My Beauty Best Teacher

At the Michigan Democratic Party State Convention, Debbie Dingell, the wife of US Rep. John Dingell and a major figure in the Michigan Democratic Party, summed up exactly what is wrong with the Michigan Democratic Party when she said

None of us can be happy with what happened in the last election. What we have to do as a party is make sure everybody is brought together. We've got to use the talents of everybody.

Democrats believe that they lost the last election not because their high tax, high regulation, no values policies drove Michigan into the ground and destroyed it, but because the elites didn't keep the peons in the party together and didn't figure out a way to use them properly. To win future elections, they believe, they need to enforce stricter party unity and figure out how to use others to their advantage better. But the message will stay the same and they will continue to believe that people are simply slaves of the state who exist to serve the wishes of the elites and those who provide the elites with votes (those on state support, those who 'work' for the state, unions who derive support from the state, and other political insiders).

Oh, not everyone in the modern-day Democratic Party thinks this way- only the leadership and the elected officials and everyone who really matters to the Party. Fools who continue to believe that the Democratic Party of today is the Democratic Party of 15 or 30 years ago are marginalized and, with a smile, told to shut up and simply pull the lever for Democrat. For example, at the convention this year there was a challenge from Detroit TV producer Ron Scott, who claimed to have about 500 supporters among more than 1,700 delegates at the convention. He wanted to challenge for the chairman's position and so (according to him) last week he made several phone calls to the party headquarters to find out what the convention rules were. He was told some of them, but was not told that he needed to pay the 'traditional' $1,000 nomination fee (a fee that serves as a barrier to most delegates), and so he wasn't on the ballot, and Mark Brewer, who oversaw the worst showing ever by Democrats in Michigan in several generations, was elected to unopposed to his ninth term.

From the Detroit News:

Ron Seigel, of Highland Park, was among the 14th District delegates who tried to get a voice on the floor but were ignored by Brewer. "I asked for a point of information," Seigal said. "This is not Democratic."

Scott described party leaders as "elites" who ignore the diversity of the Democratic base—a charge Brewer denied.

"If you look at our executive committee it's very diverse — every ethnic group, every region of the state," Brewer said. "It's one of the things we strive for."

And that quote probably is another great quote to demonstrate what is wrong with the modern-day Democratic Party- it sums up diversity as 'ethnic' and 'geographical', and it doesn't even cross the mind of the elites who run the party that there might be others in the party with diverse views and experiences and opinions on the issues. Nope, it is elites controlling the process and then putting on a nice show of 'diversity' by pointing to all the liberal elites of color from different areas of the state who all believe in the elite message of the Democratic Party of taxes, regulation, control, lack of values, green god worship, and disdain for the rest of us slaves of the state.

Don't kid yourself Democrats- your party is 100% behind the agenda that Barack Obama, Debbie Stabenow, and John Dingell champion, which is to nationalize the health care and health insurance industries through demanding consumers buy products and taxing others so that others can get free healthcare, supporting more government control over the financial system even though it was government companies like Freddie and Fannie who were the reason for the collapse in 2009, and supporting other regulations and controls and taxes that was the Democratic agenda of 2009-2011. They double-downed on this agenda, and don't forget that fact when next year they campaign as some sort of moderate or bipartisan politician- they are exactly who they were in 2009-2011, when voters wisely removed them from office. The GOP isn't a perfect party, but this convention should have convinced you that the Democrats are not a viable alternative for public office any more.

Via Detroit News:

A federal grand jury has indicted former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, his father Bernard Kilpatrick, former Kilpatrick aide Derrick A. Miller, Kilpatrick pal Bobby Ferguson and former Detroit water chief Victor Mercado, the U.S. Attorney's Office said today.

The 38-count indictment charges them with racketeering conspiracy and accuses them of extortion, bribery and fraud. The indictment alleges Ferguson received "tens of millions of dollars from municipal contracts" after the power of the mayor's office was used to coerce others to steer work his way.

Some of that money was then shared with Kwame Kilpatrick and his father, Bernard, the indictment alleges. Kilpatrick and his dad also are accused of extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, free flights and other benefits from a variety of contractors. Some of the allegations date back to Kilpatrick's days as a state representative, before he was elected mayor in 2001.

Today's charges are another blow to what was once one of Michigan's most powerful political families. Kwame Kilpatrick was a rising star in the Democratic party, having won the mayor's office after becoming a young leader in the state House. His mother, former U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, was a powerful Detroit congresswoman until she lost a primary this year in the wake of her son's legal difficulties. His father, Bernard Kilpatrick, was a top aide to the late Wayne County Executive Edward H. McNamara.

Let's be quite clear with this- Kwame was a Democrat, his father was a Democrat, and his mother is today STILL a voting member of the Democratic caucus in the House (not a "former" US Rep!). Kwame was a rising star in the Democratic Party, and his aides and friends and supporters extended throughout the Democratic Party. He donated money to Democrats, they donated money to him, and thus his faults and corruption do indeed reflect on the larger Democratic party.

After years of Democrats in Michigan and around the nation ranting about how the Republican Party was a 'culture of corruption', the evidence increasingly piles up that it is mainly Democrats who cultivate a culture of corruption, whether it is in Illinois, New York, or Detroit Michigan. The love of power, the love of control, and the desire to use the power of government to enrich friends and supporters naturally is more corrupting of government officials than those who believe in limited government and conservative values.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Bernard Kilpatrick defrauded taxpayers out of millions of dollars and funneled some of that money to Democratic candidates such as Debbie Stabenow and Barack Obama. Kwame Kilpatrick used corruption and racketeering to enrich himself and also sent some of that tainted money to Democrat candidates such as David Obey and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Bobby Fergusan, also indicted, donated money to Kwame's mother and Bernard's wife, Democrat Carolyn Kilpatrick. Derrek Miller, another indicted Democrat, gave money to Stabenow, Obama, and Kilpatrick. This indeed is a culture of corruption and money-laundering, where Democrat crooks steal from taxpayers to support with campaign cash other Democrats.

This culture of corruption isn't exclusively Democrats- there are Republicans that are corrupt too- but it is increasingly true that those who seek power and influence over others and increasingly calling the Democratic Party home.

Now that far-left liberals and the party that they have seized control over (Democrats) have lost the debate on a whole range of issues- spending, taxes, tax cuts, national defense, morality, family values, the economy, etc- they are starting to play small ball and attack on smaller issues, issues that they feel they can gain political traction on and distract voters from the reality of the situation. They're hoping that by going after little issues they can stop people from voting them out of office because their policies- Democrats have controlled our legislative branch since 2007 and the executive branch since 2009 and it is now 2011- have set in place a new normal of high taxes, high regulation, low job growth, low economic economic growth, bitter partisan politics, decreased national security, and loss of face around the world.

