My Beauty Best Teacher

Earlier last week I was critical of Obama's response to Tunisia's revolution, where it appeared that rather than take an active role in events, Obama's administration simply sat on the sidelines and tried to figure out where Tunisia was (I'm kidding- I heard that he had a 40 minute briefing on Tunisia after the revolution broke out- I'm sure he learned about it then). He is dangerously incompetent, especially on important world events that our President is supposed to be the primary actor on in our political system. The revolution in Tunisia though was just the start of something bigger, something that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has taught us will have repercussions lasting decades, and that is the revolution that is taking place right now in Egypt.

For the past couple days I have been trying to get a handle on events there, much like our President, and like usual, my reactions have mirrored Obama's. First I first supported the young revolutionaries against the bad dictator, while Obama supported the bad dictator. But now I support the bad dictator over the evil militant terrorist groups who want to take power in Egypt, while Obama now supports the evil militant terrorist groups (he supports them by not saying anything bad about them while saying bad stuff about Mubarak- that's an upgrade over his usual 'voting present' by showing support for the bad guys). Obama is dangerously incompetent again and once again, anyone who voted for him or his party made our nation and world a worse place by doing so.

The best article that I have found to help me get a handle on what is going on in Egypt appeared today in the Jerusalum Post by Caroline Glick called Our World: Clueless in Washington. I am going to pass on some of the better parts of it to you to help you too understand a little bit better what is going on in Egypt...

The Egyptian multitudes on the streets of Cairo are a stunning sight. With their banners calling for freedom and an end to the reign of President Hosni Mubarak the story these images tell is a simple one as old as time.


On the one hand we have the young, dispossessed and weak protesters. And on the other we have the old, corrupt and tyrannical Mubarak. Hans Christian Andersen taught us who to support when we were wee tots.

But does his wisdom apply in this case?

Certainly it is true that the regime is populated by old men. Mubarak is 82 years old. It is also true that his regime is corrupt and tyrannical. Since the Muslim Brotherhood spinoff Islamic Jihad terror group murdered Mubarak’s predecessor president Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt has been governed by emergency laws that ban democratic freedoms. Mubarak has consistently rejected US pressure to ease regime repression and enact liberal reforms in governance.

This reality has led many American commentators across the political spectrum to side enthusiastically with the rioters. A prestigious working group on Egypt formed in recent months by Middle East experts from Left and Right issued a statement over the weekend calling for the Obama administration to dump Mubarak and withdraw its support for the Egyptian regime. It recommended further that the administration force Mubarak to abdicate and his regime to fall by suspending all economic and military assistance to Egypt for the duration.

The blue ribbon panel’s recommendations were applauded by its members’ many friends across the political spectrum. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard’s editor William Kristol praised the panel on Sunday and wrote, “It’s time for the US government to take an active role… to bring about a South Korea/Philippines/Chile-like transition in Egypt, from an American-supported dictatorship to an American-supported and popularly legitimate liberal democracy.”

The problem with this recommendation is that it is based entirely on the nature of Mubarak’s regime. If the regime was the biggest problem, then certainly removing US support for it would make sense. However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.

Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.

According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

WHAT ALL of this makes clear is that if the regime falls, the successor regime will not be a liberal democracy. Mubarak’s military authoritarianism will be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism. The US’s greatest Arab ally will become its greatest enemy. Israel’s peace partner will again become its gravest foe.

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?...

...As Prof. Barry Rubin wrote this week, “There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.”
 
Unfortunately, given the cluelessness of the US foreign policy debate, this situation is only likely to grow worse.

Two more years remain in President Obama's term of office. Hopefully voters in America will wake up and realize how dangerously incompetent his administration has been and how destructive the impulse to take a flier on this unknown was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government takeover of healthcare might be beaten back this time, but there is a strong possibility that there will come a time when the progressives win the battle. The reason why I advance this depressing thought is because the progressives have taken over the public schools, and they are educating your children, not you. Here is an example of what goes on in a typical social studies class, time after time, year after year.

A frequent activity that teachers have students engage in is to have students from social studies to elementary school to high school pretend that they are a government entity or official and give them control over the world to do anything that they want, without any consequences at all.

