 65%. This suggests that the addition of variable "President Obama" to the American economic equation resulted in an increase in 1 in 10 young people not being able to find a job due to his job-killing policies.

The reason why these young people can not find jobs is not because 'Bush lied and soldiers died' in Iraq, it is not because Bush didn't stop global warming, it is not because the Republicans are 'obstructing' tax increases and increased government spending, and it is not because 'tea party people are racist.' The reason why young people can not find jobs is that legislation and policies passed by Obama and the Democrats make it more expensive to hire workers (such as increased healthcare costs associated with Obamacare), make it more risky to expand production (when government policies could change and turn on any sort of industry), when being productive makes you more of a target (the 'evil rich' are being attacked by class-warfare playing Obama), and that the government is encouraging young people to not get jobs by pushing more student loans on them and getting them covered on their parents insurance longer.

Young people, because they are up-and-coming and energetic and healthy and productive and strong, should vote conservative and Republican, so that government gets off their backs and lets them be all that they can be.

A couple weeks ago I read an interesting article in the Telegraph- in it, longtime journalist Janet Daley suggests that the best thing that the British government can do to improve the economy and make people more wealthy and happy and free is to work really hard and be very productive in DOING LESS. The truth of the matter is that politicians have to have real guts and strength to simply say 'no, I will not spend taxpayer money trying to control people and the market,' but that may be exactly the kind of strength and guts we need today- politicians who promise to do more of less. From her article A daring idea to fix the economy: try doing less:

...the myth of government activism – the idea that intervention by the state is the answer to every economic and social problem – had been definitively routed. Apparently not: Mr Osborne and, we must assume, his boss still seem to believe that any unacceptable national situation must require direct action from them.

Or maybe they don’t believe that at all. Perhaps they just lack the political courage to admit that, in our present crisis, the best thing that the Government can do is to get out of the business of running (or subsidising, or initiating, or incentivising) things altogether – not just in the interests of saving money, but because the effects of such interference are counter-productive. What the economy is suffering from is not an insufficiency of overweening, fussy, bureaucratic initiatives that inevitably unleash an avalanche of unintended consequences, but a lack of cash in the hands of people who might spend it in ways that would actually create wealth and stimulate (in the proper sense of the word) economic growth.

If ever there was a time for radical proposals by a governing party, this is it. Rather than the imitative, mealy-mouthed shuffling of dollops of money from one departmental scheme to another, in what will inevitably look like panic in the face of rising youth unemployment and disappointing growth figures, what we need is a display of real insight and nerve...

...There is an urgent need now to rethink the whole relationship between government and populace while there is still the possibility of discussion. In Britain, Europe and America, the questions are remarkably similar. Can a free-market economy support an infinitely growing state? We will have to choose, quite soon, between liberty and the “security” of a society in which government controls the levers of economic life. Washington politicians are getting a terrible drubbing for failing to resolve their implacable differences over the size of the state (to the extent that they are unable to agree a federal budget). The US national debate may seem rough and ready to European ears – but at least they are engaging in the real argument.

She is right- the argument has been joined, and today via memeorandum I read in the Wall Street Journal an article that echo's the very ideas of Ms. Daley. From former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's article Capitalism and the Right to Rise:

...Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand "Do something . . . anything."

As Florida's governor for eight years, I was asked to "do something" almost every day. Many times I resisted through vetoes but many times I succumbed. And I wasn't alone. Mayors, county chairs, governors and presidents never think their laws will harm the free market. But cumulatively, they do, and we have now imperiled the right to rise....

....We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation, where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and where the state decides how a massive share of the economy's resources should be spent.

Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well: a road where individuals acting freely and with little restraint are able to pursue fortune and prosperity as they see fit, a road where the government's role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.

In short, we must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom. The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line.

What Governor Bush is talking about is the same kind of thing that I personally observed during my time as a policy adviser in the state's capital. I remember distinctly one time when a young Republican 'conservative' staffer came in to work one day, upset that the car that she had recently bought turned out to have been a bad purchase. She set about writing a law that would force the state to regulate and control all sellers of automobiles in the state and then tried to convince legislators to sponsor this piece of legislation- she wanted the state to immediately do something, to step in and spend lots of money and time and effort controlling thousands of people's individual decisions just to protect several people from their own stupidity. She proposal was met with great hostility towards me, and I countered her proposal by suggesting that rather than the state doing something about used car dealers, it instead loosen regulations and fees and taxes on all car dealers, making the market more free, so that more fools like her could be separated from their money, as the hand of God in its infinite wisdom is wont to do. I wasn't joking though.