One of these small ball little issues that the Democrats are hoping to gain traction on is making Clarence Thomas into a bad guy. They're hoping that if they can make an influential intellectual and moral giant of the opposition into a 'bad guy', it will help them, since liberals and their Democratic allies build only by tearing down (strip rich people of money to build up the poor, make other nations feel better by lessening our power, giving healthcare to others by taking money from others, etc).

One influential blog on the left is a blog called The Blue Voice, and it is a good representation on the kind of stupidity and incivility that increasingly characterizes the left, liberal, and Democratic side of our nation- a side which does not represent the majority or even a large portion of voters views in our nation. Reputably, President Barack Obama reads this blog for ideas and advice on how to run our nation- as if we needed any more evidence of his unfitness for office. You see, The Blue Voice is of such low intellectual and moral value that few should willingly read it.

From a post called Why don't the Democrats demand impeachment hearings on Justice Clarence Thomas?:

Rightwing Republican Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have both been involved in partisan activities of a kind that, to put it mildly, is highly questionable for a Justice of the highest court in the US. Both Thomas and Scalia voted for the majority decisions in Bush v. Gore (2000) and Citizen's United (2010), two of the worst decisions in being destructive to democratic government that the Supreme Court has ever made.

The Democrats no longer have a majority in the House, which would have to make an impeachment vote. But the Dems can certainly use a push for impeachment hearings against Thomas and/or Scalia to raise a stick about the crass partisanship of those Republican Justices.

Let's pause here and see what we see. As evidence for Thomas and Scalia's 'highly questionable' partisan activities, they voted in favor of two court cases the left does not like. Quick history recap.

Bush v Gore: the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also went father and asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature. The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. The left does not like this decision because they don't like equal protection, the Constitution, the law, democracy, and George Bush.

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission: The Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts (such as a non-profit group airing a film critical of those who it opposes) cannot be limited under the First Amendment. This is not liked by the left (and Obama, who is a tool of the left), because they want to be able to silence speech of those who they disagree with (except terrorists, who they feel have the right to say whatever they want). Starting in 2002, for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions were not allowed to broadcast “electioneering communications,” but now these groups can once again fully engage in the political process and contribute their voice to the political debate.

The Blue Voice calls these two decisions "the worst decisions in being destructive to democratic government that the Supreme Court has ever made"- one decision which upheld the 14th amendment and the constitution and the other which upheld the 1st amendment. In The Blue Voice's world (and Obama's world, if you give him another term and elect Democrats at any level to help him), counties should be able to selectively recount ballots using whatever system of counting they want until they get the winner they want and corporations and unions should not be allowed to broadcast their views on candidates even if these corporations and businesses feel that these politicians views will be damaging or destructive to them. I would contend that the views supported and argued by The Blue Voice are a lot more destructive to a democratic government, unless The Blue Voice made a typo and meant to write "Democratic government", in which case they are right, those two decisions did damage a Democratic government in favor of supporting a democratic government.

The Blue Voice feels that voting for two court cases that the majority passed are on the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' enough to initiate impeachment cases against these two justices, and that now that they don't really have to do it, now is the perfect time. When the Democrats actually ran the House and had to be on record, they would never have considered even thinking the silly thoughts The Blue Dog advocates, but now that they have been thrown out of power by voters, they are encouraged to go off the deep end and think all sort of silly thoughts and fantasies. It is surprising to me that voters would support that kind of 'work' by returning them to power in 2012 or by voting for politicians that survived the beat-down of 2010 (like Gary Peters).

The Blue Voice pretends that it is the right that is being divisive and uncivil and partisan, but if you read blog posts like this one, you'll walk away with a different impression entirely. The Blue Voice speaks with stupidity and incivility, and if this is the kind of thoughts and ideas and discussion that the liberal left that controls the Democratic party is engaged in, it is even more evidence that voters should not vote Democrat at any level in 2012.

UPDATE: Looks like I was in on the game plan earlier than most- there are major stories now on this larger attack on conservative justices by liberals- memeorandum has a link here and yahoo has a link here.

June 11, 2009, Democratic President Barack Obama installed Washington DC lobbyist and Democratic donor Kenneth Feinberg as compensation czar. Although it is unclear from where he gains the legal authority to do so, from his government offices in the Treasury building, Mr. Feinberg will set the salaries and bonuses of 175 top executives at seven of the nation’s largest companies. He is planning on working day and night to savagely use the power of the US government to personally attack the livelihoods of the top employees in these critical firms, apparently in the name of some nebulous concept of fairness.

Mr. Feinberg has decided, again on questionably legal and constitutional authority, that he personally gets to now decide the pay for the top 25 executives at the American International Group, Citibank, Chrysler, Chrysler Credit, General Motors, GMAC and Bank of America. In addition, he has decided that for 80 other financial institutions that have received federal assistance, he personally will develop the overall compensation structure, but right now has decided that he and his minions don't have time to decide the exact level of pay for the employees in these companies.

As Sweetness and Light puts it, this is yet another blow to whatever is left of freedom in this country. Under the Obama administration, the list of czars is getting quite long, as he has decided that best way to rule our nation is to appoint roving officials with no authority yet little constraints on power.

A quick search of Open Secrets turns revealed that Mr. Feinberg is anything but unbiased- over the years he has donated massive amounts of money to mostly Democratic candidates (with an occasional moderate or independent sprinkled in). Last election cycle her particularly liked Obama- he donated $7200 to him, although he hedged his bets and also donated $8700 to Hillary Clinton and $6900 to John Kerry. He also gave significant large amounts of money to individual Democratic Senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Feinberg is a long-time Democratic operative and actually spent 5 years as Democratic Senator Kennedy's chief of staff. This long partisan association indubitably qualifies him for service in Obama's house of thugs and cronies.

Few have even dreamed up the idea federal officials who would have the power to tell private companies that they are paying their own employees too much money. Probably the closest modern day comparison to Kenneth Feinberg in terms of job description is Robert Ley, who was head of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF). In this capacity, his job was to set the wages and salaries of the employees in the top firms in Germany. It tried to level the playing field for workers and preferred companies that the state controlled. He also was a longtime political operative who worked for the administration to control the salaries of executives for the good of the state. Robert Ley, who was a Nazi, died in 1945 while awaiting trial for war crimes.

The best way for a company today to secure billions in loans is to donate money to Democrats, who will then steer taxpayer money to these companies so that they can then donate thousands of dollars to Democrats. At least that is the lesson that SunPower Corporation demonstrates.

I first heard about SunPower on Sean Hannity's show, where he was talking about how SunPower is going to be twice the scandal that Solyndra is. SunPower is a company with headquarters in California that builds solar panels and employees over 1500 people. For the last several years, it has been unprofitable and bleeding cash and is now heavily in debt, with a business model that most analysts believe is unsuccessful. But yet the United States Department of Energy gave a last-minute loan to this company for $1.2 billion on the hope that it will suddenly become profitable and also because this loan will help SunPower to create jobs (at a cost of $80/million per job). Here is more information on SunPower, via Human Events:

How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.

The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization. If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain....

