My Beauty Best Teacher

Last week on Frank Beckman's show on WJR 760AM, Frank asked Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-11) if he thought that Obama was engaging in Cloward-Piven Strategy. This question surprised and intrigued me. I wrote about the Cloward-Piven Strategy before (see post Cloward-Piven Strategy), but for those of you who are sadly not frequent readers of my blog, I'll explain it to you now.

The strategy is called the Cloward-Piven Strategy after a pair of radical socialist professors from the 60's who came up with it. The idea is to purposefully create a series of crisis, each one of which will then be blamed on capitalism, de-regulation, low taxes, free markets, etc. After the crisis is at its peak and conservative ideals have been successfully blamed, you then advance a solution for the crisis- a solution to put in place a more socialist, state-run, liberal society. This solution will not make society better, but will instead create more crisis, which you then in turn blame on conservative ideas, and advance more solutions that are liberal. Eventually, the state will take over every aspect of our lives and run our society as a radical socialist utopia.

When I first suggested that the national Democrats were engaging in this policy back in 2008, I was drawing on my long experience watching Democrats in Michigan, particularly Detroit. In our state, Democrats put in place their liberal ideas, they backfire, and we get more liberal ideas, which backfire, leading to more liberal ideas, and eventually, you get Detroit (dominated by liberal Democrats for over 40 years) and to a lesser degree Michigan (dominated by liberal Democrats for almost 8 years). I figured that the series of crisis which followed the Democrats regaining control of Congress in 2006 were not due to bad ideas, incompetence, or just plain stupidity, but due to an organized and concentrated plot to create crisis so that that you could then advance liberal solutions.

For example, this current healthcare bill is not just an idiotic attempt to destroy our nation out of a foolish and misguided attempt to make things better, but a grand conspiracy to actually create a crisis in the healthcare system by putting in place laws and regulations that will lead to higher costs and lower coverage and benefits, and the response then will be an even bigger and stronger healthcare bill (which will then create an even worse situation, like we see in Canada, which will then lead to calls for more government, etc, until government controls everything).

In other words, the Democrats are purposefully overloading the system in an attempt to collapse it- adding more regulations and laws and taxes to our capitalist free-market system so that people will then think that the capitalist free-market system is failing, where in reality it is the very liberal policies that are creating the crisis.

In his interview, Frank Beckman suggested that the Democrats were engaging in this policy. Congressman McCotter disagreed.

McCotter thinks that it isn't an intelligent conspiracy of not letting any crisis go to waste to put in place more government, but rather just plain out liberal elitism and incompetence. He thinks that it is instead simply a selfish desire to create permanent dependent constituencies that will then vote Democrat, who will then distribute benefits to them. It isn't 1984, but rather more like the People's Republic of Haven (from the Honorverse). He makes a good argument, as most liberals that I have come across are really not evil manipulative people, but rather idiots and fools who lack an understanding of people, history, economics, and policy.

It does bear watching though if the pattern laid out in the Cloward-Piven Strategy holds true- if we get another crisis followed by more government control which leads to another crisis and more government control, etc. Keep your eyes on it- we have one more year of Democrats running the show in Congress, and they are sure to create more crisis in our society, either through an orchestrated strategy or incompetence, and keep your eyes out for the resulting 'the market failed' rhetoric and the 'more government is the solution' rhetoric that will follow.

Today on Rush he laughingly suggested to a caller that this financial crisis might have been the long-predicted October Surprise of the Democrats, designed to draw attention away from how bad of a candidate Obama is by confusing people with crisis in high finance. This tickled my fancy, and then my brother emailed me this link to look at.

The idea is that Democrats in Congress, who by all appearances have been fiddling while Rome has burned, have in fact been sowing the seeds for a crisis. This strategy is called the Cloward-Piven Strategy, after a pair of radical socialist professors from the 60's.

The idea is to create a series of crisis, each one of which will be blamed on capitalism, de-regulation, low taxes, free markets, etc. The solution for each crisis will be to put in place a more socialist, state-run society. As is the characteristic of socialist, state-run economies, this will cause more crisis, which then encourages more socialism, etc, until the whole kingdom is run by the Messiah in his capital.

If this sounds like something out of 1984, it isn't- it's real, and be prepared, because I've already seen it happen in Michigan- every month there is another 'crisis' in Michigan, and the result is the enlargement of government, raising of taxes, etc- which causes another 'crisis', and more socialism, etc.

Do I seriously believe it is an orchestrated conspiracy by a well-trained communist (Obama)? No. Do I think that a well-trained communist has messed up things with his ideas so much that he has hurt the system- yes. Can't wait till he is President.

There is a reason why I have suggested several times that our nation should elect Mitt Romney for President in 2012. It is not because I 'hate Obama,' it is not because 'I am racist,' it is not because I am a 'GOP plug,' and it is not because I am 'a paid political consultant'- nope, the reason why Mitt Romney should be President of the United States of America is because he is the best man for the job.

In Get Comfortable with Mitt in 2012 I wrote "solid, reliable, able conservative executives who do good things and do them well. Let's start getting more comfortable with Mitt in 2012." In New Faces in 2012? Nah, Make it Mitt Instead I wrote " Republicans don't need a 'conservative Obama'- we already have seen what happens when you put an inexperienced idealistic rube in office, and it isn't pretty. We don't need a 'new fresh face' or even someone 'from outside the establishment.' What the Republicans need to do is put a responsible, solid, experienced, and learned President in the White House- not someone who is going to set the world on fire and be a revolutionary, but one who will start the task of 8 years of solid, steady, digging."

Romney has kept up his profile over the last several years (The Man Who Should Be President Gives Advice), and today he has written another nice article for USA Today about a very important skill that President Obama lacks- leadership:

....The president is meeting with his oil spill experts, he crudely tells us, so that he knows "whose ass to kick." We have become accustomed to his management style — target a scapegoat, assign blame and go on the attack. To win health care legislation, he vilified insurance executives; to escape bankruptcy law for General Motors, he demonized senior lenders; to take the focus from the excesses of government, he castigated business meetings in Las Vegas; and to deflect responsibility for the deepening and lengthening downturn, he blames Wall Street and George W. Bush. But what may make good politics does not make good leadership. And when a crisis is upon us, America wants a leader, not a politician.....
....In a crisis, the leader must gather the experts — federal, state, local, public and private — not to discover who is to blame but to secure their active and continuous involvement until the crisis is resolved. There is extraordinary power inherent in an assembly of brilliant people guided by an able leader. In virtually every historic national crisis, our most effective leaders gathered the best minds they could find — consider the Founders in Philadelphia, Lincoln with his "Team of Rivals," Roosevelt with scientists and generals seeking to end World War II, Kennedy with the "Best and Brightest" confronting the Cuban missile crisis.....
....What happens when men and women of various backgrounds, fields of expertise, and unfettered intellectual freedom come together to tackle a problem often exceeds any reasonable expectation....
....Finding fault is easier than finding answers. And worse, it paralyzes many of the very people who may be needed to solve a crisis....

Romney is right- what we need right now is someone who will use what power and authority and resources that the federal government has to help, and other than that stay out of the way. Attacking BP isn't going to help anything, and there will be plenty of time for that later if that is what is called for. And sitting down with lawyers, labor union leaders, watermellons, and anti-war activists isn't going to help him come up with any new ideas to solve this issue. It's Day 52- what sort of leadership has he demonstrated from his position as most powerful leader in the world?

You need to ask yourself- would you want your business run by Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? If the left is stubborn enough to resubmit Obama to the American people in 2012 and have the nation evaluate Obama on his record and achievements and leadership during his time in office, I think the choice is clear- Mitt Romney needs to kick Obama's arse.

The Colonialism-Imperialism Paradigm Is Kaput
George B. N. Ayittey, Ph.D.
June 26, 2005.

Africas paradox is galling: immense mineral wealth yet inexorably mired in steaming squalor, misery, deprivation, and chaos. A few countries have sprinted ahead but Africas overall economic performance remains abysmal, lagging behind those of other regions in the Third World. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has warned that at the prevailing rates black Africa would take another 150 years to reach some of the development targets agreed by UN members for 2015. (Financial Times, July 9, 2003; p.1). Who ruined Africa?

