My Beauty Best Teacher

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Over and over liberals and progressives argue that the recovery of the US economy is being held back by the lack of investment by those in society with money- and they are right. There is a lot of money being sat on in our nation right now- record amounts which are just being held rather than invested, and this is a large reason why the US economy has not recovered.

Liberals and progressives believe that the reason why businesses and individuals are sitting on massive amounts of money range from racism to a desire for Obama to fail to greed to selfishness to a desire to just swim in their loot and not use it. When they talk about these rich people and profitable businesses sitting on their money they are angry, because they want to use the power and force of the government to make them invest the money. They don't understand what motivates these people and businesses, and it frustrates them, so they attribute their behaviors to irrational or evil motives.

But the truth of the matter is that the reason why individuals and businesses are sitting on cash rather than investing it is because of the policies, positions, rhetoric, beliefs, and desires of liberals and progressives. Progressives and liberals have created an environment of fear and uncertainty, and few are willing to invest in an environment such as that.

Under Obama and the modern-day Democratic Party, regulations and rules and barriers to profitability are being forced on businesses, costs of engaging in business is increasing with new mandates such as Obamacare, taxes are continually talked about increasing (even if they haven't really yet in reality) and every speech by every major politician in the Democratic Party promises to go after the very people who have money, profits are attacked and those who make profits are increasingly viewed as people to exploit and whose wealth the government should take, free trade is hurt by lack of free trade agreements and union kickbacks and increased tariffs and an overall hostile environment to free trade, and individuals are reluctant to engage in investing when the government is picking and choosing the leaders and has demonstrated contempt for well-established bankruptcy laws designed to protect investors (GM bailout).

It will not be until President Obama and the liberals and progressives who have achieved influence and positions of power in his administration are gone that the US economy will recover and businesses will begin to invest again. Even if the moderates and liberals who once were in control of the Democratic Party were in office, perhaps under a President Clinton, then our nation would be growing again and people would have jobs- but there is no moderate or Clinton on the ballot for the Democrats, only a progressive Obama at the top of the ticket who intends to double-down on his policies, especially when he will be a lame duck if he wins re-election and no longer have to worry about putting in place policies that get America back to work.

Do not forget either that Democrats in Congress supported President Obama's policies and put them into legislation and passed them, usually with no bipartisan support and a great many of which were strongly opposed by large numbers of Americans. They had an option to oppose the President, to moderate his policies, and to attempt to reach out for bipartisan consensus to create an environment more friendly to businesses and more encouraging to investors. But they didn't- in many cases, radicals like Pelosi and Reid led the charge to create more fear and uncertainty in doing business and investing in America, and for that they need to go.

Republicans should be the ones to benefit from the suicidal march of the Democratic Party in recent years, not because they necessarily are putting for brilliant ideas and are the best party in the world, but because under a Perry or Romney with a GOP House and Senate at least businesses will not be afraid any more, will feel like they can once again invest and make profits and provide jobs, and not be considered evil or wrong because of this success.

For more information, check out the post on Carpe Diem called We've Got a Sub-Par Recovery Because of Weak Investment Spending, Consumption Has Recovered.

The artist struck by an itch to produce still life art may loot the cupboards for something interesting to paint and pass up apparently mundane objects, such as bottles, fruit or toys, for something more exotic. In the hunt for the unobtainable, the artist may assume that objects present will not produce a good still life. What are the ideal objects to include in a still life painting?

Compelling Still Life Art

• The ideal still life must include exotic or unusual objects; an artefact, a valuable piece of jewellery or other item exhibiting convoluted shapes, textures or bright colours.
• Including objects at their best; a showy bouquet with big blooms; polished silver or flawless china.
• Including “challenging” objects which might exhibit intricate shapes, detail or elements of perspectives in the belief that such objects will contribute to a still life to be admired.

• Demonstration on painting petunias
• Demonstration on painting strawberries
• How to draw accurately
• Book on painting flowers
• Art materials shop

Yesterday was Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day (April 24). The word ‘genocide’ is a recent word that means destroying, either in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This can be done by killing them all off, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life that are calculated to kill them off, imposing measures on the group intended to prevent births by the group, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, and trying to breed the group out of existence by raping the women of the group.