Now, not every student will grow up to be a government dictator, but what they are actually learning from this activity is that it is okay and normal for the government to just do things, without a thought to the consequences. The students are taught that it is good to tell businesses what to do, that it is the role and job of government to control private citizens and dictate what their rights are, and that is it okay for government to decide how other people should live their lives. Students are taught these things- teachers issue directions to students and actively encourage them to pretend to rule the world.

What did you expect would happen in schools run and staffed by liberals? They think that it is okay for the government to control others and legislate rights, and so the liberal teacher teaches students that this is an okay thing to do.

The worst part is when these liberal teachers get a young student who has either learned about conservative values or instinctively recognizes the human yearning for freedom and liberty. These 'trouble-maker' students question the assignment. They question the authority of the teacher, and question the direction these teachers are taking the class, and openly foment insubordination by simply voicing their recognition of the liberal teacher's attempt to pollute the minds of their students with propaganda and dreams of dictatorship.

I've seen it. Once, when I was doing my state-mandated observation, I saw a a fifth grader slapped down (verbally) by a teacher. He was given an assignment to design laws that protect the sea turtle. While other students were busy writing ways to seize private property, stop economic growth, and limit rights and freedoms of people, this student raised his hand and said he really didn't think that sea turtles needed any more help. This was a good point- something that could be debated for the benefit of the whole class- but instead, the liberal teacher simply told the student to toe the line and submit to authority and pretend to be a dictator like the other young students.

A sixth grade class I observed had students design ways to combat “sprawl," and a seventh grade class spent some time designing schemes to combat “global warming.”

I once observed an eight grade class spend several days discussing how government can combat unemployment. The plans which were analyzed and discussed where chosen by the teacher, and students read news stories and articles about the successes of these various plans. The plans which were discusses were either schemes of wealth redistribution or government-provided jobs. A constant theme of the discussion was that businesses were evil, that earning profits was evil, and that attempts to establish efficiency in business by letting go inefficient or unproductive employees was evil. This teacher believed that the purpose of a business was to provide a job, regardless or production or profit entailed from this.

This is what is going on in education. Think about this when you send your children back to school this week.

UPDATE I: Welcome readers of Pundit & Pundette. If you enjoyed this post, you'll also enjoy Opening Day Message: Viciously Attack Conservatives, Bloomfield Hills Schools Sticking with Leftist Curriculum, Breakroom Conversations with Teachers, Obama Administration to Bribe States to Impose Liberal UN Agenda in Schools, or Students Accept Majority Tyranny. Be sure to check back often for more stories from the battleground of education!

The Fomunyoh Foundation (TFF) on Paul Biya,Cameroon's long term dictator:

...he has systematically undermined Cameroon's legal and political institutions to perpetuate his own rule. He has minimized the role of the legislative and judiciary branches of government and totally ignored input from opposition parties and civil society. He has also co-opted most of the traditional authority in the country, where 55 percent of the population lives in rural areas under the influence of powerful chiefs and lamida.

Pop quiz for you. Who said the following statement- US President Barack Obama or Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao?

The complete formulation of our economic policy is to give full play to the basic role of market forces in allocating resources under the macroeconomic guidance and regulation of the government.

Who said this statement- the leader of a a Chinese authoritarian state that operates under principles of unlimited government and no constitutional checks or the President of the US government controlled and run by the Democrats? The idea is that capitalism and market forces are good, but need to be controlled and guided and regulated by government.

Time is up- it was the Chinese Premier! But that was a tough question, right? How about another?

Did this happen in Russia or America recently?

Imagine you're a senior executive at a large business. Hard at work in your office, you're informed that, for reasons unknown, your leader wants to talk to you. He tells you that you are charging too much for your product. You assure him that prices are determined by the market. Unimpressed, the leader demands you lower your prices. Days later, government agencies announce an investigation into the business practices in your industry.

Come on now... it's tough... but did this happen recently in Russia or America? In a former communist nation now run by a dictator who operates in an increasingly tyrannical manner, or did this happen in the good-old-USA? Which country has a leader who thinks it is the proper role of government to set how much businesses can charge for products and is willing to use the power of the state to attack industries that he doesn't like?

Time is up- it was Russia! Nothing like that would ever happen in our nation, would it? State-run capitalism? Nah!