....According to the SunPower PAC filings for its activities in the 2010 midterm election campaign cycle, it donated more than $36,000. Of the $15,650 donated to House and Senate candidates, $14,650 went to Democrats, with these top recipients: $4,000 to Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), $3,000 to Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (D.-Ariz.) and $2,900 Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.)...

Most of the attention on SunPower centers on Democratic California Congressman George Miller, who has been a big proponent of SunPower, probably because it has a major manufacturing facility in Miller's district and his son happens to work for the company as a lobbyist- in fact, Congressman Miller has supported the very loans that pay his sons $178K/year salary!

But in reality, the story is not simply one of a Democratic Congressman who steers massive loans to a company his son works for- in reality, the story is that SunPower is yet another example of the sort of crony capitalism that the new Democratic Party and Barack Obama support.

A quick look on OpenSecrets.org demonstrates how the corrupt system of government that Democrats run actually works. Opensecrets tracks how much money donors give to political candidates. To reward all of my loyal readers, I went ahead and did some research for you on OpenSecrets to find out just how politically connected SunPower was so that we can speculate using real numbers on how much of a role their political donations might have played in securing taxpayer-backed loans for their unprofitable business.

Using OpenSecrets,org, I searched the 2008, 2010, and 2012 cycles, and then under 'occupation' type I wrote in 'sunpower', and was happy to see 156 entries for people who work at SunPower. These entries indicate employees of SunPower who gave money in these campaign cycles. I sorted all of the 156 entries into six columns to help me to better understand the data.

The first column that I created was of the total amount of money that employees of SolarPower gave to Republicans. This amount came to $250, given to the Republican National Committee.

The second column was the total amount of money that employees of SolarPower gave to Democrats from 2008-2012. This amount comes to $82,700, most of it going to President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign or the Democratic National Commitee.

The third column that I created represented money given to liberal/Democrat interest groups that primarily donate money to Democrats- this amounted to $15,750.

The fourth column showed that the amount of money given to conservative/GOP interest groups was $500.

Employees of SunPower also gave $83,006 to a political action committee that was set up called SunPower PAC, which in turn has donated heavily to Democrats (SunPower PAC has given $16.7K to Democrats vs $6K to GOP).

Employees of SunPower also gave $45,700 to a political action committee called Solar Energy Industries Association, which has also given more heavily to Democrats (2006-2012, $105.9K to Democrats vs $54K to the GOP).

The data is pretty clear- donating money to Democrats, in particular to Barack Obama, assures your company will receive massive loans regardless if your company is profitable or a good investment.

Under this Democratic administration, supported by these Democrats in Congress, the way to wealth, loans, high pay, and job security is to donate money to the Democratic party and then have them use the power of government to grant you these things. If the GOP were to do these things, it would be wrong too, but the reality of the situation is that it is not a GOP administration overseen and supported by a GOP Congress acting in such a corrupt manner, it is a Democrat with oversight and support from Democrats. 'Hypothetical Corrupt Republican' isn't on the ballot in 2012- Barack Obama is, and it really doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, because they haven't demonstrated this level of corruption yet, whereas Barack Obama has. Voters need to vote out these Democrats who have used campaign donations and family connections to corrupt the usual decision-making process for granting government loans and turned our once great nation of the free and the brave into the home of the corrupt and bought-off.

For those who are new to my blog, I've written about this topic before- see my posts State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism, Syndicaliam, Corporatism... Obamaism or The Third Way: Obama and Fascism.

UPDATE: The Detroit News today ran another editorial about Solyndra, in it pointing out that

...in October last year, Solyndra donated $7,500 to the California Democratic Party and that company employees had kicked in $20,000 to Democratic candidates. They also contributed to the Republicans. But the Times said records show about 72 percent of the company's political contributions went to the Democrats and only 27 percent to Republicans. Contributing to Solyndra's failure were allegations that once it received the government-backed loans, it spent funds willy-nilly, including on a new $700 million plant deemed unnecessary by some company insiders....

That's how it works boys and girls- donate money to Democrats, get massive loans, pay yourself big salaries and live life large, and then get out before it all goes under, leaving taxpayers holding the bill. That's what you get when you vote Democrat (and sometimes for squishy GOPers too).

Mr. Nolan Finley of the Detroit News wrote:

But while the economy tops every list of public concerns, job creation is not the hot topic in Washington. In fact, Democratic leaders, obsessed with reworking America, have proved more than willing to sacrifice precious jobs during the worst economic climate in a half-century.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., rammed an energy-rationing bill through her Senate environment and Public Works Committee last week without a single Republican member in the room. The bill would greatly limit America's ability to produce the energy it needs to fuel an economic rebound. In other words, it's a job killer.

Democrats are revealing that putting the country back to work is a lesser priority than passing their social agenda. If that weren't true, they wouldn't even consider any measure that would raise taxes on job creators. Higher taxes, particularly on business, always result in fewer jobs. Both the health care and climate change bills will trigger huge tax hikes for every taxpayer.

When people talk about jobs and employment, usually the number that is used is the unemployment figure. But that figure does not give you a real picture of how many people in this country do not have a productive job. Unemployment does not give you a picture of how many people out there are earning a paycheck providing goods and services. A better picture emerges when you consider the employment-population ratio. This statistic measures how many people 16 and older have a job. And when you look at that number, it is very shocking what is going on in our nation.

Currently, the number is 58.5%, and dropping fast. Only 58.5% of the people in our nation have a job producing goods and services, and it is dropping fast.

Here is the graph for you to look at, as generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing the employment-population ratio from 1988 to 2009 (seasonally adjusted). If you follow the link, you can access the data in more detail, including the month-by-month numbers that I break down below. Here is the graph:



Liberal Paul Krugman once analyzed these numbers too, and came away with the conclusion that under Bush the economy boomed less than under Clinton. That's fair enough and a good analysis. By a similar measure, a conclusion that could easily be drawn when looking at the numbers today is that since the nomination and election of Barack Obama, the economy has crashed at a rate seldom seen in the history of our nation.

Using the employment-population ratio, you can see a decrease in the percentage of people employed in this nation from the nomination of Obama in June to his election win in November of 1%- 62.4% to 61.4%. From Obama's election win in November to his taking office in January another 0.9% (61.4-60.5). From Obama becoming our President in January to today (October) we see another decrease in the percentage of people employed in our nation of 2% (60.5-58.5).

One could blame it on Bush- the last 1.9% drop did occur during his administration. Over the first 89 months of Bush's Presidency, the percentage of people employed in our nation dropped by 1.9%. Over his last 9 months, it dropped by another 1.9%. But the 2% drop that has occurred since he has been gone from office is much harder to pin on him, and it is getting worse, not better, since Obama's election.

Let's take a quick look at what electing a Democratic Congress has done to the numbers. From 1994 to 2000, under a Republican Congress and a Democrat President, the percentage went up 2.2% (from 62.2 to 64.4). Under Republican control of Congress and a Republican President, the percentage of those employed as a percentage of all workers in our nation went down 1.8 % (64.6 in Jan of 2000 to 62.8 in Dec of 2005). Under Democratic control of Congress and a Republican President, the percentage went down 1.8% (62.8 to 61). Under Democratic Congress and Democrat President, the percentage went down 1.5% so far (61 to 58.5).