The real courage and intelligent thing to do to create a more vibrant, free market by cutting back government regulations and fees and enabling people to be people, in all their glorious faults and warts, because only by doing so can we also unleash the amazing potential for great and good things that humans contain in them. The safe, stately downward path of state control is not the path for me and is not the path that successful, free, and prosperous people- no, we choose the jagged and uneven and unpredictable path that is the path of less government regulation, taxes, fees, and supervision- that is the only true path for better protection and encouragement of life, liberty, and property.

No joke. You have some time off.  I'm asking you to:

• Take one blog post during the season to call awareness to human trafficking
  
• Make least one tweet or Facebook status update a day to stop human sex slavery and trafficking.  (Schedule them with hootsuite, tweetdeck to the hashtag #endslavery) Share facts, figures, ask for donations.
  
• Make a small donation to the anti-human trafficking organization of your choice and tell everyone which organization you donated to in your post. (I am donating to Street Grace, an organization in Atlanta but you investigate and choose the cause of your choice. Please do this before you write your post, I did. The amount is not necessary. Just do it.)

• 12 million people in the world are held in slavery other sites like dosomething.org say this number is closer to 27 million. One is too many.
• The cost of the average slave is $90.
• 80% of trafficking involves sexual exploitation and 19% is labor exploitation
• Half of trafficking victims are under 18.
• the Trafficking in persons report 2011 over 2 million children are held in the child sex trade as slaves

What you can't do:

• You can't go back in time and stand up against Hitler killing the Jews in Nazi Germany.
• You cannot go back in time and stand against slavery during the US Civil War.
• You cannot go back in time and right the wrongs of the segregation.

Those causes were for another place and people living in another time.

You can take up THIS cause as your gift to the world this season.

Don't blame God if you're not willing to give, tweet, or bring awareness to this problem. I believe we are His Hands and feet but whatever you believe, if you aren't willing to do anything don't sit there in shock and awe bemoaning the sorry state of the world. You don't think it is in America, think again, read this week's article in the LA Times, Once an Egyptian Girl Held in Slavery, Now an American Citizen.
If the world is in a sorry state it is because we sit back and don't do something about it. We can't do everything but we can do something. I know that we all have our causes. I work for a nonprofit (our school) and run one (the Flat Classroom Conference and Digiteen) but I'd like you to take this season to end slavery.

Will you help #endslavery and take a small part of your time this Christmas season to not only wish for peace on earth but do something about it?

Time is short. Let's use what we have to leave this world a better place.

I am an abolitionist - are you?

Merry Christmas #endslavery


****
A Note:  If anyone wastes their time this season being unkind to another blogger when we could help the world, I'm sorry for that person. We have things to do to make the world a better place. I hope bloggers from all walks will take up this season to #endslavery. We teach more with our actions than we ever could with our words.

Been pondering on rewards and awards. The inevitable onslaught of upset people after the EDublog 2011 award finals has begun.

But some have asked why we should even have awards in education. Shouldn't teaching be reward enough?

When it means judging the unjudgeable, not a good idea
In my church youth group, my youth minister created an "Eagle Award" for the "best Christian" youth. He said kids needed an award at church to make the kids want to come and compete for that award.

In this case, I didn't like this award and rightly so. As a Christian, walking daily with God IS my reward and the greatest rewards come later in heaven anyway. In this case, the journey is the reward and to create an award is to judge something on the inside that no one can see: motivation. We have to be careful about casting judgement on others and that is what I see a lot of happening.

When you point a finger at someone, you always have 3 pointing back at yourself!

Rewards vs. Awards
The looks on my eighth grader's faces as I knocked it out of the park teaching filmmaking yesterday. That was a blast. By the end of class we were huffing and puffing we were working so hard. That rewarding lesson was great for all of us.

My Daughter "Didn't Win" with her Flat Classroom Video
Today, the Flat Classroom projects will have our awards show at 8 am to announce our winners.