The causes of Africas lack of development have always evoked heated emotional debates. On one hand are those who portray Africa as a victim of powerful external forces and conspiracies a group that may be described as externalists.On the other are those who believe that the causes of Africa's crisis lie mostly within African in the nature of government (governance) or how Africa runs its own affairs. This group may be described as the internalists.

The Externalists

The externalists believe that Africa's woes are due to external factors such as the lingering effects of Western colonialism and imperialism, the pernicious effects of the slave trade, racist conspiracy plots, exploitation by avaricious multinational corporations, an unjust international economic system, inadequate flows of foreign aid, the neo-liberal policies of the World Bank, IMF, and deteriorating terms of trade. Disciples of the externalist creed include most African leaders, scholars, and intellectual radicals. For decades, the externalist position held sway, attributing the causes of almost every African problem to such external factors.

In his book, The Africans, African scholar and historian Professor Ali Mazrui, examining Africas crises, attributed most of Africas woes to Western colonialism and imperialism. "The West harmed Africa's indigenous technological development in a number of ways" (164). Africa's collapsing infrastructure (roads, railways, and utilities) is due to the "shallowness of Western institutions," "the lopsided nature of colonial acculturation" and "the moral contradictions of Western political tutelage" (202). In fact, "the political decay is partly a consequence of colonial institutions without cultural roots in Africa" (199). Therefore, self congratulatory western assertions of contributing to Africa's modernization are shallow: "The West has contributed far
less to Africa than Africa has contributed to the industrial civilization of the West" (164). Decay in law enforcement and mismanagement of funds can be traced to Western colonialism too. "The
pervasive atmosphere in much of the land is one of rust and dust, stagnation and decay, especially within those institutions which were originally bequeathed by the West signal the slow death of an alien civilization" (204) and Africa's rebellion "against westernization
masquerading as modernity" (211). Western institutions are doomed "to grind to a standstill in Africa" or decay. "Where Islam is already established, the decay of western civilization is good for Islam since it helps to neutralize a major threat" (19).

Many African leaders also subscribed to and espoused similar views ascribing the causes of Africa's crises to external factors. In fact, since independence in the sixties, almost every African malaise was alleged to have been caused by the operation or conspiracy of extrinsic agents. This externalist doctrine totally absolved the leadership of any responsibility for the mess in Africa. The leadership was above reproach and could never be faulted. President Mobutu even blamed
corruption on European colonialism. Asked who introduced corruption into Zaire, he retorted: "European businessmen were the ones who said, 'I sell you this thing for $1,000, but $200 will be for your (Swiss bank) account'" (New African, July, 1988, 25).

In his address to the third Congress of the Democratic Union of Malian People recently, President Moussa Traore observed that, The world economy is passing through a period characterized by monetary disorder and slow trade exchanges. The worsening crisis is affecting all countries, particularly developing countries. Due to the difficult situation, which is compounded by the serious drought, socio economic life has been affected by serious imbalances
that have jeopardized our country's development growth. Debt servicing, characterized mainly by state to state debts are a heavy burden on the state budget. The drop in the price of cotton which accounts for much of the country's foreign earnings, has led to a great reduction in export
earnings" (West Africa, 16 May 1988, 876).

President Danial arap Moi accused the IMF and other development partners of denying Kenya development funds, thus triggering mass poverty (The Washington Times, June 3, 1999; p.A12). According to the Chairman of Ghanas ruling NDC, Issifu Ali, whatever economic crisis the nation was going through had been caused by external factors. He said the NDC has since 1982 adopted pragmatic policies for the progress of Ghana, adding that the macro-economic environment of 1999 has been undermined by global economic developments" (The Independent, Nov 18, 1999; p.3). Said the Zimbabwe Independent (April 27, 1999), Mugabe
rejects the criticism of those who blame the government for the economic crisis. It is, he says, the fault of greedy Western powers, the IMF, the Asian financial crisis and the drought (p. 25).

Naturally, African leaders would deny any responsibility and blame everybody else except themselves for the mess in Africa. The New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) echoes this orthodoxy when it claims that Africas impoverishment has been accentuated by the legacy of colonialism and other historical legacies, such as the Cold War and the unjust international economic system. Colonialism subverted the "traditional structures, institutions and values," creating an economy "subservient to the economic and political
needs of the imperial powers" (para 21). Colonialism, according to NEPAD, retarded the development of an entrepreneurial and middle class with managerial capability. At independence, Africa inherited a "weak capitalist class," which explains the "weak accumulation process, weak states and dysfunctional economies." (para 22). More recent reasons for Africa's dire condition include "its continued marginalization from globalization process." (para 2). NEPAD seeks $64 billion in investments from the West.

Frankly, this colonialism-imperialism card has been so overplayed that it has lost its relevance and credence. Even Africas children dont buy it. Chernoh Bah, president of the Children's Forum asserted that Africa's socio economic problems are a direct repercussion of incompetent and corrupt political leaders who usurped political office via the gun. "Some blame colonialism for Africa' plight while others blame the continent's harsh climatic conditions. I think the reason is the kind of political systems we have had over the past decades, he said. (Standard Times [Freetown], April 2, 2003; web posted). At the United Nations Children's Summit held in May 2002 in New York, youngsters from Africa ripped into their leaders for failing to improve
their education and health. "You get loans that will be paid in 20 to 30 years and we have nothing to pay them with, because when you get the money, you embezzle it, you eat it, said 12-year-old Joseph Tamale from Uganda (BBC News, May 10, 2002).

The Internalists

Internalists are the new and angry generation of Africans, who are fed up with African leaders who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures and, instead use colonialism and other external factors as convenient alibis to conceal their own incompetence and mismanagement.
Internalists believe that, while external factors have played a role, internal factors have been far more significant in causing Africas crisis. This school of thought maintains that while it is true Western colonialism and imperialism did harm Africa and continues to do so, Africa's condition has been made immeasurably worse by such internal factors as misguided leadership, misgovernance, systemic corruption, capital flight, economic mismanagement, declining investment, collapsed infrastructure, decayed institutions, senseless civil wars, political
tyranny, flagrant violations of human rights, and military vandalism. In fact, one can identify a whole lot of them but these will suffice. U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, himself an African, lashed out at African leaders at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Lome in July 2000. He pointedly told them that they are to blame for most of the continent's problems. Instead of being exploited for the benefit of the people, Africas mineral resources have been so
mismanaged and plundered that they are now the source of our misery (Daily Graphic, July 12, 2000; p.5). Earlier in the year at a press conference in London in April, 2000, Kofi Annan, lambasted African leaders who he says have subverted democracy and lined their pockets
with public funds, although he stopped short of naming names (The African-American Observer, April 25 May 1, 2000; p.10). During a brief stop-over in Accra, he disclosed in a Joy FM radio station interview that "Africa is the region giving him the biggest headache as the
Security Council spends 60 to 70% of its time on Africa. He admitted sadly that the conflicts on the continent embarrasses and pains him as an African" (The Guide, July 18-24, 2000; p.8).

Ordinary people are speaking out too. Said Akobeng Eric, a Ghanaian, in a letter to the Free Press (29 March - 11 April 1996): "A big obstacle to economic growth in Africa is the tendency to put all blame, failures and shortcomings on outside forces. Progress might have been achieved if we had always tried first to remove the mote in our own eyes" (2). Angry
at deteriorating economic conditions in Ghana, thousands of Ghanaians marched through the streets of the capital city, Accra, the economic crisis is due to external forces and therefore, beyond his control, then he should step aside and allow a competent person who can
manage the crisis to take over," Atta Frimpong demanded (The Ghanaian Chronicle, Nov 29, 1999; p.1). Appiah Dankwah, another protestor blamed the NDC government for mismanaging the resources of the nation.

By the 1990s, African governments had completely lost touch with their people; in fact, they were at war with their people. Citing "the credibility gap between the people and the leadership built up through years of mismanagement," Mr. Mohammed Boudiaf, the head of Algeria's
High Executive Council (HEC), lamented: "A large segment of the population has, I am afraid, lost confidence in the capacity of the leadership to provide jobs, housing, health care and its ability to combat corruption" (Financial Times, June 17, 1992; p. 4). Indeed, said Simon Agbo, a farmer in Ogbadibo, south of Makurdi, Benue state capital in Nigeria: "I heard we have a new government. It makes no difference to me. Here we have no light ( electricity), we have no water. There is no road. We have no school. The government does nothing for us (The
Washington Times, Oct 21, 1999; p.A19).