On the whole, Republican Congress resulted in an increase in 0.4%, Republican President a decrease of 3.6%, Democrat Congress decrease of 3.3%, and Democrat President an increase of 0.7%. These numbers can be updated in the future since we have a Democratic Congress and President currently.

I would suggest that as a voter you begin to pay more attention to who is running Congress and vote for Republicans for Congress, since when Republicans are in charge they have a better record of creating jobs and helping more people be gainfully employed. As far as the Presidency goes, so far it looks like having a Democrat as President is better than a Republican, but as more data emerges on the Obama Presidency over the next 3 years, this may change, especially if current trends hold steady.

UPDATE: Updating my numbers from October of 2009 on November of 2010 shows that the employment-population ratio dropped another 0.2%. This damages the Democrats, since there was a Democratic President and Democratic Congress in charge during this time period, and they are also accountable for any numbers through January as well. After that, with a split Congress until 2012, any adjustments will only affect Obama.

Echoing my post from yesterday comes the following article by the Wall Street Journal. As I put it in my post, the ouster of Dingell in favor of Waxman was "another great day for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party of America, but probably another bad day for America," and the WSJ also has picked up that the Waxman election shows that the Democratic Party is now thoroughly a tool of the far left environmentalists. Traditional liberals (Dingell), traditional Democrats (Lieberman), moderates (increasingly marginalized), and conservatives (long gone) no longer have a home in the new Democratic Party.

Quoting from the Wall Street Journal article:

John Dingell's fall from power yesterday is an important inflection point in the history of the modern Democratic Party. The House purge marks the final triumph of the Congressional generation that came of political age during the 1970s over the last lion of New Deal liberalism, and it is symbolic of the party's change in culture and policy priorities in the Barack Obama era.

That fissure neatly separates the Waxman Democrats from the old vanguard that Mr. Dingell represents. He was first elected in 1955 and has always tried to protect his hometown Detroit auto makers from the eco-mandates that ultimately helped to land them in their present predicament. Mr. Dingell's rough-hewn candor about the realities of "doing something" about climate change also helped to make him a green pariah. He knows that carbon regulation and taxes will fall most heavily on domestic manufacturing and Midwest states that rely on coal-fired power. His sympathies lie with the people who work near (or in) factories and drive Fords or Chevys.

Mr. Waxman, speaking for the upscale precincts of Beverly Hills, wants to phase out coal and cars that use gasoline. The coastal elites who now dominate Democratic politics will happily trade the blue collar for the green collar.

The irony is that Democrats have found, in Mr. Waxman, an even more extreme antibusiness tribune, who will no doubt use his new powers to go after any concern that turns a profit but refuses to pay his party the obeisance of campaign cash and regulatory submission.

Again, the removal of Dingell means that if you or anyone you know votes Democrat, they need to realize that they are empowering a party that is against industry, against Midwestern values, against energy production, and does not believe in a limited government. Voting Democrat means putting in power a party that resembles the parties of the rest of the world- a party that uses the power of government to redistribute wealth to its friends. The Democratic half of America is no longer exceptional- one can only hope that the Republican Party rediscovers its exceptionalism and the exceptionalism of America.

In my wanderings around the internet, I finally found the Democratic Party's real platform. According to it, the Democratic party is the party of the people and supports increased voting rights for all, specifically workers groups and the poor who have not had a proper voice in government. The real platform for the Democrat Party includes such important social and economic rights like the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits.

Today, the Democratic Party is committed to these goals. They are pushing for government run health care, they are pushing for increased government programs for elderly, they are fighting for union labor, and even have begun to push more government involvement and funding in the arts.

Furthermore, this constitution that the Democratic Party is pushing attempts to put in place more commissions and bureaucratic agencies that will run our nation and make choices for us.

The surprising thing is, the real platform of the Democratic Party is the 1936 Soviet Constitution.

An invasion of America is taking place, and every day it is becoming more clear that the fabric of space-time has been ripped open and denizens from Bizarro World are settling here and joining the Democratic Party. The evidence of this can be seen in the increasingly disconnect between what Democrats say and what they do and the fact that they no longer even pretend that 2+2=4. In Bizarro world, society is ruled by the Bizarro Code, which states that you must do the opposite of all normal things, and when residents of Bizarro world come to America and join the Democratic Party, you can see that they still operate under this code, stating the exact opposite of the truth in their words and deeds.

Take for example new Democratic Party Chairwoman Representative Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Chosen by the Democratic Party to represent their party, she has recently stated two strong opposites- one, that Republican presidential candidates supposedly favor foreign auto manufacturers, and two, that the GOP agenda is "anti-women" and "a war on women". Let's take a look at those two statements and see how they are in reality the exact opposite as stated.

First, the accusation that Republican presidential candidates supposedly favor foreign auto manufacturers is remarkable coming from someone who drives a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company (and the car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials).

On one hand you have Republicans, many of whom opposed the taxpayer-bailout of the domestic auto industries (for reasons ranging from comparative advantage, creative destruction, corruption in the process, unaccountability of the money, or lack of constitutional authority) but yet use their own personal money to buy domestic auto products. On the other hand, you have Democrats, who voted to use taxpayer money to bail out struggling domestic auto companies to subsidize rich investors (who had preferred stocks) and labor unions and yet used their own personal money to buy foreign made cars.

To me, it is clear that the person who makes the personal choice to support something supports it more strongly than the person who uses other people's money to support something while personally supporting something else.

Wasserman Shultz second point was that the GOP agenda is "anti-women" and "a war on women", but this is clearly not true as well. The Republican Party has several outstanding women candidates in office or running for President, at least on par with the Democratic women, and although Democrats hold a slight marginal edge in women voting, it is not large and is perhaps related to other factors other than gender.

Besides- if Democrats are unwilling to recognize that terrorists are at war with us or that Hamas/Hezbollah are at war with Israel, then I really don't think that they understand what the word 'war' means so that they can use it effectively in a sentence.

The Democratic Party Chair must simply be another Bizarro world refugee, saying the exact opposite of reality.

Pivoting away from other issues like the environment ("Bombshell" Experiment: Global Climate Change Caused by Cloud Cover) or education (More Than 200 D.C. Teachers Fired! Progress?), let's return back to jobs and the role that the government plays in job creation.

In my post Coming To Grips With a Political Economy I wrote about a class that I took in college called 'Political Economy.' The class was an attempt to indoctrinate students with the idea that government could create jobs through its actions and could create wealth through proper regulation and control over free markets. I struggled through this class, mostly because I rejected entirely the idea that government can create wealth and jobs through its actions, and today I still believe that.