I haven't told anyone until now that this semester's project has a very special student in it: my daughter. She's special to me. She wanted to win the Flat Classroom project video competition more than just about anything.I wanted it for her.
Find more videos like this on Flat Classroom Project


She spent over 20 hours drawing each frame by hand in Paint.net and importing. Julie and I have an agreement that when our students are in a project, that we completely distance ourselves from judging. Fairness is essential.

I've seen the final list and my daughter didn't win anything huge. She did make the list. Am I disappointed? Of course. She's disappointed. Am I glad we had the competition. YES! It spurred her on to do more and be more. She's going to dissect the winners and prepare for NetGen in the spring because she loves making movies. She will learn and do better next time.

She didn't win but did that mean she lost: no! She gained a valuable learning experience.

The Grindstone of Life
Life grinds on you. You can choose to let it either it polish you to a bright, shiny gem or grind you down. It is all how you take it.

Did I lose or did I learn?

So, what about the edublog awards?

Joe Bower raised his concerns in a post "Why I Don't Like Edublog Awards" and Melissa (who had commented on my original post mentioning the Edublog awards) said:

"Thanks for posting this! I actually commented on someone who was nominated for said award. She was encouraging her readers to vote for her because she wanted to be awarded the "best teacher blogger." I was really turned off by this because I thought...what message is she sending to her students if she did not win said award. I asked if she needed the award as validation AND was having 1,000 followers not enough validation. I don't think she cared too much for my comment, as she mentioned that I was passing judgement on her...no judgement, just curious of why all the self promotion for an award saying that you are the best teacher blogger. No worries...I will remain a follower."

My response about the edublog awards on his blog:

"I think these are great comments. Melissa commented on my blog. The reason I wrote my post was because I was nominated in five categories and, to me, I didn't feel I deserved a lifetime achievement award after only 6 years of blogging. So, I said which awards I felt that would mean something and best teacher blog was one of them. I also wanted to thank those who nominated me. It is a pain to nominate for those awards and I should acknowledge that. Enough of that.

Secondly, all awards are flawed. Especially ones involving online polls. (Author's note: See my post about the online poll involving a Redskin player trying to stack the poll for his cousin versus our school's quarterback to see just what I mean.) This poll was based on ip address. That means if someone really wanted to and thy had a mifi card, they could turn it off and on again and vote all they wanted. Hopefully no one did that but the fact is that it is easily hackable. The awards were given in most categories with just a couple of hundred votes. Not many.

Online polls are flawed. Period. See these for what they are. The people who win must mobilize their friends, fans, family and schools to win by ASKING. Period. You will see that behind everyone who won. If you want to win. You ask.

Don't ask. Don't win. The name of the game. I don't apologize for telling my readers about the awards for this reason. You never know unless you ask.

But I think it is fine to have these conversations. We should always know that the best value of the eddies or any other award like it that is popularity based is to help us find new voices. Help us see new people. Truthfully, every link to the eddies opens up more conversation.

It is ok. In life not everyone can get an award and not everyone deserves it. The best awards is always knowing that you helped someone. None of us would ever blog just because of the eddies, that would be silly. But it would also be silly to ignore something that recognizes excellence in what you love. I get up every morning at 5 am to write and set up my tweets for the day. Blogging and Tweeting is very near and dear to my heart.

Just see these for what they are and it is fine. But to have nothing to recognize rank and file teachers means the only educational writers would be journalists etc and that would be sad.

None of us will unfollow you for this post. It is well written and has good points. Likewise, Melissa, no blogger worth a flip would take your comment with offense. When you ask like I did it is a risk you run and there are always people to disagree with something in every post. It is the nature of this beautiful wonderful online conversation. Up with edublogging."

It is a fact that the more people who vote in the Edublog awards, the more it will mean and the less likely someone could hack it. Does that mean we should get rid of the edublogs because it is flawed. The Academy Awards are flawed too, but we don't get rid of those. All award systems are imperfect, especially online polls.

I think the thing that bothered me most about Joe's post is this. He says:

I realize this isn't going to win me many fans, and I'm likely to lose followers on Twitter and subscribers to my blog, but I guess that would be my point. 