Rafael Marques, a journalist, jailed and convicted of defamation for a 1999 article in which he characterized President Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola as a dictator, wrote: "The government has created a stateless state here in Angola. Each citizen is responsible for his own health and welfare while the government is accountable to no one. The MPLA and
UNITA are like two gangs and the people of Angola are innocent bystanders caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting" (The Washington Post, Sept 18, 2000; p.A1).

As a result of the failure to provide the basic necessities of life, the state and those in power have increasingly alienated themselves from those they rule and from whom they claim to derive their legitimacy. The growing gap between the leaders and the people has made the leaders increasingly insecure, sensitive, repressive and less responsive to the wishes of society. The mass of the people in turn regard the state and its organs with fear, suspicion and cynicism because as far as they are concerned, they are no longer legitimate or relevant in their lives. The government does nothing for them. Insecure African despots spend inordinate amounts on the military and security forces, subverting other state institutions squelch dissent, prop them up in power, and serve their parochial interests. The masses on the other hand, sensing their
inability to meaningfully influence the policies of the state and the behaviors of those in positions of power, develop apathy and withdraw from participation in the political process for safety reasons.

Government, as an institution that cares about its people and attends to their needs, has ceased to exist in many African countries. What exists is a vampire state, where the government has been hijacked by a phalanx of unrepentant bandits and crooks, who use the machinery of the
state to enrich themselves, their cronies and tribesmen, while excluding everyone else (the politics of exclusion). The richest persons in Africa are heads of state and ministers. Quite often, the chief bandit is the head of state himself.

At an African civic groups meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Nigeria's President, Olusegun Obasanjo, claimed that corrupt African leaders have stolen at least $140 billion (95 billion) from their people in the decades since independence (The London Independent, June 14, 2002. Web
posted at www.independent.co.uk). In August 2004, an African Union report claimed that Africa loses an estimated $148 billion annually to corrupt practices, a figure which represents 25 percent of the continent's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But these are gross underestimates. According to one UN estimate, $200 billion or 90 percent of the sub-Saharan part of the continent's gross domestic product was shipped to foreign banks in 1991 alone (The New York Times, Feb 4, 1996; p.4). Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused 220 billion ($396 billion) -- that is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the
continent (The London Telegraph, June 25, 2005; web posted). If this sum had been divided equally among Nigerias 120 million people, its income per capita would be at least $3,000, instead of the miserable $265, which is about the same as it was when it gained its independence in 1960. Between 1970 and 2004, more than $400 billion in oil money
flowed into Nigerian governments coffers. What happened to the oil money?

Eventually the vampire state metastasizes into what Africans call a coconut republic and implodes when politically-excluded groups rise up in rebellion: Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Burundi (1995), Zaire (1996), Sierra Leone (1998), Liberia (1999), Ivory Coast (2000), and
Togo (2005). Only reform intellectual, economic, political and institutional will save Africa but the leadership is not interested. Period.

Ask these leaders to develop their countries and they will develop their pockets. Ask them to seek foreign investment and they will seek a foreign country to invest their booty. Ask them to cut bloated state bureaucracies or government spending and they will set up a Ministry of
Less Government Spending. Ask them to establish better systems of governance and they will set up a Ministry of Good Governance (Tanzania). Ask them to curb corruption and they will set up an Anti-Corruption Commission with no teeth and then sack the Commissioner if he gets too close to the fat cats (Kenya). Ask them to establish democracy and they will empanel a coterie of fawning sycophants to write the electoral rules, hold fraudulent elections with opposition leaders either disqualified or in jail, and return themselves to power (Ivory Coast, Rwanda). Ask them to reduce state hegemony in the economy and place more reliance on the private sector and they will create a Ministry of Private Enterprise (Ghana). Ask them to privatize inefficient state-owned enterprises and they will sell them off at fire-sale prices to their cronies. In 1992, in accordance with World Bank loan conditionalities, the Government of Uganda began a
privatization effort to sell-off 142 of its state-owned enterprises. However, in 1998, the process was halted twice by Ugandas own parliament because, according to the chair of a parliamentary select committee, Tom Omongole, it had been derailed by corruption, implicating three senior ministers who had "political responsibility" (The East African, June 14, 1999). The sale of these 142 enterprises was initially projected to generate 900 billion Ugandan shillings or $500
million. However, by the autumn of 1999 the revenue balance was only 3.7 billion Ushs.

Now, their recalcitrance has transmogrified into extortion. Ask them to move a foot and they will demand foreign aid in order to do so. In 2003, some 30,000 ghost names were discovered on the payroll of the Ministry of Education, costing the government $1.2 million a month in salaries heisted by living workers. When Ghana demanded foreign aid to purge these ghost names, Japan ponied up $5 million.

The reform process has stalled through vexatious chicanery, strong-arm tactics, deception, and vaunted acrobatics. Only 16 out of the 54 African countries are democratic and fewer than 8 African countries can be described as economic success stories. Intellectual freedom remains
in the Stalinist era: only 8 African countries have a free and independent media. But without genuine reform, more African countries will implode -- Chad, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Togo and Zimbabwe are already teetering on the brink

The slave trade, Western colonialism, imperialism and external factors have nothing to do with the naked plunder and wrong choices made by bad African leaders. The World Bank has nothing to do with monumental leadership failure in Africa. The IMF, which most African leaders relish
vilifying, has nothing to do with petrol (gasoline) shortages in Nigeria. Nor do Western agricultural subsidies have anything to do with why African governments cant supply reliable electricity and safe drinking water to their people. The slave trade has nothing to do with
Nigeria turning itself into the scam capital of the world.

The Flaws in the Externalist Position

The issue of Western culpability or complicity in causing Africas woes evokes such intense emotionalism that it often clouds rational analysis of our problems in Africa. Let us strip the issue of its emotionalism and examine it rationally.

Historical Wrongs Committed by the West

The Slave Trade/Colonialism

Everyone agrees that the slave trade was at once a brutally inhumane treatment that can ever be meted out to a people. The horrors of capture, the trans-shipment, the loss of millions of able-bodied men, the atrocities that were committed by European slave traders, etc. are all documented. We all agree to the humiliating experience of colonial subjugation. The discrimination against African natives, the exploitation of Africa's mineral wealth and artifacts, etc. -- we also agree on that.

Remedies

We may seek compensation (reparations) for the harm that slavery did to us. We may seek the return of the stolen booty. Ethiopia has just received its ancient obelisk, stolen by the Italian colonialists. But even here, African leaders have debauched the issue.

Back in August 1999, representatives of African governments met in Accra and issued a declaration: "Africa is demanding $777 trillion from Western Europe and the Americas in reparation for enslaving Africans while colonizing the continent" (Pan African News Agency, August 18, 1999). It added that the money would be demanded from ''all those nations of Western Europe and the Americas and institutions, who participated and benefited from the slave trade and colonialism''. Dr. Hamet Maulana and Debra Kofie, co-chairpersons of the commission, urged that worldwide monitoring and networking systems be instituted to ensure
that reparation and repatriation will be achieved by 2004. Problem is, U.S. GNP is only $12 trillion and amount asked- $777 trillion- exceeds the combined sum of the GNPs of the entire Western world! According to the British governments Office of National Statistics, The United
Kingdom -- that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland -- is officially valued at $8.8 trillion, a sum that includes all of its property and buildings, machinery, roads, bridges, planes, trains and automobiles. It also includes all the money deposited in its banks and other financial institutions. Plus everything on the shelves at Harrods (The New York Times, Jan 1, 2004; p.A4). So how do African leaders hope to collect $777 trillion?

We may argue all we want about the size of reparations but these historical wrongs cannot repeat, cannot -- be used to justify the cruel atrocities and grotesque misdeeds African leaders commit against their own people. Winning independence for their respective countries gives no African leader -- none of them -- the license to do what they want with their people and countries.