 Tomorrow, Monday, December 7 at 7pm Eastern Standard Virginia Tech professor and his World Regions class will be interviewing Burmese resistance leader,Aung Sun Sun Kyi, via Skype. Boyer managed to turn a YouTube video  request into the interview.

I received a letter from a former student of his that tells the story very well and have decided to print this letter in entirety. I like the letter because it not only shows how his students value this but his students are using their social media knowledge to help their former professor and I want to help them and help him. We look forward to viewing the video and learning.

And thus, is great teaching in action. Great teachers are now syndicators (sp?) of content. Great teachers share. Great teachers teach us all.

A Letter About My Favorite Professor
from former student Jessy Irwin

I'm writing because I want to publicize the incredible work that one of my favorite college professors is doing with social media in his World Regions class at Virginia Tech. He is John Boyer, an instructor in the Department of Geography in the College of Natural Resources and he's an exceptionally passionate educator who thrives on engaging and communicating with his students through social media. For the third time in a row, he has successfully managed to turn a YouTube video from his super-sized class of 3,000 into a once-in-a-lifetime learning opportunity for his students.

In the past, Professor Boyer has used viral YouTube tactics to lure the likes of Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez to Virginia Tech to discuss their film "The Way", and he even convinced wine aficionado, social media guru and businessman Gary Vaynerchuk to stop through Blacksburg while on a book tour during the Spring 2011 semester. Much of that happened with little fanfare or attention from the university or the Blacksburg, VA community of which he is a member. This time, though, Boyer has turned a World Regions professor's dream into reality-- he managed to turn a YouTube video request to Aung Sun Suu Kyi, leader of the resistance movement in Burma, into an hour long Skype interview with her and his class. 

Having been recently been liberated from 30 years of house arrest imposed on her by dictator Than Shwe,  Suu Kyi recently met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and is regularly courted by foreign media for interviews. That she could be convinced by the sheer enthusiasm of 3,000 students half a world away from her is to take the time for an interview is a poignant example of how social media and technology can enhance and enrich student experience in ways never before possible. Professor Boyer is working to open a live-feed of the Skype interview for educators and interested parties, though the event may also be live-streamed by various Asian media outlets

Professor Boyer isn't just active on YouTube-- he maintains a course website and a UStream channel through which he conducts weekly online office hours, he uses a Facebook page to announce course events to his class, and he uses his own Twitter account in addition to a backchannel Twitter hashtag to communicate with his 3,000 students. His course material even includes regular uploads of his podcasts as the Plaid Avenger, a Jon Stewart-inspired, schwingy superhero who travels the world in pursuit of international justice. Though this is a higher education example of technology integration in the classroom, more teachers need to hear about the work that he and other professors are doing with technology. At one point in his career, students were barely showing up to his class, which could be used to fulfill a university curriculum requirement for graduation-- now, he begins each semester with huge wait lists of students every semester who want to take his class as an elective but for whom there isn't enough room.

I could go on and on and on about the work that Boyer and his assistant Katie Pritchard do. His educational use of technology to leave Virginia and pursue a career in social media + educational technology in the Silicon Valley. While this story takes place within the context of higher education, much can still be gleaned from how social media and technology integration can enhance the efforts of an effective, engaging educator and enrich a student's learning experience. At a time when so many question the effectiveness of technology adoption and whether it is making a difference in education, Professor Boyer's provides a concrete example of technology's potential and ability to positively change the classroom for the better. Alternately, while higher education is usually outside of the realm of standardized curriculum and assessments, this particular educational technology success story serves also as an example of technology-facilitated learning that may well be immeasurable within the confines of today's standardized testing.

Some people have emailed me, accusing me of being too hard on Obama. They think I'm seeing stuff that isn't there- that I am being paranoid, that I am making stuff up, or that I am just being silly. I'm not- if the media doesn't have the balls for it, I do- I'll call a fascist a fascist.

Today's Detroit News has two stories that bear out my argument. In the first, Nolan Finley writes about how back in the old days, class warfare wouldn't play well in our country, but today, Obama thrives on talking about class warfare and wealth redistribution. He doesn't say it, but the message is clear- Obama is a socialist.

The other article is about how Obama's thugs have been shutting down free speech in our country- that they have been suing those who don't agree with them, getting in the faces and yelling at those who disagree with them, and attempting to shut down media outlets that publish a viewpoint they don't like. The article doesn't say it outright, but the message is clear- Obama wants to control even what you say and think.