People often imply that they risk having people not follow them because they have a contrarian viewpoint. Long live the contrarian. We need more people who can disagree respectfully. And we don't want group think. If we are to be bridge builders we listen to all sides of an issue. We include everyone and treat everyone with respect.

What about ISTE?
A note on ISTE. I have NEVER had a session accepted where it was just me. ISTE cares about "we" presentations -- or groups of people. Lots of people will have their feelings hurt. Lots of deserving, amazing people. But ISTE has a rubric as well and when you have groups of people, the rubric is obviously stacked in your favor.

Don't be disappointed, look at what was accepted and learn.

We win some we lose some
Yes, it is trite but it is true. Right now, you could say I "lost" the Edublogs. Sure, I was second to Stephen Anderson (@web20classroom) in the Twitter category but still. I didn't "win"... or did I? (Honestly I had like 90 votes and he had 120 - not huge vote counts either way but he has 36K followers to my 26K -- I would agree that his numbers speak for themselves but 26K is nothing to sneeze at. Neither one of us compare to the millions that follow rock stars - just keeping perspective. I know Stephen does, that is why he's such a great guy and so many of us like him.)

There are awards I don't even apply for any more. The fact is that most awards in education judge your pedigree as a major factor in the awards and I don't have it. I'm a private school teacher who didn't go to a school of education. That is OK. So really, there are just a few things I can "go for." Those very few things I can... I do.

The fact is that links build traffic and if your business is online and you are writing books and creating projects that depend upon social media and education, it is important to your livelihood and life to get on every list and awards program you can. I love my babies and this blog is helping send them to college.

I gave up a 6 figure income to go into teaching and am just fine with that but now in a year my first child will go to college. Everything I may get from this blog or book writing is heading to help pay for college. Honestly, today, I have no idea how we're going to do it. If I put my name out there and let people know and they choose to vote for me, then that is great. If I get more people who find my blog and like it because of it, that is a good thing. But I'm not going to sit around and say "poor me" and not at least ask. No way. I love my babies. It is a risk I'm willing to take. I'm putting out there my motivations and not hiding them -- that is transparency. For you to judge me any other way is to judge but certainly that is your right.

I really wanted to get accepted as one of the TED Teachers. I worked sooooo hard on that nomination and even had about 10 of you on Twitter join in and nominate me. It was risky to even mention it on Twitter because if you're doing anything in this world some people are going to love you and some people are probably going to hate you. It is the nature of doing anything worthwhile.

So, we were supposed to hear from TED on Monday. They said we would. We haven't. To me, this means, I didn't make the list or even the cut. Am I dissapointed... of course. Will I try again... sure. Will I take anything away from the 10 who get picked -- NO. I'll tweet them and blog them and share them. They are winners and we all win when we encourage good teachers.

Jealousy is a bitter lunch that will make you sick and anemically unable to contribute.

So, the only way to become a loser is to act like a loser.

Losers wallow in self pity. Losers only care about themselves. Losers whine when they don't get their "fair share."

Well, life isn't fair and few people share.  Awards are part of life but if you teach or blog, you should be doing it for the rewards of the conversation and helping people but if an award happens, then, great.

Win with your actions
Winners encourage others. Winners share in the conversation. Winners root others on and congratulate the winner.  Winners look at their rewards and keep perspective about awards.

Awards are flawed measures. They are an attempt to find best practice and we certainly need that.

If they spur us on to excellence, then great. I know they spur me on to excellence because I want to be the very best I can be. Not because of the awards but the rewards but I make no secret about wanting to be world class.

OH, but you can judge me.

"Vicki needs validation. Vicki should be happy with all her readers and followers."

Oh, yes I am. I'm thrilled with those things. Every time a major newspaper or someone asks me to write - I'm in heaven. I love to write.

But I've lost more awards, competitions and contests than I've won. I've lost 5 beauty pageants and won 1. I lost 15 elections before I started winning as I ran for offices. Each time I competed, I became better.

Competition is life. Awards are part of them. Some choose to compete and some don't want to. That is a personal choice.

But anything that recognizes and rewards excellence in the field of education - as long as the system of judging is fully disclosed -- has my vote.

Keep perspective. You are a winner because you are a teacher -- that is your reward. Awards come to only very few and if you're fortunate enough to be one of those, use it well

but if you don't win --- don't be a loser. 