European slave traders or colonialists did not tell President Mugabe to raze down shanty-towns, destroying the propertied of hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans and rendering more than 1.5 million HOMELESS. American imperialists did not tell President Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia
to order his security forces to open fire on student demonstrators, killing more than 40 of them on June 15, 2005. British racists did not tell President Isaiah Afwerki of Eritrea to shut down all the private newspapers in Eritrea and jail all their editors and journalists.

These leaders must be held ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. Historical wrongs by the West do not factor in here because they are a separate issue and CANNOT be used to excuse wrongful actions taken by African leaders TODAY.

Colonial Legacies

It is also agreed that the colonial legacies bequeathed to Africa were pitiful. What the Portuguese left behind in Guinea-Bissau, after 200 years of colonial rule, was a small brewery for their local servicemen. There was no social development; industry was not encouraged. African colonies were to serve as sources of raw material and cheap labor for the industrial machines of Metropolitan Europe. The colonial economies were based on export mono-culture: the export of one or two cash crops.

Colonial education was geared toward training male clerks for the colonial administration. The Belgians and Portuguese never encouraged university education as that would teach African natives of their political rights. When Tanzania gained its independence in 1964, it had only 4 university graduates.

Infrastructure was Spartan. Few roads and railways were built. Even where built in West Africa, they exhibited a dendritic pattern: Straight from the coast to the hinterland to evacuate some mineral or cash crop.

All this is true but heres the problem: After independence, we, African elites, did not maintain, let alone keep the little infrastructure we inherited from the colonialists. In fact, we destroyed them! Infrastructure crumbled in the post colonial period. The few universities we got in Ghana and Nigeria decayed. In Uganda, Makerere University used to be called the Harvard of Africa in the 1950s. By 1980, it was a shambles. In Zaire, the Belgian colonialists put down only 2,000 miles of paved road appalling for that huge country the size of Texas. By 1990, only 200 miles were usable. So who do you blame: the Belgian colonialists for not laying down enough roads OR Mobutu for failing to maintain the little that Zaire got? Later, we learned that Mobutu allowed the roads and infrastructure to crumble in Zaire because it made it difficult for the opposition to organize against him!
(contd)

Good evening.

This is a special night for me. Three years ago, in 2008, I accepted the nomination of my party to run for President of the United States. I promised you a President who is not isolated from the people, who feels your pain, and who shares your dreams and who draws his strength and his wisdom from you.

During the past 3 years I've spoken to you on many occasions about national concerns, the energy crisis, reorganizing the Government, our Nation's economy, and issues of war and especially peace.

Ten days ago I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject -- hopechangetogetherness. For the uncountable time I would have lectured you on the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you. Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?

It's clear that the true problems of our Nation are much deeper -- deeper than high gasoline prices, deeper than the madness of the NCAA tournament, deeper even than expected inflation or the continuing recession. And I realize more than ever that as President I need your help. So, I decided to reach out and listen to the voices of America.

I invited to Camp David people from almost every segment of our society, including labor union leaders, government union leaders, teachers, bureaucrats, university professors, donors to my campaign, Democrat Governors, the Mayor of Chicago, and foreign officials. It has been an extraordinary 10 days, and I want to share with you what I've heard.

These 10 days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my longstanding concerns about our Nation's underlying problems.

I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to pass legislation and conduct myself in a manner completely different from what I promised in my campaign -- and I have to admit, these have been met with little success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

America, you are what is wrong with America, and we need to change you to make you better.

The confidence that we have always had as a people is simply some romantic dream from a slavery past or was a proverb in a dusty book that we once read. The real confidence of America and the reason it was founded is to elect me so that I can progress our Nation. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions, our own unions, and the very Government of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own, in spite of the massive debt and underfunded institutions we are pushing to them.

This loss of confidence did not happen overnight. They've come upon us because of Republicans and the resulting years of shocks and tragedy.

Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our Nation's life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.

What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.

Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don't like, and neither do I. What can we do?

First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in the ability of Democrats to govern you, and faith in the future of this Nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.

We know the strength of America. We will be strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who forged a New Deal, a Fair Deal, a Square Deal, and who built a Great Society. Although my grandmother was a racist, my Muslim father from Kenya and my mother were strong, and believed that in me they had created someone who would carve out a new charter of peace for the world.

We ourselves and the same Americans just three years ago elected me, a man who represents hope and change We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the kinetic military actions against non-state actors and we are the generation that will cool the globe and stop the rise of the oceans and in doing so build a new confidence in America.

We are a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest, the path that Republicans want us to take. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others, the right to keep and own private property, and the right to choose life. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our present, all the lessons of the failures of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to True Freedom for our Nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our confidence problem.

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our Nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. We know the Republicans, Tea Party activists, and conservatives will attempt to block us and prevent us from progressing as a society to True Freedom. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure openness and togetherness and hope. And above all, I will vote present on this issue and be the one we were waiting for.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America's people, America's values, and America's confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people, which I will spend and then some. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for a confident nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, and I will do it alone if need be. If you support me, then let your voice be heard- whenever you have a chance, say something good about me and my plan. With my help and for the sake of our Nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit, this one based on my vision of hope and change and togetherness and progress. Working together with this common faith we cannot fail. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Thank you and good night.

UPDATE: This is a fake speech that I expect Obama to give soon. It is based on Jimmy Carter's "Malaise Speech" in 1979. What is surprising is how little I actually have changed from that speech- I'm honest, I only changed an occasional word or edited out an occasional section, and yet this speech sounds like something Obama would say. Does it sound like a speech Romney, or Palin, or Bush, or Reagan, or Lincoln, or Jefferson, or Washington would say? No, but it does sound like a speech for Obama, Carter, Hoover, or Buchanan. That says something.

Powerlineblog today had several outstanding posts that are worth checking out.

The first one that I want to point out is an update on Obama's associations with the New Party, which was a socialist third party popular in Chicago in the 90's. Apparently there is more evidence that Obama was indeed a card-carrying socialist (to be fair, I don't know if he carried his socialist party membership card around in his pocket). I wrote about this here.

The next post I want to point to is a report on the attitude of Obama's campaign towards illegal campaign contributions. Apparently, on Obama's website, it is very easy to submit information that is false and give money to Obama, in clear violation of campaign finance laws- as long as you give Obama money, he is willing to overlook that you are not who you say you are. For comparison, McCain's website does not accept campaign donations from false or fictional people. Now, I know that McCain's campaign probably has accepted illegal contributions- every campaign has, both Republicans and Democrats, throughout our history. What is shocking is the openness of Obama's campaign, and the extent of it. We're looking at an increasingly orchestrated effort to buy and steal an election. I posted my thoughts on this before here and here.

Next, here is information from a Pew Research study finds that of 2,412 stories on John McCain that appeared in newspapers and cable news channels between the Republican convention and the last Presidential debate, only 14 percent were positive, while 60 percent were negative. That was the worst ratio of any of the four national-ticket candidates. Wow. Good thing you are reading my blog- my ratio is much more fair and balanced!

Here is another good post. One area of the media that is not fair and balanced is the View. This popular show is increasingly hostile to most Americans, pushing liberal and left-wing viewpoints. I wonder how it is doing in ratings? Anyways, apparently yesterday Rush Limbaugh was described on the View as a "terrorist." A terrorist. A radio-show host, using his power of free speech to voice another viewpoint shared by a large number of people in our country. And he is called a terrorist. The good thing is that liberals believe terrorists should never been punished. And all Rush has to do is blow up a couple buildings and kill some people and he will be upgraded from 'terrorist' to 'education reformer.'

Lastly, one person who will not be intimidated is Governor Sarah Palin. This great patriot is filling in the blanks of Joe Biden's recent speech. If you haven't heard, on Sunday of this week Joe Biden issued warning to Democratic fundraisers- he said that within six months of his inauguration, new President Barack Obama will face an "international crisis" brought on by our enemies to "test [his] mettle." Biden said he could foresee "four or five scenarios" for such a crisis. Biden then went on to forecast that Obama's response to such a crisis will seem wrong to most Americans, so donors were encouraged to stay tough and see it through. That's right boys and girls, if you elect Obama President, you are inviting an international crisis that will be handled badly. Biden didn't specify what "four or five [crisis] scenarios" he had in mind and no reporter went any further into these statements, and mainstream coverage of this has been non-existent. But, the Governor of Alaska filled in the blanks. Watch it here.