Combine the two, and you get a dictator who wants to control what you say and think, who sets up a cult of personality, and who promotes wealth redistribution and socialism- that's a fair description of a fascist in my book. Hey- if Obama started talking about free markets, or capitalism, or gun ownership as a right, or life, liberty, and property- if Obama started quoting our founding fathers more often than Stalin or Marx- then maybe I would be hesitant about saying this stuff. But a spade is a spade folks, and America is about to dig its own grave with one.

Today (July 9) a new nation was created, the nation of South Sudan. South Sudan became an independent state on 9 July 2011 at midnight (00:00) local time following a referendum held in January 2011 in which nearly 99% of voters opted for separation from the rest of Sudan. It has been an Autonomous Region of Sudan or at war with Sudan on and off since 1972, and now is finally its own nation. Sudan has recognized it, and so has the United States, it has ratified a Constitution, and now it is busy forming up its government.

Although I have few readers from Africa, perhaps I might have a couple from South Sudan, and so in that spirit I would like to pass on some advice on how to form a successful state.

People are very powerful, and by giving them as much freedom and liberty they will demonstrate their power by creating a prosperous economy, a strong military, and a vibrant civil society. The biggest obstacle to people is an active and large government that takes away responsibility and freedom from the individual, acts as a barrier to innovation and risk-taking, and sucks all of the money out of the system for projects that elites (government agents) deem important. It is my suggestion that any government created by South Sudan have a healthy respect to the dignity of human life, truly believe in the power of liberty and freedom, and work to put in place strong rule of law that protects above all the fruits of ones labor (private property).

A new nation must put in place barriers to itself, checking itself by separating power between different branches of government and then creating checks between branches to limit the abilities of each to overreach and act in a tyrannical manner. It also helps if the nation limits itself further by separating power between a national government designed to address national issues and local governments designed to address local issues, much like our fading federal system here in America.

Although I no very little about this nation so far, it appears that the current President Salva Kiir Mayardit has a chance to be a good one- a former general who was unambiguous about being free, if he can limit himself and set important precedents in his office than he will be a great one. Most nations that achieve independence get stuck with the first President for a long time as that person eventually becomes a dictator- Kiir needs to recognize that what made George Washington great was that he served his nation for two terms and then left office, turning over power peacefully. It is bothersome that he is so closely associated with the military, and that the legislative assembly is so weak and completely controlled by his party, but I have hopes for him, especially if he is a regular reader of my blog.

It is also not a good sign that the nation is so dependent on oil, especially when these oil resources are largely being developed by foreign companies, especially the Chinese government. One hopes that the government will use the ample oil revenues it receives to fund a limited government that will engage in national defense (not war), control its border, and distribute funds to local governments to put in place police and fire services, build libraries, and support transportation and education services. With the amount of revenue that oil provides, there would be little need to borrow abroad or tax its citizens or companies within, and this low tax and low regulation environment would be an engine of economic development that will eventually lead to a more diverse and prosperous economy. Note I did not suggest that the government use its oil revenue to provide a social safety net or redistribute wealth to poor people- a free and prosperous people will do that better than any sort of forced charity that the government could ever do.

Good luck South Sudan- I hope you take my advice and create a government for the people, by the people, that serves the people, in the spirit of life, liberty, and protection of property.

See the memeorandum story for more details on this new nation.

UPDATE: I really didn't want to make this a political issue, but I did see something interesting over at Ace of Spades...

Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede. On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said "Thank You George Bush."

The following are my impressions from Democrat Barack Obama's 2011 State of the Union (SOTU) address. As a social studies teacher, perhaps I will have some comment or analysis that you might think is interesting...