You're a winner for just being in the game at all. (Please do not imply that I think Joe Bower is a loser for his post. I think he actually expresses his thoughts in a respectful way.)

Remember your noble calling teacher. The only way to lose your nobility is to give it away by acting in ways unbecoming to your profession.

Happy Holidays and thank you for taking the time to read all the way to this extremely long, rambling post. Just had to get this off my chest.

My love of graphs is legendary on my blog, and recently I came across an interesting graph on The Atlantic in an article called 8.6% Unemployment: The Good, the Bad, and the Mysterious in the Jobs Report. In it, there is a graph showing the current ratio between population and employment- that is, the relationship between the number of people in America who are around and the number of them who are gainfully employed. I believe it is a better and truer employment number than the phony 'unemployment' stat that is tossed around.

In order to get a better picture of what is going on, I colored coded the graph based on which political party controlled the various policy making institutions at the national level- yellow shading indicates that the GOP controlled the Presidency and Democrats the Congress, orange that control was GOP President/GOP Senate/Democrat House, red for GOP President/GOD Congress, dark blue for Democrat President/Democrat Congress, light blue for Democrat President/Democrat Senate/GOP House, and green for Democrat President/GOP Congress.

As you can see from the graph, the percentage of the population of citizens in our nation with a job has fluctuated in recent years from 56% to 65%. When more people have jobs, more goods and services are produced, more people have a sense of self-worth, and tax money to the government is higher, and these are all good things, so our goal is a higher percentage.

Based on this graph, there were previously considerable gains during earlier Democrat Presidents with Democrat Congresses- as bad as the Carter years were, 1976 to 1979 saw a sharp rise and so did 1993 to 1995. This sort of pattern should have predicted similar results from 2009 to 2011, but instead that time period saw the continued plunging of the line.

The worst drops came when Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled Congress, such as from 2007 to 2009 or 1991 to 1993 or 1975 to 1977. This would suggest divided government is bad, especially when the Democrats control Congress, although I would point out that during a period of Democrat President and GOP Congress seems to be the longest and steadiest rise in the number, but this is only one data point, so I would take it with caution.

What about period when a Republican controlled the White House and Congress? The time period to look at for this would be 2001-2007, and on a lesser scale 1981-1987, and in spite of the recessions during these periods, we can see that the number does go up and down a bit but ends up roughly in the same place.

How does this data help up in 2012? Again, the data is not terribly helpful because it is rather inconclusive, but we can draw some conclusions from it. First, President Obama is utterly and flatly wrong to suggest that Republican policies always fail- the data here does not demonstrate that at all. Second, Republicans who suggest that Democratic policies always fail are also wrong- the data does not seem to suggest that either.

The data best suggests the conclusion that Republicans should control Congress- both the House and the Senate- because it is during those time periods, regardless of who the President was, that the American people seemed to be best off. Even the recent introduction of a little bit of GOP control of Congress- the House from 2011 to today- seems to have steadied the rate. This analysis though is heavily influenced by how bad Democrat control of Congress was from 2007 to 2011 and the steep drop in the population employment ratio during that time.

The data is less clear on the suggestion of which party should be in control of the White House. Carter and Clinton both rate well, but Obama rates poorly. Reagan rates well, Nixon and HW Bush and the first 6 years of W Bush were static, but those last two years of W Bush were poor. Therefore, the data suggest that Democrats may be better in the White House, but not Obama, he just sucks as President.

As much as it pains me to say this, this data suggests that the best possible scenario for the American people is for Obama to drop out of the race, Hillary Clinton to win the White House, and the GOP to win large governing majorities in the House and Senate. Since this scenario is unlikely, the next best thing is for the Republicans to win the White House and Congress. Worse than that is for Obama to be re-elected and the GOP to win Congress. The worse possible situation, admittedly based on those really bad results form 2009-2011, would be for Obama to win re-election and the Democrats to win Congress.

How does this analysis fit with other analysis that I have done? Pretty well, I think.

In Graph: Non-Defense Spending Relative to GDP, Color-Coded by Party in Power, or the Obama Hockey Stick, I noted this:

The conclusion that I draw is that Republicans keep federal defense spending as a share of GDP near the historical average when they are in power, but Democrats are more inconsistent- there was Clinton on one side of the ledger, and Carter and Obama on the other. In particular, Democrat Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States when it comes to this measure.