Via memeorandum I came across this story- In the Arena: Libyan opposition has less than 1,000 fighters:

During "In the Arena," Jon Lee Anderson, staff writer for The New Yorker reporting from Benghazi, Libya, tells Eliot Spitzer that the number of opposition fighters on the front lines are fewer than anyone would think and that they are poorly armed and badly trained. Anderson says, "Effective number of fighting men, well under 1,000. Actual soldiers, who are now in the fight, possibly in the very low hundreds on the opposition side."

If Obama is correct and the situation in Libya is a humanitarian crisis which demands that the United States act, then the United States needed to act while it was still possible to act, or else resign itself to the humanitarian crisis which would result. But Obama did not act while it was still possible to act, and the reason for the delay was his own incompetence and ignorance, for which he, and he alone, is to blame.

Obama is ignorant that it takes real people to fight wars and real hardware to engage in a revolution- and his delay in acting meant that Qaddafi was able to kill many fighters and retake many weapons- Obama has no experience in the military and has shown little familiarity with military subjects and is ignorant that battles are fought with people and hardware and are not simply chess pieces to move around a board. Obama is incompetent in that he does not recognize his own ignorance on this issue and instead of acting on advice from those smarter than him he instead worried about his NCAA bracket or jetted down to Brazil or hosted fancy dinners and events with celebrities.

Early on in the conflict (February 27) I wrote this:

(Obama's) failures resulted in a longer, more drawn out, less sure conflict, one in which the moderates saw the President of the United States doing nothing and so decided to support the established powers, one in which the revolutionaries saw their morale drop due to lack of support, one in which the established powers in Libya believed that is was okay to use deadly force and hire international mercenaries to keep control.

Several weeks later I had become disgusted with Obama's handling of the crisis in Libya and wrote this:

...I have no problem blaming Obama for the ensuing humanitarian crisis that is going to unfold in Libya. It was okay to wait a bit, because the US shouldn't just jump willy-nilly into every conflict, but the minute the rebels stalled, the math was pretty simple- either jump in now in support and knock Muammar Qaddafi out while building goodwill with the rebels who would then march to power and restore order, or stay out of it and watch Qaddafi retake his nation and punish the rebels and build goodwill with him and his son...

...But President Paintywaist instead anguished about the decision and tried to hide and ran around yelling 'present' on the issue while issuing empty rhetoric and throwing pixie dust at the situation. I don't care how hard he tries to re-write history on this one- he sat around, watched the rebels get pushed back, watched them lose their best fighters and leaders and most dedicated freedom fighters, watched Qaddafi take back cities and kill and rape everyone who was against him in those areas, watched both Qaddafi and the rebels get weaker, and then when the French and British said 'screw you, we're doing something' he fled to Brazil and let Hillary make the call....

Let me be clear- President Obama waited too long to commit the United States to this conflict, and his waiting let Qaddafi forces kill too many revolutionary fighters and recapture too many revolutionary resources, and now the outcome of the situation in Libya is more uncertain. His address this week did little to explain why this critical and increasingly important delay happened, in spite of his efforts to retell the story, and he should be held to blame for the now greater cost that it will take to avert a humanitarian crisis in Libya.

Genocides piss me off and I hate it when people die when they shouldn't, and the blame for this situation should be put squarely and fully on Democratic President Barack Obama.

UPDATE: This does not cause me to become less angry- according to the Jawa Report, there are now less opposition fighters left in Libya than there are members of the 501st Legion, a group of Star Wars fans who dress up like stormtroopers and other characters from the movies, prompting him to ask the important question "Are There More Actual Stormtroopers Than Libyan Rebel Fighters?"

UPDATE II: RedState's Caleb Howe has produced an awesome graphic comparing Obama's war in Libya with Bush's war in Iraq. Check it out, via Doug Ross.

I'm going to come back to this post several times in the future, because there is a lot of gold to mine in this debate. Here are my running thoughts- I'll expand on some of these later.

First, while I was watching the pre-debate on ABC, as they went through the history/biography of both candidates, I thought to myself how surprising it is that this election is even a contest. McCain is a true American hero- a war hero who has been at the forefront of legislation for 20 years, has few scandals, and is a decent person, running against Obama, who is... what? A world traveler? A community organizer? Black? I don't understand how Obama could win- it's like everything our country has been about for the last several hundred years is all being forgotten. Our Founding Fathers would not be proud of us if Obama won. For a more comical take on this, see this earlier 'joke' I posted on this idea.

Economic Plan- Obama. Obama talked about putting forward a series of proposals to solve the economic crisis. Did he actually do those things? To whom? Was it in the form of legislation, or just talk? I don't recall this ever coming up in the news- if you brag about this sort of thing, shouldn't it be well-known? Obama then summed up the issues facing us. He emphasized that things are really bad right now and getting worse.

Economic Plan- McCain. McCain talked about the fact that he has been a leader on this issue and is trying to get a bipartisan approach passed. He talked about specific elements of proposed legislation that is working to pass. Although I got the sense that he is more about trying to be a leader than actually crafting the legislation, that's not really a bad thing for a President. He ended with a good quote about how this isn't the beginning of the end, but is the end of the beginning of the crisis- projecting hope. Going back, he did project a lot more hope than Obama throughout the whole debate- I don't get why Obama is the candidate of "HOPE".

Obama emphasized that the question to ask about this crisis is what did we do wrong several years ago. McCain stressed asking what we can do now and in the future. Again- why is Obama considered the candidate looking into the future- all he does is talk about how he would have made different decisions in the past. That's great if we have that time-travel machine invented, but we don't, so I want to hear about what you are doing now and will do in the future- both areas Obama can say very little about.

Obama said that there are problems that need solutions. McCain mentioned specific solutions that he was working on. Obama mentioned problems with the solutions. McCain offered solutions for the solutions. Obama offers visions and questions, McCain offers legislation and answers.

Obama thinks tax breaks for the rich are bad. As he said, he wants to grow the economy from the bottom-up- give money to the poor, and then the money will trickle up to the top. Has this economic theory ever worked in history? For that matter, which economics believe in this idea, or is this just another case where Obama has decided he is really smart and knows what to do. I guess this means that Obama believes in "TRICKLE-UP" economics!

Obama wants to give 95% of people a tax cut, but then clarified that it would not be a tax cut, it just wouldn't be a tax increase. Such a politician- not raising taxes is just that- not a tax cut. If this is what he means by cuts, I'd be worried- anything he wants to 'cut' will just stay the same, and anything he wants to stay the same will be going up. I guess if 95% get cuts, the top 5% will pay more now? That's a lot of money. That's anti-trickle down economics!

Obama talked about how the market doesn't solve problems and that deregulation doesn't work. See, Obama does not believe in the free-market- he does not think that you are smart enough to make the right choices about what products to buy and how much to pay for them. He wants the government to run the economy. He might fudge this, he might clarify this, but if Obama had been in the Soviet Union in the 1980's, he would have been closer to Gorbachev than Reagan!

Obama again references using the line-item veto to solve the issue of earmarks- he said he would "go line-by-line and veto stuff"- am I mistaken about this? I'm 99% sure he can't do that right now. Does he even understand what powers the Presidency has? See my earlier post on this subject- I've noticed this in the past too- this is a reoccurring claim by Obama, and really speaks to the fact that he is less knowledgeable about what the President can and can't do than a high school government teacher (me). Someone who is a constitutional scholar should educate Obama about this, or write an article on how Obama doesn't know what he is talking about.

McCain talked about looking at his record on tax cuts, fighting spending, etc. He emphasized that a tax system has to be fair for everyone, not one sided 'anti-rich'. He is a fighter of earmarks and government waste, and an independent or moderate would really like his record. As a conservative, I like it less so- he did vote against Bush's tax cuts, and has supported some large expansions of federal power. Regardless, his record is a 1000 times better on this issue than Obama's, who is the most liberal left-wing senator in Congress.

Obama talked about how oil companies shouldn't get any tax breaks, because if they do, others will have to pay more. This logic only works if tax cuts don't cause growth in government revenue- which they do- or you refuse to lower taxes overall- which as a liberal Democrat, he could never ever even imagine lowering taxes overall. Obama wants energy independence now by developing more solar and wind power. These will not work now- although in 20-30 years, maybe!