• Before the President even speaks, I was flipping around the various channels listening to their comments, and what I heard over and over is that this speech will continue Obama's attempt to portray himself as a moderate, or that this would speech would help make it look like he was moving more to the center, or that this speech would help him to court independents... he's been in office for 2 years and is still in campaign mode trying to fake people out and disguise who he really is. I can't believe that voters might fall for it- he is who he has always been, a committed leftist liberal Democrat who believes in government control over our lives, less individual freedom and liberty to you, and abortion on demand to correct for the mistakes of humanity.
• His first several minutes were pretty good- hopeful, uplifting, and commenting on how great America was and how we were a tough, innovative country. Then he started lecturing me about how he knows better than me about how to innovate and about how I'm so weak so I need a bunch of help- that was less good.
• About 15 minutes in, and most of this has been some pretty general language about why education is important and why it is important to be smart. I guess this was all to set up that RTTT was a good law (which I disagree with, see earlier post). That's a pretty weak lead-off.
• Around 20 minutes in, I guess in the spirit of 'bipartianship', he re-proposes amnesty to illegal immigrants and pushing for the DREAM Act, which just was shot down by both parties in Congress.
• About 25 minutes in, Obama time-travels back to his childhood in Indonesia, when a nation's prosperity was based on the amount of railroads and roads that the nation had. He suggested that this will be done by having the government coerce private investment and then form a Big Government-Big Business-Big Labor partnership to force us to travel on railroads. I'm not a big fan of fascist proposals from the 1930's myself.
• About 30 minutes in, he begins to lecture Republicans on cutting deficits that he says started "a little over a decade ago" (the election of Bush in 2000?) and lectures the GOP on reforming massive entitlement programs that he has vastly expanded and enlarged and added to over the past 2 years. Is this some sort of Cloven-Piven strategy- wreck everything beyond repair and then talk a good game about unwrecking things? Will voters buy this sort of garbage?
• About 40 minutes in, Obama brags about a series of successful foreign policy initiatives that were begun under Republican President George Bush and that Obama bitterly opposed and fought against. He then talks about his foreign policy ideas that haven't quite worked out yet (but that is not to say that they won't eventually).
• About 45 minutes in, Obama gave a good statement of support for Tunisia. Perhaps he read my blog post criticizing him of being too weak on this issue? Although I wouldn't read too much into this statement- he said something last week of a similar nature and then turned around and called another Middle East dictator and said he really didn't mean it, so we'll see.
• He had a lot of good lines and well-written stuff in there- I really liked the criticism he had for central governments and the defense for our democratic process- that was nice and really jumped out as new and different. I think someone other than him wrote the beginning and end of his speech, but the middle was all his usual liberal hope-and-change nonsense.
• I really liked the fact that there was not a lot of applause and few delays. He delivered a good summary of what he saw as the 'state of our union', which is still strong, with a few problems he needs addressed. Overall, I generally liked it.
• Listening to the commentary, a couple things I heard- 1) Obama still picked enemies- oil companies, Wall Street, the rich, etc; 2) Obama really didn't feel like focusing on foreign policy, showing that he is still mainly a 'Legislator-in-Chief'; 3) Obama spoke about a lot of new 'investments', but there is no money for that; 4) Obama seemed to be going 'small-ball'- talking about 'big things' but really proposing only small little tweaks and nothing big, and this likely indicates that he is just going to play defensive from now until the election, simply sitting in the weeds and criticizing any solutions to the problems that he created, rejecting proposals to deal with any of the long-term issues in favor of winning short term political points. Just imagine if this guy gets a second-term and how unrestrained he will be.
• Republican response thoughts: Ryan delivered one of the best 'reponses' that I have seen. He approached it from the perspective of a calm parent who was non-partisan, and dissected and destroyed Obama's policy responses over the past two years the the challenges that he confronted, from discussing Obama's failed stimulus plan, failed Obamacare, and failed regulations. He was a sound and reasonable voice in response to the empty hope-and-change of Obama. He quoted the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and translated it to the times of today- so sweet! He delivered a fantastic speech that spoke to what makes our nation great- our freedom and liberty and capitalism and businesses and property protection and limited government and free enterprise- that compares favorably to Obama's speech which was about all the things that government can do (poorly). Congressman Paul Ryan for President!
• Comments from the media about Ryan's response were that he didn't deliver any specifics (neither did Obama), that he didn't show leadership (neither did Obama), and that he wasn't serious enough (neither was Obama).

UPDATE: Comments from Sean Hannity's panel- "I feel like I was taking crazy pills while watching that," "he wants to cut spending and proposed more spending on investments and freezing spending on other items- that isn't 'cutting spending'," "let's look at the facts," and "he's doing his best" (this is a key phrase- his best isn't good enough to be President).