Government does not create jobs. It takes wealth from those who are productive and creating wealth, cycles it through many layers of bureaucracy and 'management', and then gives that wealth to those people who are favored by the government. Some of those who are favored by the government should be- the Constitution identified those who the government can give 'jobs' to and states further have identified those who the government should give 'jobs' to. But many others who the government gives 'jobs' today in America are simply those who benefit from the kind of crony capitalism and banana republic policies that are more common to two-bit dictatorships and tyrannies.

And the 'jobs' that are created by government are inefficiently created- much wealth and property is squandered and lost and burned by having government provide these jobs because of the many layers of 'management' and bureaucracy that mark the government. This is an acceptable price to pay for fire, police, and military jobs, but for most other 'jobs' the government creates the cost to create these jobs far exceeds the useful good that these jobs provide to society.

For example, many liberals claim that Obamacare will 'create jobs'- agencies and regulatory bodies that will hire overlords and masters who supervise a once-free and vibrant economic sector and regulate, tax, and control it. But the cost of these jobs was demonstrated graphically by the reaction that businesses had to it- after the passage of this law businesses dramatically dropped their hiring of workers. The Heritage report explained why this happened:

Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty; Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.

Yet President Obama and the modern-day Democratic Party continues to think that regulations, spending, taxes, and control over free people can 'create jobs'. They take wealth from those who have it- either through taxes or fees or by simply sucking up savings by selling debt- and give it to those who they favor and try to pretend that they have made society better. But they haven't- they have killed legitimate jobs that millions of people through their free actions wanted and needed (the unseen hand of the market) and made society less because of their actions that took away freedom and property.

In Latest EPA Rules to Cost 1.4 Million Jobs and a 12% Increase in Utility Bills I wrote about how the Washington Post reported that the new EPA rules that were recently published will cause electric bills will jump 12 percent nationally by 2016 to comply with these new policies, with residents in areas such as Kentucky and Tennessee seeing a 24 percent increase in their utility bills. These policies are project to eliminate 1.4 million jobs- real jobs that will be destroyed by the actions of government, creating people who will no longer be paying taxes any more and will now be sucking down government benefits, all thanks to these policies pushed by Democratic bureaucrats employed by a Democratic President supervised by Democrats in the House and the Senate and supported by Democratic unions and a Democratic media.

And now Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso has put together a report that showed that the executive actions of the Democrat President have put in place in July alone an additional $9.5 billion in new regulatory costs by proposing 229 new rules and finalizing 379 rules. Among those rules that are going to add to the cost of doing business, kill jobs, and make our society less productive and wealthy are rules regarding the fake issues of global warming, healthcare reform, and financial regulatory reform rules.

IN JULY ALONE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT PUT IN PLACE $9.5 BILLION IN NEW COSTS! I don't care how many times Obama 'pivots' to talk about jobs, the heart of the matter is that he is wrong about the government being able to create jobs and wealth through its actions- government is best that governs least because when people are free and free to live their lives and free to make their own decisions and free to do with their wealth and labor as they see fit, then jobs are created and wealth is created.

Make the choice in 2012 to turn America away from tyranny and 'government-created jobs' and to freedom and 'people-created jobs'.

For more reading, try Productivity versus OSHA and EPA regulations (Research for business decisions).

In the wake of Lt. Governor John Cherry withdrawing from the race for Governor in Michigan, there are many rumors flying around. Cherry was running for the Democratic nomination, and likely would have won it easily, so his withdrawal has led to an explosion of rumors, and for those of you who don't follow the news that closely, let me help you out by covering a couple of the major rumors.

One of the big rumors is that Cherry withdrew due to pressure from the White House. The basis of this is that Obama interfered in the off-year Governor elections and lately his advisers have been visiting Michigan and meeting with people. It was rumored that Obama did not like Cherry and feared that voters would soundly reject Cherry's policies and platforms, which are exactly the same as Obama's, and that might look bad. So Obama through Cherry under the bus. Obama, Cherry, and Governor Granholm (D) all deny this, saying that even though there is a lot of smoke here, there is no fire. Sure.

Cherry's withdrawal means that the Democratic nomination for Governor is now wide open. The best of the bunch is Michigan Speaker of the House Andy Dillon. Even though I campaigned for his (unsuccessful) recall several years ago due to his role in raising taxes on Michigan residents by over 30% in the midst of a brutal recession caused by rising tax rates, I think he got the message, and since that time has been a voice of moderation and sensibility. I still don't trust him completely- when push comes to shove will he really cut the pay and benefits of government employees or will he do the usual Democrat thing and raise taxes on everyone else- but at least he makes noise about balancing the budget and appears to be a moderate. His healthcare plan was a better attempt than what the national Democrats did and last budget cycle he cut spending rather than raise taxes, so there is some good in what he does.

Could Dillon get the nomination? Dillon, who is a 48-year-old attorney and is in his final term in the House, will most likely be opposed by organized labor, the teachers union, government employees, and other traditional Democratic groups because of his support of reforming the healthcare system in Michigan and because he cuts spending instead of raising taxes last budget cycle. As a moderate, he probably won't make it through the liberal primaries of the Democratic party. Robert Kolt, a Democratic-leaning public relations consultant based in Okemos, said "I'd say it's 10-1 against him winning the nomination."

There is a rumor that US Rep. Gary Peters (D) could run or that US Senator Debbie Stabmenow could run, but both of them deny those rumors, and that's too bad. I wish they'd run, and then lose in a landslide. They are very bad Congressmen, passing legislation that damages their constituents and hurts their districts- Peters even voted for the cap-and-tax bill that would destroy manufacturing even though his district's biggest employers are auto companies! They won't run though- they know they got a good scam going working in the US Congress, where you can destroy a nation and yet be re-elected (although I have high hopes that Peters can be taken down by recently-returned military veteran and former state representative Rocky Raczkowski).

The name of Detroit Pistons general manager Joe Dumars has also been advanced as a possible outside-the-box nominee. Dumars would never win the nomination for Governor, mainly because he drafted Darko Milicic with the 2nd pick overall in 2003 draft. Darko ended up being a bust and Dumars passed on other great talents like Carmelo Anthony or Chris Bosh, and because of that pick, Dumars can't be Governor of Michigan.

Detroit businesswoman and University of Michigan regent Denise Ilitch's name has also been thrown out as a possible outside-the-box nominee. The wife of Detroit Tigers and Detroit Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch, who also is the owner of Little Caesar's Pizza, she probably couldn't win the election for Governor either in Michigan. Michigan elected the first female Governor in the history of our state with Granholm, and voters will now (unfairly) think twice about electing another female to that high office. That is too bad because there are a lot of great women candidates out there (Teri Lynn Land and Candice Miller come to mind), but I bet that enough voters will be sexist and want a guy for office that a woman couldn't win the position.

Other names in the mix Wednesday included U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak of Menominee and former Genesee County Treasurer Dan Kildee, who said he's considering a run. Kildee heads a national land-use nonprofit organization and is the nephew of U.S. Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Flint.