McCain cited specific attempts of his to fight wasteful spending by talking about contracts he had fought as wasteful, legislation he introduced to combat wasteful spending, etc. McCain took this chance to talk about his proposal to increase nuclear power in the US, which is a common-sense solution to our energy needs while satisfying those who believe in the global warming myth.

On what spending would be delayed, Obama said nothing specific would be, and instead just attacked lobbyists. McCain said that he would be in place a spending freeze until after the crisis was over. Obama will not freeze spending due to the financial crisis- instead, from his answer, it sounds like in a time of crisis when money was tight he would spend more. That's the change we need! McCain said that he would help the economy grow to off-set losses.

Lesson of Iraq. McCain said the lesson was on developing a good strategy and getting the tactics right. He said he pushed for these and got them, and then success happened. Obama said the lesson he learned of Iraq was that 6 years ago he opposed the war. The lesson he learned is that it is important to always say you were against decisions that are now unpopular. He really wants that time-travel machine. Odd that again he is more backward looking than McCain. Obama then said that he would never hesitate with the use of force, but he will hesitate a lot about whether to use it in the first place (ha ha ha). Read the transcript. That's what he basically said.

Obama said that McCain was wrong that we would be welcomed as liberators, thus showing his lack of judgement, and thus why he was unfit for command. I'm always curious when I hear this one- exactly who has not welcomed us as liberators? The bad guys? People who strap bombs to their children to blow up innocents shopping to show their opposition to democracy and freedom? So what if these people don't welcome us as liberators. Most of the population has. McCain hinted at this by saying that the good guys are winning now.

Obama that the role of the President is to make the first call, but let everyone else settle on the correct tactics. McCain said that making the right tactics is also important as President. Obama said this is just managing bad problems- that's actually a good point. Maybe the only job of the President is to set the big vision and not worry about the details. Although, the Democrats and Obama have spent the last 7 years ripping Bush for his weakness with details and lack of micro-managment of everything, so I think that although this might be a good point, it is not a fair one.

Afghanistan. Obama said that we should send in more troops, by pulling them out of Iraq. He denies that there are any bad guys or terrorists in Iraq. He wants to press Afghan government to give more welfare to its people and have a stronger national government. McCain said that a troop surge isn't just it- you need to change tactics too. He also said that you shouldn't tell people your moves ahead of time. Obama implied that he would allow attacks into Pakistan if cross-border attacks continue, McCain said that you have to think of Pakistan as a failed state, and treat it with caution. He only goes all-in if he can win. Both candidates bring up bracelet- did Obama steal this idea from McCain? That's sad. Says Afghanistan is the central conflict in the War on Terror. McCain says Iraq is. And says that if Obama thought that, he should have visited Afghanistan.

Iranian Threat. McCain wants to come up with a "League of Democracies" to combat Iran. Obama doesn't want to provoke Iran, and wants Russia and China to get involved in diplomacy with the US for sanctions. Obama said that isolationism has never worked, and elaborated that never in history has not sitting down with dictators worked. McCain gave example after example of when it had worked. I guess using actual events and experience is just not that important to Obama- or for Obama voters. Obama said that he has been a leader- he said that he had suggested that we need to think about looking at talks with North Korea, and this might have started progress. McCain said that North Korea isn't progress, and implied that if this is Obama's experience, then it is rather weak. Both candidates then got into an exchange about Kissinger- Obama is flat wrong on this.

Russia. Obama said that Russia is bad, but you can't piss them off. McCain said that this is naive, that Putin is bad, and that he's been there and seen it. It really doesnt' even matter if Russia or Putin is bad, Obama doesn't believe in good or evil, just how he can win more power. I wonder- has Obama the world traveler ever been to Russia, Georgia, Afghanistan, etc.? McCain called out Obama's slow response to Georgia conflict. Obama replied that he was the first to call for foreign aid for Georgia to help them build a bigger welfare system. He then said that one of the reasons that Russia is resurgent is because of oil, and so he supports increased drilling. Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure he never has done this and is way against drilling. But actually citing experience, past voting records, and real events is probably just boring.

Preventing another 9/11. McCain said we are safer now and led push for 9/11 Commission. Obama said safer in some ways but not enough. Isn't he supposed to be about hope? He was the less hopeful of the two. He then talked about world perception and how important that was. Is improving world perception more important than sponsoring legislation? McCain said we should stay in Iraq and win, Obama disagreed. Seriously? Isn't this the debate from 4 years ago? I thought Obama's position was thoroughly discredited by now.

Obama talked about catching Bin Laden, and that this is more important than winning in Iraq. Iraq is not worth it. It's about a broader strategic vision. McCain said that Obama does not have the experience and judgement to seriously say these things.

McCain said that his record speaks for himself.

Obama said that the children of the world no longer respect us, and that's why we should elect him. Has anyone seen the research on this claim?

The after coverage was also interesting to note- I was flipping around. Here is what I saw. MSNBC said that Obama missed his chances to get McCain, and that Obama looked better. CNBC was interviewing Democrats who repeated talking points I heard last week. CNN said that McCain knew his stuff and was more in command, but Obama looked good and wove themes well. Fox News said that Obama was more direct and knew more, but Obama was more nuanced and sounded better.

I judge the winner of the debate to be McCain.

I'm getting sick and tired of the increasingly amount of articles written by liberal bloggists and journalists who argue that Barack Obama can't do anything at all to help the situation with the Gulf Oil Crisis. There is article after article, blog post after blog post, all arguing the same thing- this was a natural disaster, the responsibility for the containment and cleanup is entirely on BP, Obama had nothing to do with it, Obama has nothing to do with it, and Obama and the Democrats in Congress who are running our nation right now are not to be blamed for it. They are wrong though- Democrat President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress running our nation can and should be blamed for their failures during the Gulf Oil Crisis.

First, as I wrote in Obama: Didn't Waive the Jones Act, Made Gulf Spill Worse that:

Don't kid yourself- there is a lot that the government can do to help the situation in the Gulf- like getting the heck out of the way of people who want to help. Obama could have waived the Jones Act and allowed foreign ships to assist in transporting goods (like oil-skimming booms) in order to help clean up the mess. But he didn't. Obama refused to waive the Jones Act.

Second, as I wrote in Mitt Romney on Leadeship that:

Romney is right- what we need right now is someone who will use what power and authority and resources that the federal government has to help, and other than that stay out of the way. Attacking BP isn't going to help anything, and there will be plenty of time for that later if that is what is called for. And sitting down with lawyers, labor union leaders, watermellons, and anti-war activists isn't going to help him come up with any new ideas to solve this issue. It's Day 52- what sort of leadership has he demonstrated from his position as most powerful leader in the world?

Third, New York Times columnist CAMPBELL ROBERTSON wrote in Efforts to Repel Gulf Oil Spill Are Described as Chaotic:

From the beginning, the effort has been bedeviled by a lack of preparation, organization, urgency and clear lines of authority among federal, state and local officials, as well as BP. As a result, officials and experts say, the damage to the coastline and wildlife has been worse than it might have been if the response had been faster and orchestrated more effectively.

“The information is not flowing,” Senator Nelson said. “The decisions are not timely. The resources are not produced. And as a result, you have a big mess, with no command and control.”

Obama should not be held responsible for the Deepwater Horizon Rig blowing up, but after it did, he should have been on the situation, providing leadership. This was federal waters, the federal government has extensive resources available, and the one thing that the President of the United States can do better than anyone else is act as a crisis manager. Once the rig blew up, Obama doesn't have to go out there with a straw to suck up the oil, but he does have to put in place a team who can organize federal, state, and local officials and put in place clear lines of command and clear lines of communication. That's his job. The President's job is to step in when there is a disaster and lead. He doesn't have to do anything- man a rig, visit the Gulf Coast, clean pelicans- but he does have to LEAD, or at least delegate that leadership to someone else who can then lead (like a crisis manager or something).

Fourth, lawmakers passed the federal Oil Pollution Act in 1990 to ensure that plans were in place for oil spills, so the response effort would be quick, with clear responsibilities for everyone involved. This means that Congress and the President are responsible for making sure that these plans were in place and ready to go. Oh, I know Obama has only been President for a couple years now (it seems like a lot longer), but the Democrats have been running Congress for years longer than that- at what point do we hold them responsible for not making sure that that laws in our nation are being followed? If the government can't take responsibility for something like this, passed almost 20 years ago, on what leap of faith can you expect them to take responsibility to do anything right as their responsibilities expand under Democratic leadership?