The lesson here is more clear- under Democrats (control of Congress), non-defense spending increased at a greater percentage than GDP increased, and that giving Democrats total control of government (President and Congress) resulting in irresponsible explosions in non-defense spending and/or the collapse of the GDP. Putting Republicans in charge seems like the best bet- they keep this measure steady or decrease it, either by cutting spending or by increasing the GDP.

In Graph: U.S. Foreclosure Rates, Colored-Coded by Party in Power, I noted this:

My read of the graph is that the introduction of the variable of 'Democrat' in 2006 caused the situation to worsen, the bad situation was made worse by the election of Democratic President Obama, and it is still too soon to tell what sort of effect the GOP taking back 1/2 of Congress has had on the situation.

In Graph: Public Debt Over Time, Color-Coded by Party in Power, I wrote:

The conclusion that I have reached is that the party that controls Congress matters a lot more than the party that controls the Presidency in determining the amount of debt that our nation owes to the public. Under Republican Presidents, the debt went up and down by small amounts. Under Democrat Presidents, the debt decreased by a large amount and exploded by a large amount. But when you look at the party in control of Congress you see the largest changes in the amount of debt. Democrat control of Congress has been responsible for the most increases in the debt, while Republican control of Congress was responsible for the largest decreases and stability.

Based on this data, I suggest that next election you pay more attention to who you are voting for in Congress- we need to make sure that Republicans are in control of both the House and Senate by strong and sizable majorities. It is of lesser importance who controls the White House, although I would venture to guess that a Clinton Democrat is different enough than a radical Obama Democrat that in this upcoming election it does matter who is President, and it needs to be anyone other than Obama (a moderate Democrat or a Republican).

These analysis of recent data hopefully can better inform your choices in the coming election, and most importantly as is suggested in all four, President Barack Obama must not win re-election.

UPDATE: Loyal reader and subscriber Darryl emailed me and suggested that the reason for the increase in the population/employment ratio into the 1980's was the number of women entering the workforce during this time. He wrote about it further in his post Jobs, Prosperity, and Psychological Profiles. Check it out.

A a recent article that Charles Moore wrote, I think he put his finger on exactly what is going on today- the success and advance of the twin threats of fear and doubt. Moore, who is a British journalist and former editor of The Daily Telegraph, in an article about Margaret Thatcher, wrote that after the long boom and success of capitalism and free market economics that "the worm of doubt entered the system":

You borrowed all the money needed for the price of a house. This made you, in your mind, though not in full fact, an owner. Because the value of the house was rising, it also made you, again in your mind, richer. The bank, which actually owned the house, found clever ways of mixing and selling on the loans it had granted so that it, too, felt richer. Governments, happy at rising revenues, thought it was their business to make sure that when the symptoms of high risk began to present themselves, they were suppressed.... (then) the roof fell in... (and now) when people now hear words like globalization or capitalism... they feel slightly sick.

Free market economics and capitalism did not lead our nation to failure- rather, during its wild success at making millions around the world more prosperous over the past centuries, communism and socialism and fascism latched on to it, sucking from its prosperity to feed its sick aims like parasites, and over time, many smart people began to become confused and unable to see the parasites from the concepts that they latched on.

Where free markets and capitalism created wealth and encouraged personal responsibility, governments and elites put in place rules and regulations which weakened the foundations of the system, subsidized risky behavior such as sub-prime mortgages and leveraging investments, and gave out handouts to favored industries and distorted the market by doing so. When banks, businesses, and corporations operated in a free market of capitalism, they could succeed or fail based on their own efforts and innovation; but in the new markets, which were no longer capitalistic or free, government subsidies and spending and lobbying and regulation and rules determined whether or not a business, corporation, or bank was successful or failed. And although this was no longer capitalism or free markets, but rather markets once free now twisted to the aims of elites and socialists and communists and fascists, many smart people became critical of the markets or capitalism because of the failures of the government bureaucrats who were twisting and corrupting the system.

And then the parasites of leftism began to weaken and kill the free market and capitalism, and the people cried out 'capitalism and free markets are failing us'- when it wasn't the free markets and capitalism that failed, but rather the people who failed the system.