For a long time, I've had my doubts about the Democrat's much-touted subsidies and tax credits for filmmaking in Michigan. Most of my doubts center around the fact that these subsidies are being given away with very little oversight and are being given away to those with political connections (for example, Michael Moore sits on the board that recommends who gets these tax credits- and recently gave them to himself). This lack of transparency and political favoritism has not received the attention it should, because hidden behind the wall of secrecy that is the Democratic-run Film Office, there are a lot of corrupt deals being made that are screwing taxpayers over. Now it is confirmed though.

Breaking News: The chief-of-staff for a Grand Rapids Democratic State Congressman has been implicated in a million-dollar fraud scheme whereby he would buy a $4 million dollar building for $50 million and then apply $12.5 million dollars in subsidies through the state of Michigan's disgraced Film Office.

Noah Seifullah, who has been forced to resign from Congressman Robert Dean's staff, was in the process of finalizing the details of the Hangar42 studio scheme when the news broke. The Michigan Film Office had already given preliminary approval to the request for over $10 million in film-credits when the news broke.

This Hanger 42 scheme represents just the tip of the iceberg into the corruption that is rampant in the Michigan Film Office, so much so that Janet Lockwood, who is the director of the Michigan Film Office, is being forced to resign amid the growing criticism. Her office has stonewalled efforts to find out more information about the Hanger 42 deal, and many others, and she has attempted to provide citizens as little information as possible about the decision making process involved in the give-away of millions of taxpayers money.

The Mackinac Center was the first to publicly raise questions about the Hangar 42 deal with an essay and investigative video posted on its website May 20. They reported that the studio was on the market for as little as $9.8 million as late as February, but apparently sold for as much as $40 million not soon after that in order that the buyer could claim a much larger film-credit. As of today, the Michigan Film Office, the Michigan Economic Development Corp., the seller and the buyers are all unwilling to answer questions about this scheme, and the Democratic Governor who is so proud of her Film Office (and even bragged about the Hanger 42 deal as evidence of the success of the film-credits in her recent State-of-the-State speech) nor the Democratic-controlled Michigan Legislature have pressed for answers or explanations.

The Grand Rapids Free Press deserves a lot of credit for putting this story together and piecing together the details here. They found the speech where Noah Seifullah outlined a 'hypothetical' situation whereby massive amounts of fraud could bilk the Michigan taxpayers out of millions. They then connected the 'hypothetical' situation described by Siefullah to the real world Hanger 42 project. Give the Grand Rapids Press credit for doing the real work on this story, fighting through government obstruction and attempts by Democrats at every turn to keep the corruption and fraud that is running rampant in their Film Office secret.

This scandal raises important questions. The Michigan Film Office is Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm's pet project, one that she brags about often, and yet this scandal raises questions and concerns about how thoroughly corrupt it is. She continually plows taxpayer money into this project, and yet her top example of success for this program (Hanger 42) has proven to be a corrupt sham. Next, at what point in this sham did someone cry foul- who knew what when at the Michigan Film Office about Hanger 42? Perhaps the Attorney General should start asking some questions. Is this the kind of public-private corporate welfare project that Democrats promote, rife with corruption of public officials? Last, is the corruption limited to just the local (state) Representative? Or is this something that many officials in the Democratic party are caught up in?

Stay tuned for further updates, and please feel free to link to this story- perhaps if this story gets big enough the Michigan Film Office and the millions that it is giving out to politically-connected individuals under great secrecy can be brought to light and analyzed and cleaned up.

UPDATE: Here is a video of the story:


UPDATE II: Looks like the Attorney General is getting into this situation- according to this story, Mike Cox (the AG for Michigan, and GOP candidate for Governor) is looking into the Hanger 42 scheme.

NOTE to NEW READERS: New readers, please feel free to also check out some of my recent good posts like Obama is a Caudillo, The Inside Deal: Obama's Economic Program, Employment-Population Ratio Drops to 58.5%, Earth Day: Is it just one big Communist Plot?, Gifted Programs in Schools Training Future Liberals, or Obama On Inner and Outer Circles of Leadership. Also feel free to link to blog-curhatanku.blogspot.com on your blog, and bookmark conservativeteacher.blogspot.com so you can become a regular reader of the battles of a conservative teacher's attempt to advance the principles of liberty and freedom.

The following is the complete text of a Statement from Senator Barack Obama on the topic of Foreign Policy and Defense, delivered on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, regarding the so-called 'nuclear option' that was just invoked by now-President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the US Senate with his support. President Barack Obama's own words condemn him and his own parties actions, and in the strongest possible sense convict him of utter hypocrisy. Here is the statement:

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications the nuclear option would have on this chamber and this country. I urge you to think not just about winning every debate, but about protecting free and democratic debate.

During my Senate campaign, I had the privilege and the opportunity to meet Americans from all walks of life and both ends of the political spectrum. They told me about their lives, about their hopes, about the issues that mattered to them, and they also told me what they think about Washington.

Because you've all heard it yourselves, I know it won't surprise many of you to learn that a lot of people don't think much gets done around here about the issues they care most about. They think the atmosphere has become too partisan, the arguments have become too nasty, and the political agendas have become too petty.

And while I haven't been here too long, I've noticed that partisan debate is sharp, and dissent is not always well-received. Honest differences of opinion and principled compromise often seem to be the victim of a determination to score points against one's opponents.

But the American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And at the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done.

What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster - if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate - then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber. But we need to rise above an "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones wearing our party label.

The fact is that both parties have worked together to confirm 95% of this President's judicial nominees. The Senate has accepted 205 of his 214 selections. In fact, we just confirmed another one judge this week by a vote of 95-0. Overall, this is a better record than any President's had in the last 25 years. For a President who received 51% of the vote and a Senate chamber made up of 55% of the President's party, I'd say that confirming 95% of your judicial nominations is a record I'd be pretty happy with.

Again, I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, this is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority.

Mr. President, I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it's good for our democracy.

Right now, we're faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we've ever had, all while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe.

These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we don't all agree how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere of Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interests, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more. Thank you.

Democrats routinely blasted GOP's efforts to invoke the nuclear option, which they considered but never implemented. I mean, come on- in 2005 Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the thought of eliminating the filibuster is just another sign of the "arrogance of power of this Republican administration" (source)- but today he did something that not even the GOP was arrogant enough to do and showed that although the GOP might be bad, the Democrats are far far far worse when in power.

I expect the influential liberal website MoveOn.org, who was instrumental in the elections of Barack Obama in 2008 and Democrats for years before and after, to immediatily condemn this action and demand that all of their members contact their Senators to oppose this action, like they demanded their members to do in 2005! They won't though, because MoveOn.org is as rotten to the core as the entire Democratic Party.

The Democrats reveal their utter contempt for the American people- they didn't discuss this option, they didn't talk about it beforehand, they just suddenly invoked the nuclear option when no one was looking, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you give this party an inch, they'll put us under a tyranny.