Obama CAN help to contain and clean up and prevent future Gulf Oil disasters- but he isn't doing that. He isn't helping to contain the spill- in fact, it appears that he is not repealing regulations that hinder fighting the spill and he is hindering efforts by states to build reefs and other means of protection. He isn't helping to clean up the spill- he has created a vacuum of leadership at the top of our nation, a vacuum that is sucking the oil right out of the ground and spewing it everywhere in a potent symbol of his inadequacy for the Presidency. And he isn't helping to prevent future Gulf Oil disasters, unless you consider his attempts to drive the US back into the Stone Age by killing energy production a way to help prevent future spills like this one. Obama can help the Gulf Oil Spill... but he isn't. The same things could be said for the Democrats who are running Congress as well.

Voters need to hold these people responsible and throw them out of office. Unlike a lot of conservatives, I'm not calling for big government and all powerful government to solve the situation, but I am calling for a government that shows leadership during a crisis and works to get out of the way of people trying to help. That's something that is possible, but not happening, under President Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

So, Bush and those evil Republicans are blamed for being in charge when the worst financial crisis since 1930 hits, from being in charge when the worst hurricanes since 1900 hit, from being in charge when the worst attack on us since 1940 hits... and they get blamed for it. Here is another take- they should be praised, because we've been hit with a lot of worsts, and still the economy is strong.

Now, these things have taken a toll, and Bush and the Republicans in Congress did some things wrong, but think about it- what might have happened if Obama had been in charge these last 7 years? How would he have responded to the series of crisis? By making government bigger, more active, more intrusive, more bloated, more inefficient, etc- all while making our country, weaker, poorer, and worse off.

Instead of thinking 'Bush was in charge for the worst financial crisis since 1930'- think 'Bush was in charge during the worst financial crisis since 1930, and it really wasn't that bad.'

Although Obama might not view what is happening in the Middle East as all that important- he is going to basketball games and concerts and instead directing attempts to riot in WI- I think it is very important because the Middle East region sits on a very important resource- oil. So for fun, I put together a graph this morning to demonstrate the amount of oil production that is affected by the crisis in the Middle East. The graph shows oil production by country based on the most recent data I found in the CIA World Factbook, and shows each nation currently in crisis or about to be in crisis, and then the gray area represents all other nations not currently affected.

Any change in oil production likely will cause the price of gasoline to go up, and as you can see, a large percentage of the world's oil comes out of this affected region, although if Saudi Arabia stays stable, then the percentages is considerably less although still significant. In my amateur opinion, gas prices are going to rise, the economy will dip again, and Obama will react to this all by supporting our enemies and lowering our oil output. Here is the graph:

On last Thursday evening , DC Jobs with Justice hosted a Workers' Rights Board hearing at the DC City Council. I was happy to be an invited guest to speak at this event. The purpose of this event was to allow city workers to discuss their concerns about what is happening across the board to city government workers and public services under the Fenty administration. Panelists of city workers testified before the Workers' Rights Board. This board plans to develop an action plan to address concerns from city workers in DC Public Schools, Child and Family Services Administration, and Department of Mental Health. Amongst the recommendations are upcoming meetings with the DC City Council.

"Catastrophe, intimidation, terror. These were common words used to describe DC Mayor Adrian Fenty’s two years in office by over a dozen speakers at Thursday’s Workers’ Rights Board (WRB) hearing. The hearing – which took place at the John A. Wilson Building to a standing-room only crowd of hundreds of residents, workers and activists – was held to examine Mayor Fenty’s assault on DC public sector workers and proposals to cut public services. “I see what is happening right now as a major catastrophe,” said Roger Newell, chair of DC Jobs with Justice. “We need to speak loudly and strongly that working people made this city and stuck with this city through times of crisis. Workers should be respected not attacked and politicians who attack workers should be held accountable.”

Metro Council President Jos Williams said that Mayor Fenty has created an “environment based on intimidation” of workers through the gutting of the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) , abolishment of the Labor-Management Partnership Program and the appointment of School Chancellor Michelle Rhee who “has made it her mission to make every employee at-will.” “The door was closed to labor immediately by the Mayor after taking office,” said Dwight Bowman, AFGE National Vice President for District 14. “The Mayor chose to ignore our efforts to reach out.” Bowman also compared Mayor Fenty’s refusal to address the crisis with the PERB to similar moves by the Bush Administration to destroy the federal grievance process.

Other panelists discussed Mayor Fenty’s assault on DC public sector workers in specific agencies, including the DC Public Schools, the Child and Family Services Agency and the Department of Mental Health (DMH), and its impact on education and public and mental health services. “I have never seen a climate like what is occurring now,” said Jeff Canady, a 17-year teacher in the DC Public Schools (DCPS). “Everyday I run into workers and teachers who have horror stories about intimidation on the job…It is an absolute climate of intimidation and terror that teachers are facing.” Canady argued the problem is not bad teachers but a lack of resources, supplies and support for teachers as well as Chancellor Rhee’s “complete lack of understanding about what needs to be done.”

Candi Peterson, a 16-year veteran of DCPS and active member of WTU Local 6, criticized Fenty and Rhee for the firings of hundreds of DCPS workers which, she argued, created overcrowded classrooms and forced teachers to work in areas outside their certification. “Rhee regularly blames teachers and argues that union contracts and teachers' seniority rights stand in the way of the best education for our children.” But the reality is that her “anti-union tactics support more privatization and outsourcing of public education, the creation of more unchecked charter schools, unsound educational practices, gutting hard-earned job protections and union busting”."

Maria Jones , a parent active in school issues and a 26-year resident of DC, called Rhee’s school reform plan a redistribution of wealth and “children are being exploited and denied a quality education” as a result.

Marketta McCoy – a recently fired investigator at the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) and member of AFSCME Council 20 – said workers are being scapegoated for the recent high-profile failures at the CFSA . McCoy added that the real issue is Mayor Fenty and CFSA management’s refusal to help provide workers with desperately needed resources and a reduction in caseloads. “Management should treat workers with dignity and respect,” said McCoy.

Roy Rogers – an employee of the DC DMH Community Services Agency (CSA) and 1199SEIU member – and Dr. Ray Brown – President of the DC Doctors Council/AFSCME – also discussed the Fenty Administration’s plans to privatize mental health services . “Closing DC CSA will leave the most vulnerable, victimized, voiceless, neediest and exploited citizens of the District without a safety net,” said Rogers. “Why eliminate these jobs now with the current economic crisis which is bound to cause more need for mental health services?” Brown said the privatization plan could affect 4,000 patients and put communities into crisis. “This is a catastrophe,” said Brown adding that the DC City Council must act to pass emergency legislation to stop the contracting out (click here to take action on this issue).

DC City Councilmembers Phil Mendelson and Harry Thomas Jr. briefly sat in with the Workers’ Rights Board to listen to panelists’ testimony. Councilmembers Kwame Brown and Yvette Alexander also made appearances. Mayor Fenty, Chancellor Rhee and other Councilmembers were invited to attend but did not show, says DC Jobs with Justice Organizer Ruth Castel-Branco. “The response to this event was overwhelming,” said Castel-Branco. “We received more requests for people to testify than we could fit into the short time frame we had. It shows that workers and DC residents are fed up with Mayor Fenty’s anti-worker, anti-democractic agenda.” An action plan, based on the testimony and recommendations of panelists, from Workers’ Rights Board members is expected in the coming months. Courtesy of DC Metro Labor-AFL-CIO. "(Posted by The Washington Teacher).

As a reminder, last year Fox News put together a report that analyzed who warned us about the financial crisis that set off our current economic crisis, and those who worked to ignore those warnings. The record is quite clear on this issue- one party predicted the correct economic future and worked to pass legislation that would protect America- another party worked and voted to block this legislation and frequently made statements about the future of our nation that have been 100% proven to be incorrect. Sadly, America voted in the wrong party, the Democrats, who the record will show worked against the interests of our nation and hurt America with their actions. See the video to be reminded that we had a chance to avert this current crisis, and Democrats ruined that chance. Vote the right way next time.