The 20th Century has a brutal legacy of genocide, and it all started with the Armenian Genocide from 1915-1923. Before Darfur (current day), before Bosnia (1995), before Rwanda (1994), before Cambodia (1975-1979), before the Nazi Holocaust of Jews and Poles and Gypsies (1938-1945), and before the Ukrainian Famine, there was the Armenian Genocide. Hitler once justified his Holocaust by asking “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

In the Armenian Genocide, more than 1.5 million Armenians were killed out of 2 million. The main reason for this was a desire to ‘Turkify’ the Ottoman Empire and kill off all non-Muslims (Armenians were largely Christian). Armenian men were drafted into the army to fight WWI- and then were disarmed and put into labor camps, where they were soon starved or killed. Groups of government officials spread rumors of the Armenians betraying Turkey, blamed them for the losses Turkey was suffering during WWI, and demanded ‘justice.’ In April 24, 1915, all community leaders were systematically rounded up and put to death. After that, as WWI spread and became more confusing and disorganized, armed groups would come into Armenian villages and kill off the rest of the men or make them go on death marches, rape or carry off the women to use as slaves, kidnap or enslave the children, loot the village of all valuables, and then chase off remaining Armenians (who then later died of starvation, exposure, or brutality). By 1923, Armenian was simply a memory- 4000+ years of history wiped away like it never existed- churches, monasteries, schools, people, possessions were all destroyed or gone. Even the Armenian names of cities, villages, and rivers were changed.

The official line in Turkey is that the number of people that died has been grossly inflated, and the evidence of this genocide comes from dubious and prejudicial sources. Turkey claims that more Muslims than Christians died during the same period in the chaos that engulfed Turkey during and after WWI. Turkey says that Ottoman officials were tried for crimes against the Armenians and were acquitted, and that the word ‘genocide’ wasn’t even around until after WWII, and that the Holocaust isn’t anything like what happened in Turkey to the Armenians. In 2004, Turkey passed Article 301, which makes it a crime to even talk about the Armenian Genocide, and Turkey today spends millions lobbying the US to try to defeat efforts here in the US to recognize the genocide. Turkey even gives millions to prestigious universities to fund studies of the ‘Turkish view’ of the genocide and offers scholarships to people who will write books or articles denying that the genocide ever took place.

Typical for the waffling spineless President that he is, Barack Obama refused to call what happened in Armenia from 1915-1923 a genocide, instead 'artfully' finding a middle ground on the issue, much like Chamberlain did when confronted by a similar display of evil. "On this solemn day of remembrance, we pause to recall that ninety-five years ago one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century began," Obama said in a statement.... " It is in all of our interest to see the achievement a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts." He then refused to call what took place in Armenia a 'genocide' and mouthed vague words of nothingness to mark the occasion.

The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) rapped Obama for "disgraceful capitulation to Turkey's threats" and of "offering euphemisms and evasive terminology to characterize this crime against humanity," in a press release Saturday. I agree.

While it is important to maintain relations with Turkey, and while we badly need their support on a bunch of important subjects, the truth is the truth, and it is black and white. Obama should recognize the truth and quit trying to make everything so grey.

The Guardian reports:

"It is not unreasonable to estimate total illicit outflows from the continent across the 39 years at some $1.8tn," writes Raymond Baker, director of the GFI."This massive flow of illicit money out of Africa is facilitated by a global shadow financial system comprising tax havens, secrecy jurisdictions, disguised corporations, anonymous trust accounts, fake foundations, trade mis-pricing and money laundering techniques."...[continue reading]

Lord Aikins Adusei in Wikileaks:

However, of all the victims of Swiss banking secrecy laws and her shady banking practices, developing countries and Africa in particular seem to have suffered the most. The global infrastructure of international financial secrecy with headquarters in Switzerland has helped bleed trillions of dollars in illicitly generated money out of Africa and the rest of the developing world. The activities of Swiss banking institutions and real estate companies have plunged third world nations into debts, poverty, misery, malnutrition, diseases, economic meltdown, infrastructure decay and political instabilities through the help they give to corrupt politicians, civil servants, the business elite and corrupt multinational corporations who collude and connive with the corrupt entities to loot and hide the proceeds of their ill-gotton gains.

Aikins Adusei rails against the complicity and complacency of the Western Media when it comes to the acquired loot deposited in Western Institutions:

Corruption is rife in Africa because there are banking institutions in Europe especially Switzerland, France, Jersey Island, Britain, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Austria, US and many others who accept money from African leaders without questioning the source of the money. According to the UN around $148 billion are stolen from the continent by the political leaders, the business elite and civil servants every year with collusion and connivance of banking industries in Europe and North America.
Even though it is a common knowledge western banks are acting as safe havens for looted funds from Africa, very little attention is received from the western media to expose them. The media tend to focus their energies on the corrupt leaders with little or no mention at all as to where the monies they have stolen are being kept. There has not been any concrete effort to expose the banks that collude and connive with these corrupt leaders who are impoverishing the people. No effort has been made by the political elite in Europe and America to force the banks to return these stolen monies to the poorest of the poor because they are often the shareholders and beneficiaries of profits made by these banks.

In Business Daily Africa James Shikwati returns to the theme of wealth creation:

In a recent business breakfast forum, Michael Hastings,inquired from the audience whether one can give what they do not have.He pointed out that although Western capitalism model may have broken its back, the fundamentals of one must produce in order to give, still remains...It is clear that to give one must be a producer of what they give. In Kenya and Africa, we have “capitalists" who simply loot from what others produced.The great lesson that one gets from the “broken back of capitalism” is that if one fakes production and assumes to give what they never produced in the first place, the system will implode.