UPDATE II: Saw former Speaker-of-the-House Congresswomen Democrat Nancy Pelosi give her thoughts, and she just said that Obama has created more jobs in our nation in his two years than George W. Bush did his entire eight years as President. She just said that. Really. I think she believes it too. If this is true, give me Bush's unjob creation and unemployment of 4% instead of Obama's job creation and unemployment of 10%- at least under Bush jobs weren't created but we all had them, rather than Obama who creates jobs that no one has (it makes no sense Pelosi- I just ingested crazy pills listening to her).

Pelosi followed this with some Kennedy quote about how it isn't about GOP and Democrat and how it is about rising above differences, but those darn GOPers need to be crushed first and only Democratic policies should be passed (crazy pills).

Wandering around wikipedia, I came across this entry for "Cult of Personality":

A cult of personality arises when a country's leader creates an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Sometimes cults of personality are created and advanced by government-controlled school teachers. They tell their students that a person is the second coming of someone great, or something that they have never seen before, and the students eat it up and start to believe it.

Or sometimes cults of personality are created and advanced by people who create snappy, stubbornly catchy songs about the great leader. A frequent sight in dictatorships is videos of children singing praises to their dear leader, associating him with great leaders of the past, and celebrating their greatness. These children usually chant and sing about some sort of catch-phrase of the dictator, and supervised by a zealous government agent, they sing about the slogan and chant it until they begin to believe in it.

These dictators are able to make great progress in their agenda and change a nation to whatever they want it once the youth believe suck in all the information that is being given to them in song and art about how great the dear leader is and how obedience to the living god is the way to go. The religion of the state becomes the religion of these students, and they do not question the faith that the dear leader is indeed great, that his policies not fail, and that the reason why his policies fail is because of some plot out there by bad people (usual targets include capitalists, Jews, unsophisticated rednecks, and bankers).

If you are interested in actually seeing video's of young innocent children being brainwashed by government officials into buying into a cult of personality to worship a dear leader, they are out there. ABCnews.com, among others, reported on the snappy, stubbornly catchy tune, “Mmm mmm mmm…Barack Hussein Obama,” filmed last school year in New Jersey.

BigHollywood.com has posted 11 new videos of young children singing the praises of Obama. In one video, the 5th and 6th graders call Obama, “a modern Martin Luther.” “He’s known around the world – come on, let’s celebrate.” In another video, 5th graders sing, “You know we gotta get Barack and all of his crew/ In the White House so they can prove that.” “Change that we can believe in” is what they’re referring to. Another video, of kids ranging from pre-school to 3rd grade: “Barack Obama there is none higher/ Other politicians should call me sire … We’re the baddest of the bad/ The cool of the cool/ I’m Barack/ I rock and rule.”

Children chanting (or rapping, to be more accurate) "I'm Barack and I rule" should indeed scare you a little. Laws rule, children, not men, and 'progress' towards a society where men rule without checks and balances and limits is progress backwards. Why aren't these children using precious time studying our founding fathers? Why are they chanting about installing into power a politician and his crew rather than learning about the philosophies of Plato and Locke? Why is the teachers union silent on this issue?

Watch the video's over at BigHollywood.com if you want to see more evidence that United States President Democrat Barack Obama is becoming the center of a cult of personality and bringing our nation step by step closer to a tyranny.

As a teacher, eventually I get to a unit on the President (next week my civics students will be on this unit). One of the ways that I teach this unit is by going through all the roles that the President can be said to play in our political system (or the different hats that he wears, if that helps you). Let's take a look at one of these roles today, the role of Commander in Chief. Let's talk about this role, and then evaluate Bush and Obama in their ability to do this role.

Even though the President of the United States is not a member of our armed services, in our country, the President is commander in chief of the military. He controls (primarily through the executive cabinet-level Department of Defense) a military that is very powerful- one of the biggest in numbers, one of the best in training, and certainly the most well-financed (the US accounts for over 50% of all military spending in world). This means that the President is in position to control a very powerful military.

Prior to becoming President, Bush was a member of the military. You can debate the quality of his service, but he did serve, so he was in that environment, and learned the principles of warfare and the honor of sacrifice. He handled military hardware, and was comfortable around their use. His ability to fulfil this part of the Commander in Chief role was not the best, and certainly not as good as McCain's, but it is considerably more so than Obama, who has no military experience, knowledge, or interest in the military to speak of. Again, Obama has little to no experience or known abilities in this part of the role.