UPDATE: This is a response to the story now running on www.memeorandum.com regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid triggering a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules. Reid triggered this option because he was upset that McConnell wanted to force the Democrats to vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which apparently is so radioactive and bad that even Senate Democrats don't want to vote on it and will do anything, I mean ANYTHING, rather than vote on it. That's how bad President Obama is and how badly a job he is doing as chief executive of our nation.

From Foreign Policy Magazine comes this article "The Top 10 Stories You Missed in 2009". It has pictures and in depth analysis, but here is a handy summary of the top five stories for you:

1. The Northeast Passage Opens for Business. Good (lower cost of transporting goods around the world) or bad (an omen of the mystical cult of Global Warming), this does raise the importance of the Arctic Ocean, which is now accessible to exploration and development. This may be the cause of rising tensions between Russia and the US.
2. Iraq's New Flashpoint. Iraq's Arab and Kurdish populations are at odds with one another in the Nineveh region, not because of oil, but because of a large Kurdish population in this area, which is outside of the autonomous Kurdish region. Neither side has turned to violence- yet.
3. A Hotline for China and India. You only put in a hotline between world leaders when you are afraid that miscommunication may result and someone may make an unwise decision to nuke the other. The key to this conflict is the Himalayan region of Tawang, which is in India but China claims was part of Tibet (which is now part of China). The area has been increasingly militarized, and the Indian military documented 270 border violations and almost 2,300 cases of "aggressive border patrolling" by the Chinese in 2008.
4. A New Housing Bubble? More than any other factor, ill-advised speculation on U.S. real estate set off the global financial crisis. But even after millions of foreclosures and secondary effects ripped through economies around the world, a new housing bubble is forming again, for the same reasons the first did- Democratic pressure on banks to give everyone a home loan, Democratic pressure on banks to be nice about credit scores, Democratic 'stimulus' money for home sales, and Democratic pressure on banks to keep interest rates low and print money. Be prepared for Democratic policies such as these destroying the world's economies again sometime soon.
5. The ‘Civilian Surge' Fizzles. A major part of the strategy in dealing with terrorism and failed states was a surge in civilian personal from the State Department and USAID, but it turns out, those agencies have failed to deliver, and now the military is trying to meet that commitment too.

Duke Energy Corporation is going to be guaranteeing a $10 million line of credit from Fifth Third Bank to the Democratic National Convention, which is apparently the first time such an arrangement has been used by any Democratic convention organizers and which has never been done ever by Republican organizers.

By extending a line of credit, Duke is either currying favor or looking for a particular kickback, both of which are even more evidence that the America of the modern-day Democratic Party looks a lot like despotic governments of the past or (Detroit of the recent past) in that it is pay-to-play and a gangster economy out there, and you get benefits and advantages not by producing a better product more cheaply and efficiently, but by bribing Democratic officials. It is either one of these explanations, or a third possibility, which is that rich Big Energy executives are using a company that they don't own as collateral against loans from a Big Bank to support a political party that their company does not necessarily support. That would be wrong too. There is no other explanation that I can think of.

This makes a mockery of the current attack on Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia for their votes on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Democrats (like popular leftwing blog The Blue Voice) whined and cried endlessly about how conservatives and Republicans support businesses being more involved in politics and how that is just so wrong and that they hate having businesses dirty money in politics- and yet, demonstrating their utter hypocrisy, they then turn around and welcome far more business money and involvement to run their very convention.

I wonder- is Obama going to bemoan corporate donations reading from a speech on a teleprompter backed by $10 million line of credit from Fifth Third Bank backed by Duke Energy Corporation?

According to experts, Duke's involvement can only help Duke in seeking energy subsidies from the Obama administration, although if the Republicans win the White House, it is all but guaranteed that such shady inside corrupt deals will not be rewarded with government contracts. Democrats though are hoping that Obama's ability to... to... to do something or other will win him a second term of office so that he can continue to spend my grand kids wealth so that the new normal of our economy continues and the world becomes a little bit more of a dangerous place.

This sort of behavior should not be tolerated in a free society, and by that I don't mean that Duke Energy Corporation did something wrong. They should be able to dump as much money as they want on any political party they want- it's a free society. But it shouldn't matter- factions should be checking factions, fighting over the abilities of a weak and limited government that has no powers to award contracts or give out favors in a free and prosperous society. Democrats and liberals have created a tyrannical government, the kind feared by our founding fathers, the kind that can be bought off, but more so, once bought off can use its connections with government to corrupt and subvert free peoples and their labor for their gain. Democrats and liberals need to be thrown out office, at every level, consistently for several decades, as Tea Party battles Republican in a battle to restore life, liberty, and protection of property to the free and prosperous people of America.

Democratic Incumbent Congressman Gary Peters flew back from Washington DC on Monday night to debate his challenger, Republican nominee Rocky Raczkowski, and the lively debate did a great job of contrasting the two opponents.

Over a series of questions on 'don't ask, don't tell', 'campaign commercials,' 'tax breaks,' 'illegal immigration,' and other issues, the two candidates contrasted their styles and hammered away at their strategies to win the upcoming election on November 2.

Gary Peters hammered at Rocky through a series of personal attacks, questioning his honesty, integrity, and motivation. He seized on jokes, mischaracterized Rocky's positions, slandered him, and frequently referred to the frivolous lawsuit by the cocaine addicted customer that provides much of the information that Peters is campaigning on. At every opportunity, he dodged his votes and his stands on issues, and promised that if you give him another two years in Congress, he will continue to work hard and make sure that he does nothing other than vote the Democratic party line. At one point he even accused his lack of production on legislation on the Republicans, who are the minority party (by large numbers) in Congress, hoping that voters wouldn't realize how lame that excuse is. Peters campaign is going to be 'Rocky is a birther, Rocky is being sued, Rocky had someone controversial at an event he was at, and Rocky is corrupt.'

Oh, I also liked when Congressman Peters said that Rocky couldn't be trusted because he was a politician and had run for office 6 or 7 times in the past. This is the kind of logic you get from a politician who has run for office 6 times and is trying to make the campaign into one of trust. Voters don't have to worry about that with Peters- we already know that Congressman Gary Peters takes the word of a cocaine-addict who has had his frivolous lawsuits dismissed already and therefore can't be trusted.
 
One other thing I'd like you to chew on from this debate. If you haven't read The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs in a while, you should. Peters really hates Wall Street and the stock market because it's had a really bad downturn lately. He doesn't want you to put any money into those. That kind of philosophy is a good way of killing the Golden Goose.

Obama's Aunt Still Living in US and Defended by Democratic Donor Attorney From the "what ever happened to" file is this update on Zeituni Onyango (more commonly known by President of the United States Obama as Aunt Zeituni). You might remember her- I wrote about her in this post.

Onyango arrived from Kenya on a valid visa in 2000 and later applied for political asylum. Asylum seekers must show they face persecution at home. She did not, and so her request was rejected, and in 2004 she was ordered to leave the country. She defied this court order, and decided to break the law and live in this country illegally.