Although I have written several times about what is going on with the auto companies (Government Motors, Obama the CEO, on SNL, Obama Forces Private Businessman Out of Job), I'm not a lawyer, and so I don't have the correct grasp on language that some real lawyers do. I mean, I know intuitively that what is going on is not right (What does a Political Economy look like? and Michigan Businesses Battle Government Regulations ...), but I can't describe what is going on in the US as well as the guys over at Power Line can. This is a great post (read it here):

The Chrysler reorganization is shaping up as another milestone in the decline of the rule of law under Barack Obama. We've said for quite a while that bankruptcy is the only viable option for Chrysler and General Motors, not--as Obama claims--because they don't know how to make the right kinds of vehicles, but because their unsustainable union contracts make it impossible for them to be profitable. That reality has now been turned on its head, as the administration has tried to bully Chrysler's secured creditors into going away, while the United Auto Workers Union, solely on the basis of political clout, would be paid at an implied rate of 50 percent and would emerge owning 55 percent of the company, with the government also holding a stake.

This is banana republic capitalism at its worst. Political influence, rather than the law, dictates the rights of the parties. When some of the secured creditors refused to be intimidated, Obama libeled them in the press, saying, outrageously, "I don't stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices." Actually, under Obama's plan the politically favored parties, principally the UAW, will benefit--will steal money, to put it crudely--from the parties who held out. Those parties call themselves the "non-TARP lenders."

This highlights the government's conflict of interest in this transaction, as in so many others now underway. Some of Chrysler's secured creditors are banks who received TARP money. As the New York Times put it, those lenders are "beholden to Washington" and "defying the administration was never a serious option."

It remains to be seen what will happen in bankruptcy court. Already one key player, Perella Weinberg Partners, "under intense pressure from the White House," has caved in and agreed to accept Obama's terms. Whatever the ultimate result, this episode will have consequences. The Wall Street Journal notes:If the current plan is pushed through, then good luck to any unionized firm trying to raise secured debt on decent terms in the future.

For Chrysler, the administration's plan spells disaster. It is inconceivable that the UAW, the principal source of Chrysler's problems, will manage the company back to profitability. More likely, Chrysler will become a vehicle through which the federal government provides uneconomic subsidies to unionized auto workers and retirees.

Barack Obama's conduct in this affair has been disgraceful. Our bankruptcy laws are well developed and are fairly implemented by experienced bankruptcy judges. Priority among creditors is established according to legal rules and precedents. The process is transparent and subject to appellate review. But in this case, the law did not favor the parties who have the most influence with the White House--notably, the United Auto Workers--so Obama substituted political threats and bullying for due process. Il Duce would have approved.

They are being demagogued as "speculators" by President Barack Obama and as "vultures" by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Oakland County Congressman Gary Peters.

They are the smaller bondholders who have refused to bow to the pressure of the Obama administration and accept a minuscule number of pennies on the dollar as repayment for their loans to Chrysler.

This confrontation could have been avoided if the Obama administration had treated the bondholders as equitably as the United Auto Workers, which gets far more money for the dollar.

The good-faith loans from the bondholders provided the operating capital for which Chrysler pledged its assets as collateral, an important role that the Obama administration wants to ignore as part of its forced restructuring program that favors the politically connected UAW.

The heavy-handed tactics of the Obama administration represent another government intrusion into the private sector and attempt to victimize a constituency that does not have the political clout of the unions.

The noncompliant bondholders are going to take their chances on winning back a bigger share of their shareholder investments in bankruptcy court, where the independent role of the judiciary will be expected to fairly judge their claims.

One hopes the Obama administration will not try to bully the courts the way it has private businesses.

It already will be tough to raise desperately needed money in the market for Chrysler to make its future vehicles after Obama's intervention and scapegoating of investors as "speculators." Government intimidation would represent an even greater danger to the country and obstacle to Chrysler's future

UPDATE: Powerlineblog follows up with another good post to read-Banana Republic, Part II

Aikins Adusei writes in African Executive:

Africa is poor today because Swiss and other western banks collude with African kleptocrats to loot the continent. Corruption is rife on the continent because those who steal the money never lack a place to hide it.
Fighting corruption should not be left to the poor countries alone. Western countries have a duty to stop their nations being used as save havens for stolen monies from the African continent. They should return all looted money put there by corrupt African leaders to the African people. There must be an international coalition dedicated to tracking all stolen monies on the face of the earth with Africa given to priority...[continue reading]

Ibekwe Chinweizu on Nigerian education at Farafina:

...the skills it teaches are not suited to the needs of Nigerian communities. It is simply a certificate-spraying mill. It does nothing for the physical, moral and intellectual improvement of the students and society. It does not train people for the rigorous and comprehensive thinking required to solve problems. It spews out mobs of certificated but incompetent barbarians; unemployables with slave-minds and with a self-righteous sense of their entitlement to the highest standard of consumerism in the world. And to grab the money to enjoy that entitlement, they are selfishly and amorally determined to loot the treasury, extort from the public or rob their neighbours...[continue reading]

On the Detroit News online edition, here are the headlines, as they appear:

Obama vows to aid families, business
Obama faces new realities after election
Insurgents to Obama: Pull troops from Iraq
Tough decision dogs the president-elect
Home sweet White House: Obamas prepare for big move
Graham yields the ear of presidents
Obama sets tougher tone with staff picks
Obama taps Granholm, Bonior
Coalition's help gives a boost to Democrats
Ads play large role in incumbents' fall
Podesta ups liberal muscle
Labor seeks election spoils
Emanuel brings tough-guy rep
Next first family brings new style

Paul Collier writes:

The loot-seeking elites that control parts of Africa illicitly send capital out of the region to the tune of $20 to $28bn per year. Illicit money flows are hard to quantify, but this is the new estimate by Raymond Baker of the NGO Global Financial Integrity, the most careful and ingenious study to date. Capital flight of this magnitude is roughly equivalent to the entire aid inflow to the region, so closing it would generate a similar resource transfer to doubling aid. One side-effect of the financial crisis is that aid commitments will be at the front of the queue for spending cuts. For example, in the vice-presidential debate it was the only Democratic spending pledge that Joe Biden suggested might be rethought...[continue reading]

To be honest, out of Obama, Biden, McCain, or Palin... I like Palin the best. Admittedly, I don't know as much about her as I do the others. I understand a little bit the attraction of Obama in the beginning- he was an unknown, so was everything to everybody. I don't understand why people support him now though, now that they know more about him.

In all seriousness though, I really like her. She sounds, looks, and acts like a regular person. She is strong and tough and forceful in her manner of speech- she reminds me of Margaret Thatcher in many ways. Her personal background is a model- a small town major, a governor of a state, a mother, a mother to a valiant soldier, a mother to a child with a disability, etc.

And her stance on the issues is dead on. Look what she talked about in her acceptance speech. I haven't found a transcript of it yet, but I did find some stories that talk about her speech here and here, and here is the video. In her speech she talks about how she is against special interests- and not 'special interests' in a generic sense, but the bad kind, the kind that use the power of government to win special contracts and loot the people of their hard-earned money. She has fought against government waste and earmarks. She has the correct stance on drilling and energy concerns. And I remember a lot of other good stuff I liked about her stances on issues- I just can't remember them and can't seem to find any stories about her speech that do anything other than criticize her and repeat Democrat talking points- AP I'm looking at you.

I want to echo Jonah Goldberg's thoughts on the selection of Sarah Palin as Vice President:

I'm more and more keen on Sarah Palin. Palin is tackling the establishment in Alaska, including the oil and gas industry. She's attractive. She could get some real profile out of the latest polar bear lawsuits. She reinforces McCain's outsider-reformer-Western credentials. And, for the moderate soccer mom types who were all jazzed about Hillary being the first woman president, she might win a few suburbanite female swing-voters for the same reason.

Democratic President John F Kennedy is revered in the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama likes to make allusions to the fact that he is the next JFK. But, he is not. What is the most famous saying of JFK- what is the line you remember first about him, the line that became the signature of his Presidency, and made him what he is. "Ask not what your country can do for, but what you can do for your country."

Is this what Obama believes? Look at his speech for yesterday. His speech, the main point of it, is that you should vote for him because he is promising to make government do a lot of stuff for you. He promises to have the country provide more welfare for you, more education for you, more housing funds for you, more health benefits for you, etc. He promises to have your country do for you what you are currently doing for yourself.

Now, maybe you like this- maybe you are voting for Obama because you are happy that he is going to loot the productive members of society and immorally transfer their wealth to you. But don't pretend that you are voting for JFK. Obama is not JFK. Obama promises that your country will do for you whatever you want it to, and ask nothing of you.

Jeevan Vasagar writes "...What exactly are the NGOs trying to achieve? If the purpose of aid work is to diminish poverty, the past decade looks like a dramatic failure...Reliance on aid can be dangerous. Ultimately, it threatens to sever the political contract between the government and those it governs...Ending poverty appears to have little to do with overseas aid or the activities of NGOs. It has to do with pragmatic governments that create a business-friendly environment and place a heavy emphasis on education.By contrast, Africa has suffered from rulers who are parasites on their people, where the elites loot resources to line their own pockets and create an environment where investors fear to tread.Dependence on aid will only prolong the lives of these parasite states..."
photo courtesy of the Guardian Unlimited