They were led to this failure by fear and doubt- they did not believe in the hand of the God and the freedom of individuals and life, liberty, and the protection of private property.

The people (or The People, as leftists call them) feared that although they were becoming prosperous and their lives were rapidly improving, they were somehow falling behind others who were advancing more rapidly. Rather than looking at why they were successful in the free market capitalism- because of their hard work, innovation, and yes, luck- they instead demanded government policies to hold back others and help out themselves, corrupting the very system that had brought them so far. They doubted that if people were free and made free decisions, they would make 'the right decisions'- that is, the decisions that they would make if they controlled the other people and had power over them (their definition of 'right decisions').

Rather than just letting go and trusting that the unseen hand of God, trusting to the thousands and millions of individual decisions, and working to ensure that private property rights are strengthened and respected, they doubted that this giant experiment of capitalism and a free market would work, and feared that they would somehow fall behind others in material wealth if they didn't vote for and support people who promised to corrupt the system and abuse the system and circumvent the system. Many people trusted and believed in the power of men to control other men and redistribute property to other men, and in so doing rejected free markets and capitalism.

Fear and doubt came to the people's mind every time there was a recession, or even during periods when great wealth was created but wasn't immediately distributed evenly. The people reacted to the Great Depression by doubting that the free market would correct (as it had done in the 1920's and dozens of times before in the 1800's) and feared that he return to prosperity wouldn't come fast enough- and so they worked to destroy the system, corrupt the system, and make the market less free- and the results were a slight recession during into a decade long destruction of wealth.

And today, government policies and regulations and taxes and laws which corrupted the free market and corroded private property rights have let the worm of doubt creep once more into the people's minds, and in their fear that maybe they won't get to loot the dying Republic of its wealth they vote for Democrats who promise to manage the downfall and distribute the ever-decreasing wealth in the system to their supporters and voters and friends.

To return to success and advance again as a nation in wealth and happiness, we must reject doubt of the free market system and capitalism and trust the people- we need to trust and believe again that the thousands of decisions of free people will create more wealth and make more people happy, and reject those who suggest that having a smaller number of elites make those decisions for us is better. We need to let go of our fear that if we don't control the market and the system that you'll lose out, and instead work hard, innovate, save your money, and invest wisely.

UPDATE 12/7/11: President Obama delivered a major speech today on the economy, in which he expressed his doubt that the capitalist system could continue to provide wealth and prosperity for many and work to make society more equal, and from this place of fear he instead wants to trust himself and his fellow men to run a better system that will somehow do a better job of creating wealth and distributing it than having free people make free decisions.

Via memeorandum, in his Remarks by the President on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas, we read the following fear and doubt from US President Barack Obama, one-term Democrat. These are selections from the speech- (you can read the whole thing yourself here if you want):

My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried -- no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success -- from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.

In this passage, Obama communicates to us that his parents believed in capitalism and free markets and personal responsibility and liberty and protection of property. And furthermore, Obama knows that this system worked. But yet, he has this nagging doubt and fear...

But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

He doesn't BELIEVE in capitalism. He has no faith in people, freedom, liberty, and rights. It's clear he doesn't have any hope that people will make the 'right decisions' (the decisions he would make) and he wants to therefore control other people. He continues:

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.

And it is around here that we get to the heart of the matter- in the last quarter of his speech, after ripping on capitalism and freedom for 3/4's of the speech, that we finally here what he wants to do...

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want.

We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools. Of course, those productive investments cost money. They’re not free. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

So, in summary, here is Obama's alternative to free markets and capitalism- give him more power. Give him the power and authority to tell employers what to pay their employees, give him the power and authority to combine big government with big business and big labor (ie, fascism), give him and his cronies the power to give money to favored constituent groups to fund pet projects of vanity (palaces, statues, etc), and the power to demand that all of these decisions are paid for by someone else who does not want to pay for it- to use the power of guns to the head to make people give up cash to Obama and his people to feed their wrong ideas about the power of men to control others for their benefit.

Obama is wrong. He needs to be defeated- not just politically, but his ideas and beliefs need to be rejected by all good people and good citizens and patriots and he and his policies need to be forever rejected in decent society. We must instead look to capitalism and freedom and liberty and property protection to our future, and not look backward to the sort of tyranny that Obama is proposing.