Although most President's are rather hands off with the actual strategy, that doesn't mean they have to be- LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln all directed battlefield strategy. The President has the authority to send troops in to other countries for limited amounts of time (limited by War Powers Act, he needs congressional authorization for more than 60 days). The President is in charge of the purchasing of weapons, such as Reagan focusing on SDI, and the President is in charge of the selling of weapons, letting some states purchase surplus/used military hardware while other states can not.

Prior to becoming President, Bush was an officer in the military, so did learn how to order troops into battle, and must have studied or learned about some aspects of this. Again, his ability to fulfil this part of the Commander in Chief role was not the best, and certainly not as good as McCain's, but it is considerably more so than Obama, who has no military experience, knowledge, or interest in the military to speak of. Again, Obama has little to no experience or known abilities in this part of the role.

Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, our President can be expected in times of great crisis or war to assume emergency powers, such as issuing orders to regulate industry, set price controls, ration food, or take other actions. This is a tough thing to do, but you want a President who is willing to break an egg every now and then to make an omelet- during WWII or the Civil War, civil liberties were broken, but for the good of our nation. Can the President make these tough calls? Can he resist the call of too much power, and not become a dictator, and battle with himself about how much power the President should have?

Bush has continually struggled with this- in that he has tried to fight the War on Terror while keeping us as free as possible. You might contend that he sacrificed too much- but he was willing and able to make the tough calls he thought were necessary for keeping our country great during times of crisis. Obama has denied that we are at war, and has failed to answer the call for every crisis that our country has recently faced, displaying an inability to make tough decisions. One wonder what happens if we do go to war- would he be weak and indecisive, or overcompensate by wielding too much power?

Just some thoughts to think about today.

The latest on Yahya Jammeh in the Economist:

The arrest of nine journalists on sedition charges appears to constitute an attempt to eradicate the last vestiges of resistance to the president's rule in Gambia. There are other threats, however...

Meanwhile...

Donors have some leverage over the administration and, along with public pressure, the withholding of aid is reported to have been a factor in the previous release of arrested journalists. However, donors have been reluctant to use this leverage and, ironically, the EU, World Bank and African Development Bank have this year given direct budget support to The Gambia—rather than funds earmarked for specific projects—for the first time.

More here.

Last weekend my friends and I met for our annual fishing weekend on the Muskegon River, Michigan. The guys that go on this trip have to be some of the best Americans there are, and so every year I ask them to dig into their pockets a little bit and contribute something to a charity that I favor- The Baghdad Anglers Club and Fly Fishing School.

The Baghdad Angler's Club and School of Fly Fishing is an organized fishing group of our military men and women. It was started in 2005 as a way to motivate our troops in Iraq and have them try something new. The club provides fishing equipment for service members who want to step out of the battle for a bit and just focus on catching fish. The club also has begun sponsoring a tournament, which is yet another fun way for our service members to be rewarded for their service to our nation.

I know what you are thinking- fishing, in Iraq? Although it is a place where few would think to fish, there are rivers, streams, and ponds that have many varieties of excellent fish in them. The last tournament that the club held had soldiers fishing in the ponds that surrounded Saddam Hussein's former palaces, from which the winner of the tourney pulled out a nice sized carp.

This group reminds me that even in the bleakest conditions, the American spirit will find a way to manifest itself and bring light and life into even the darkest corners of the world. The brave men and women of our military are once again finding ways to bring humanity to their mission, and remember who they are in situations where it would be understandable for them to forget.

Ray Combs, who reported on Operation Catch Fish - Baghdad this year, understands how important things like this are:

I am struck by the power and community found in the primordial act of pulling a fish from water. Fishing seems like a simple, subtle thing, until I filmed it on the other side of the world in a former dictator's palace with a bunch of soldiers. I leave Iraq with the knowledge that fishing is so much more than simply baiting a hook and tossing in a line. It's a sport that inspires passion, courage, and camaraderie no matter where it's done.

If you love fishing, if you love our soldiers, and if you love America, you might want to think about giving to this club. I know that they are always looking for donations- mostly fly and spinning rods and line. Your fishing group, school group, or church group could gather together as little as $200 and help to bring a little more happiness and peace to our soldiers serving in the Middle East.