Under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the President has the power to fill any vacancies that may happen during when Senate is in recess. Over the past 100 years, a legal and official Senate recess has been interpreted by scores of Attorneys Generals and the Department of Justice (DOJ) from both Republican and Democratic Party's as the Senate being out of town and not conducting any business at all for at least 10–25 days of duration. No one, not even crazy right or left wing professors or lawyers, has ever before even suggested anything of six to seven days might be enough to count as a recess (source).

Right now the Senate is not in a recess. Every three days it opens up a brief session for a half hour or so and then adjourns for three days before it then has another brief 'pro forma' session. This means that officially, technically, and according to the rules and procedures of the United States Senate, it is still in session. This tactic was invented and used first by the Democrats to block President Bush recess appointments, and it was successful, because legally the President can not make appointments while the Senate is in session.

And so it was quite a surprise to me today that President Barack Obama (one-term Democrat), made several recess appointments, illegally and against the laws of our nation. Check out the many stories on this issue on memeorandum found here or here.

President Obama argued that under his and Democrats leadership America has fallen into such a crisis that he no longer has to follow the laws of our nation. He can simply deem that the Senate is effectively in a recess, and thus appoint whomever he wants to whatever he wants, even without Senate confirmation.

Many bloggers and professors and lawyers have jumped to his defense, arguing that the Senate is indeed in a recess, but that's contrary to what the White House memo says- it does not say 'the Senate is in a recess and the President is making several appointments'- nope, the memo says "Senate has effectively been in recess"- in other words, not technically, not officially, not legally, but "effectively", and so Obama was going to technically, officially, and legally make appointments that would be effective immediately.

Many other bloggers and professors are arguing that the President had the right to break the law here because the Senate wasn't advising and consenting and was simply blocking the one appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but their arguments were again made into useless junk by the President later making further 'recess' appointments to the NLRB, and some of these appointments had been opposed because the Senate opposed the people involved and did not want to give their assent.

Look, there is no defense for breaking the laws of our nation. None. The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if its a conservative, Tea Party Republican, or a socialist, communist Democrat- the President only has the power to make appointments when the Senate is officially in a recess of longer than 10 days. Period. Anything other than that is breaking the law, and is unconstitutional, and deserving of impeachment.

That won't happen though- bit by bit, crisis by crisis, American citizens are learning to tolerate law breaking. Ignoring established bankruptcy laws to 'save the automobile industry' was okay. Pressuring immigration officials to ignore fraudulently filled out forms and security threats in order to increase the number of immigrants in America is okay. Passing a law ordering people to buy a product or face fines is okay. And making recess appointments while the Senate is officially/legally/technically in session and not in recess is okay. Bit by bit, little tyranny by big, we are learning to accept that one man is greater than the system and can destroy it if he thinks by doing so he can save us.

This incident once more reminds me of a post I wrote last year called America is a Republic- It Shouldn't Matter if Most Want to Tax Millionaires More. In it, I wrote:

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.

Obama is following in the footsteps of Catiline, and bit by bit breaking the laws and traditions and precedents of our Republic. He might be stopped, but the damage he is doing is surely going to inspire a Caesar to put an imperial dictatorship on my children and grandchildren.

UPDATE: Let's make this issue even clearer. On Tuesday, January 3rd, the Senate was in session. You can view their schedule here, and see from it that they were called to order at 11:01 AM. They engaged in legislative and executive business. They adjourned over an hour later after completing the session's business. Several hours later, Barack Obama appointed several people to several different positions, arguing that the Senate was 'effectively in a recess' and that he therefore had the authority to make recess appointments.

Liberal bloggers and news pundits and radio hosts are arguing that since the Senate was in a recess for 3 days it was okay- but in reality, the Senate had adjourned for only several hours, and there is no way, no way at all, that an adjournment of several hours can be considered a 'recess'.

The only argument is that the Senate session held on Tuesday for over an hour that accomplished several items of note wasn't a real session, and that argument is utterly laughable beyond question.

The Senate was not in a recess, and thus the recess appointments were unconstitutional and illegal. President Barack Obama acted in a criminal and illegal fashion yesterday, and the only real question I have is whether he did it on accident (believing that the Senate was in fact in a recess) or on purpose (knowing they were not and not caring and breaking the law).

Thank you Powerlineblog for bringing this point to me attention.

UPDATE II: Several days after his power grab, President Barack Obama went further, telling a group of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau bureaucrats that "Now that Richard [Cordray] is your director, you can finally exercise the full power that this agency has been given to protect consumers under the law." The only problem with this statement is that the legislation that created the CFPB includes a section that says many of the bureau’s new powers are to be held by the secretary of the Treasury “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.” Cordray was not confirmed by the Senate- he was appointed to the position while the Senate was in session in violation to the Constitution.

So how does President Obama's pronouncement square with the law? I have two theories- one, that President Obama is ignorant of the law and incompetent in his understanding of it; or two, that President Obama is competent and knowledgeable and just doesn't care one bit about the law and what's legal.

Source- The Daily Caller, via Doug Ross.

Recently, Michigan Senate Majority leader Mike Bishop asked me for my opinion on the President's Race to the Top program. I told him that I didn't support it, and he looked at me in a way that said "I thought you were a conservative" and "I thought you wanted to help education." At the time, I struggled to explain why I didn't like the program- I didn't really know all the details to it, but suspected that I was indeed correct in opposing it from what little I knew. He thought I was just a tool of the teachers unions, who also oppose RTTT, but I knew that for some reason I didn't like this initiative by Obama, and it wasn't just paranoid anti-Obama sentiment.

Today, via theblogprof, via Right Wing News, I came across the an article called "Ten Rules for Anti-Government Republican Radicals in D.C. ." As an anti-government conservative radical, the kind that our founding fathers were, the kind of people that built our nation and made our country a great success, I find these rules to be useful in helping me begin to articulate why I oppose Race to the Top.

Rule number one for being an anti-government conservative radical is always try to decentralize power as much as possible. Race to the Top does not do this- it bribes the states into giving the central government in Washington DC more centralized decision making power over our education system.

Rule number two is that earmarks are corruption. RTTT is a $4.35 billion incentive program that awards prizes to districts for meeting a certain criteria. Like most Obama initiatives, it will be not be an open and transparent process the fairly distributes grants to the districts, but instead will be an opaque and closed process that awards grants to districts based on highly specific criteria designed to steer money to politically favored districts- ie, it is a program ripe for earmarking.

Rule #3 is that the louder they scream "emergency," the more suspicious you should be. The supposed reason why we should pass RTTT as quickly as possible is because we should never let a serious crisis go to waste, and our education system is in a crisis, and so now is the time when we should jam through massive bad legislation, but I don't buy this argument, and so I reject RTTT.

#5 is that the grassroots are your friend. What RTTT does is attack teachers, all teachers, and pretend that they are all incompetent and bad teachers, and that empowering the central government more to distribute gifts and prizes for things it like will somehow make the education system better. Teachers aren't bad people (or at least no more so than any other person)- I'm a proud member of the MEA. What is bad is the government structure that they operate in, the forced unionization, having them be employees of the state, etc. RTTT attacks the people, and you should never support legislation that attacks people.

#7) We will never control spending unless we change the system. This program steers money intended for 'economic stimulus' into prizes for school districts, prizes that they will become dependent on and become addicted to. It creates and enlarges a system of out-of-control spending and does nothing to help school districts become more efficient in delivering high-quality education to students.

9) We don't need new laws; we need reform. RTTT is yet another multiple-billion dollar new program that only supports and extends and strengthens the existing system, and does not really reform it. Oh, I know there is some good in it, but the main thrust of it is not to reform the system, but to put in place new laws, and thus a good conservative should oppose it.

10) It's better to kill a bad bill than improve it. Mike Bishop communicated to me that although there is a lot of bad stuff in RTTT, there is some good in it that we can work with, and that we need the money, and that education is in a crisis, blah blah blah. Mike, I support you, and think a lot of time you have good instincts, but sometimes it looks to me like the system is slowly corrupting you, as it does all good men. Kill Race to the Top- it is a bad bill, and although it could be improved, it is better to just kill it and start over with real reform that centralizes governments influence in education.