Somehow she was given a place to live in Boston (paid for by taxpayers) and lived there in poverty for several years in spite of having very wealthy relatives who were too greedy go give her any money (Barack Obama). Not much is known about her during this time period.

Several days before the election, the Times of London did research that American media outlets are unwilling to do and discovered her and broke the story. Afterwards, there was an intense investigation by the government into why this story was revealed, and she fled to Cleveland to avoid the spotlight.

After the election of her nephew, we next see Aunt Zeituni in Washington DC, partying it up and living the high life at Obama's inauguration bash. No expense was spared to give her the time of her life and let her enjoy the luxurious Renaissance Mayflower Hotel. Not sure who paid for this.

So what is Auti Zeituni up to now? Zeituni Onyango recently said goodbye to her Cleveland cousins and went back to Boston, where she has been winning court battles that could allow her to stay in America. She is being represented by Cleveland lawyer Margaret Wong and now says that the attention she has received will cause her harm if she were to be deported now, and so she should be allowed asylum. I am willing to bet a million dollars she gets it eventually.

One thing that is not mentioned by either the Cleveland Times or Michelle Malkin is that Margaret Wong is politically connected and has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates over the years. She was likely picked because of her political connections to the Obama's aunt's lawyer, and is using her connections within the Democrat party to circumvent the normal course of law and win special corrupt favors from our government. If you would like to see the amount that Wong has given to the Democrats, click on this link to OpenSecrets.org and see for yourself. Search all cycles, Wong, Ohio, and you'll see a lengthy list of donations by Margaret Wong to Democrat candidates.

Interestingly enough, according to the Cleveland Times Obama's aunt came to see Margaret Wong "one day in early November." Could this have been on November 1, 5, 8, or 13? On those days, Ms. Wong made donations to Democrat candidates of significant amounts. Perhaps Ms. Wong was invited to the inauguration after her generous donation to the Democratic Party in December? Interesting. Don't believe me that there are connections between donating to the Democratic Party and winning favors from the Obama government? Sort the data by date and you'll see a highly coincidental timeline. Or talk to Chrysler dealerships about the importance of making donations to the thugs running our government now.

Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner should be required reading for anyone going into or studying government or politics- his analysis of elections and voting patterns is the best. Here is a shortened version of his most recent analysis of the Wave Election of 2010- be sure to check out the full article here:

Gentry liberals: The tsunami swept from the George Washington Bridge to the Donner Pass, but didn't wash away affluent liberals to the east and west of these geographic markers. Also surviving were the cannibals -- the public employee unions that are threatening to bankrupt states like California and New York, a prospect that doesn't faze the left-leaning gentry.

Jacksonians: In 2008 Barack Obama ran weakly in lands settled by the Scots-Irish from the Appalachians southwest to Texas. In 2010 Democrats did even worse there.

Germano-Scandinavian America: The Upper Midwest, settled largely by German and Scandinavian immigrants, has long been the most pacifist, isolationist and dovish part of the United States. That's one reason Obama did well in caucuses and primaries and in the general election in 2008 in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. He even made it a close race in the Dakotas. But that appeal seems to have vanished this year.

Blacks and Hispanics. Black voters remained almost unanimously Democratic this year. Not so Hispanics, who voted Republican in Florida and only mildly Democratic in Texas, where Republicans captured two Hispanic-majority House seats on the Mexican border.

The Finnish vote: Around 100 years ago Finnish immigrants flocked to the mines and woods of the country around Lake Superior, where the topography and weather must have seemed familiar. They've been a mostly Democratic, sometimes even radical voting bloc ever since. No more, it seems.

Finns, Hispanics, Midwest pacifists/isolationists, and Jacksonians are all falling out of the modern-day Democratic Party. It appears that the election of Obama in 2008 is indeed going to destroy a modern-day party, but it isn't the Republican Party as expected- he is going to rip apart the Democratic Party into those who produce and those who are parasitic.

One of the problems with the current Democratic proposal for healthcare reform is the process. I know liberals believe that the ends justify the means, and they are willing to do anything to make America have a government-run healthcare system, but some of the means that Democrats are engaging in are the sort of dirty and disgusting stuff that should cause voters to throw them out of office next election.

One such dirty and disgusting tactic that Democrats are engaging in is hiring interns in their county offices to write letters to lawmakers pretending to be distressed individuals who are unable to get healthcare under the current system.

These interns write letters and emails pretending to be people who are very poor, have a severe disability, are faced with extreme situations, or otherwise have really bad problems, and urge lawmakers to vote to pass the healthcare reform that Democrats are proposing based on this evidence. The interns are not these things- they are instead being paid to lie to lawmakers by Democrats. This type of tactic is insulting on many levels, but is happening all over the nation now, being employed openly by Democrats to win the healthcare debate.

This disgusting Democrat tactic was easily discovered by Republican lawmakers. Whenever they received these letters and emails, they would try to contact the sender to let them know that our government already provides extensive healthcare coverage that almost certainly covered their problems. You see, we already have government provided healthcare to a large segment of our population, paid for by taxpayer dollars from you and me. And Republican lawmakers care, so when they track down the senders of these sad letters to tell them that they are already covered, they discover that the senders are not sad individuals at all, but paid Democratic interns.

Commissioner Shelley Taub exposed this tactic at a recent county commissioner meeting, which I covered in a blog post here. Although she exposed just a single example, the person she discovered who wrote a sad letter to her had as a full time job sending out letters such as these, and so although she exposed just one example of Democratic slime, a good amount of it is now flowing in the system (and it's the bad slime, like in Ghostbusters II).

You can contact Taub to obtain the evidence yourself by going to her page here- at the meeting she read us the evidence and and told us the full story of how she spent her weekend trying to track down the poor unwed mother who was on death's door in order to put her in touch with government help, only to discover that it was deception perpetrated by the Democratic party.

When Taub exposed this local piece of fraud, she was told that it was only "an overzealous individual from the county party’s office stepped outside of the realm of acceptable conduct and encouraged county party interns to follow suit," and that this person was "officially reprimanded them for their unacceptable actions." The email Taub received closed by encouraging Taub to ignore "these distractions"- the phony emails and letters that are flooding the system lying about the situation and encouraging public officials to vote a certain way based on deception and lies- because "there is a very real need... for improved health care coverage." The ends justify the means, in other words, and Democrats are sorry they were caught this time, but they will strike again.

Life, liberty, and property are being taken from us by deception and lies. Don't vote for this party, whether they be blue, black, or green.

UPDATE: If you would like to email someone your disgust with this, Mike McGuinness, Chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party, was the guy who ran this shop of deception and lies. His email address is chair@ocdp.org.

UPDATE II: Looks like I am generating the news cycle again. Today in the Oakland Press there is a story about this very issue- Commissioner: Dems sent falsified letters. The author of this story must be a reader on my blog. Check it out!

UPDATE III: This story has some legs- big blogs around the country are picking it up and running with it, including the very good blog Atlas Shrugs. Here is their thoughts on this story.