My Beauty Best Teacher

On my drive home from work today I listened to an interview of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (Democrat, Wisconsin) on the Ed Schultz Show (1310AM in Detroit). The good Congresswoman described what was happening in Wisconsin as an attack on the rights of workers that was beyond the pale of what is acceptable politically in America. She said that this was an attempt to silence workers at the bargaining table and make it so that they would be treated with disrespect at the bargaining table. Let's address both of these questions by asking two important questions.

What is a Right?
According to natural rights philosophy, on which our nation is based and built on, rights are claims that we as people have to certain things because those things have always existed and will always exist, no matter which state governs us. Even without states, in a state of nature, people would still have the right to live, the right to live in freedom, and the right to keep and own property. These rights could not be taken away by any government, although they could be violated, because government does not provide these rights or create them- rather, these rights are created by God and given to everyone since we are all made in God's image. Or in other words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Note that rights are clearly not privileges that are granted to certain groups in society by government. If that is the case, than these privileges could easily be taken away, in which case they were never a 'right' but rather a 'grant'. Clearly this is the situation in Wisconsin, where the government granted to certain groups in society certain grants of power which it now can no longer afford to give and so is taking those grants away. This situation is nothing at all similar to any sort of patriotic fight, but is instead just selfish and short-sighted angry grabbing after power that was once granted but now is being taken back.

Even when discussing rights, Congresswomen Baldwin had trouble because she knows on a deeper level that she doesn't know what she is talking about. She jerks back from any mention of where these 'worker' rights come from or how they are in reality 'rights' and not just privileges granted to politically favorable groups by government. She instead just repeats that they are rights and that these rights only belong to government-approved union workers and that everyone should stand with these favored groups and protect their rights. It is surprising that voters put her in office when she has clearly failed to study or think about these important issues, even though she went to college and law school where natural rights philosophy should have been taught. It appears all she learned from her law school was how to go about suing people and spin falsehoods.

Who does Labor sit down with at Bargaining Table?
Public labor unions like those in Wisconsin who would lose their special privileged rights that they had been given by Democratic governments of the past would be forced to sit down in the future with elected officials and taxpayers and determine what their future benefits would be. Congresswomen Baldwin and Ed Schultz both talked about the need for unions to negotiate with evil businesses who did not care about working conditions or workers pay because they were only after profits for their shareholders- but this is clearly not the case when public employee unions negotiate with elected officials and taxpayers, who are not driven by profits, who are responsible to voters if they mistreat workers, who would be liable to large lawsuits if they had poor working conditions, and who are put into office by citizens to represent citizens to hire those people to work for citizens. They are not 'hostile' any more than the average public would be 'hostile' to unions, and if the average voting public is 'hostile' to unions, that is an indication that unions have been 'hostile' to the interests of the average voting public.

When it comes down to it, when pushed and goaded by the fascist thug Ed Schultz, Congresswomen Baldwin fell back on class warfare and tried to argue that what had put her state in such financial trouble were not the generous salaries, pensions, and benefits that workers had bargained from the state over the last several years, but rather tax cuts to the rich or tax breaks to job creators that were given in the last month, and that her state should have just continued to pass the bill on to future generations and papered over the debt with trickery and shell games. After all, that's what she encourages the national government to do with her votes in Congress- she votes in favor of massive deficits that are passing huge debts and liabilities and obligations down on our children and grandchildren, and she does this all while pretending that she is not selfish and short-sighted and a tool to Big Labor.

For more information on natural rights philosophy, check out Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration.

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.

Democrat President Barack Obama's economic programs can be best called "The Inside Deal." There is a long history of 'deals' in our nation, where the government expands unconstitutionally into areas where it is not supposed to be and crowds out human freedom and industry. These deals all have cool names- Square Deal, New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society- and as Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have jammed through considerable changes in our nation over the last year, it is appropriate that we give a name to Obama's economic policies. I hearby submit to the world that we call Obama's economic programs "The Inside Deal."

The Inside Deal is Democratic President Barack Obama's domestic economic program and is characterized by extensive government spending for politically connected groups within American society. It is aimed to reward those groups that supported Obama's campaign for the Presidency in 2010, such as labor unions, public employee unions, teachers unions, environmentalists, anti-war protesters, Wall Street, and big businesses. Some of the programs that were passed by the Democratic Congress at the time to reward these groups include the stimulus bill, the healthcare bill, and massive annual budgets.

Increasingly during the height of the Inside Deal, there is a link between who receives taxpayer money from the federal government and their political connections. Called by some crony capitalism, it is increasingly unpopular, and in the face of continuing recession in spite of (or because of) the massive deficits that marked the Inside Deal, this program was largely overturned by Republican Congressional majorities and Presidents from 2010-2020 (hopefully).

Hopefully someone will soon create a wikipedia article on this, describing Obama's Inside Deal in more depth.

The first 'deal' that was made between government and America where citizens traded their rights and liberties for the promise of 'progress' was the Square Deal. The Square Deal was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's domestic program formed upon three basic ideas: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection. Thus, it aimed at helping middle class citizens and involved attacking the plutocracy and trusts through rhetoric and expansions of federal power while at the same time protecting business from the extreme demands of the rising communists.

Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had The New Deal. This was a series of economic programs passed by Congress from 1933 to his reelection in 1936. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": relief, recovery and reform. That is, relief for the unemployed and poor; recovery of the economy to normal levels; and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. To see a list of some of the programs that comprise FDR's New Deal, see my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong.

The next 'deal' was offered by Democrat President Harry Truman, who presented a 21 point program of domestic legislation outlining a series of proposed actions in the fields of economic development and social welfare, including the call for universal health care. But in the face of peace and rising prosperity, the country decided that it didn't want to accept this deal, and the boom times of the 1950's and 1960's followed.

But Democrat Lyndon Johnson was inspired by the Fair Deal, and when he became President, he tried once again to make a deal between government and society whereby people would trade their individual rights and freedoms and liberties for some sense of 'fairness' in society. He called his 'deal' the Great Society. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The federal government has since spent trillions of dollars on these issues, and education, healthcare, urban areas, and transportation systems are now much worse today then they would have been if the federal government would not have stuck its nose into those areas and let human ingenuity and freedom and industry work unchained and untaxed.

Obama's Inside Deal represents then just the latest in a long line of usurpation's that have the goal of reducing our rights to life, liberty, and protection of property. Like our forefathers before, it is up to us to fight and overturn these injustices, least we be reduced to a state of tyranny.

AFT, Parent Organization Enacts Limited Administratorship of WTU
On August 5, I reported on this blog that the American Federation of Teachers executive council issued an order requiring at long last that Washington Teachers Union members would have a union election of officers. The order stated that AFT would retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance . In addition to proceeding with local union elections, the order also required that the Washington Teachers' Union restore Nathan Saunders, WTU General VP's salary forthwith and grant approval of his leave of absence from DCPS through the election. Well it shouldn't come as any surprise that George Parker ( whose term as teachers' union president ended June 30, 2010) refused to comply with the terms of AFT's order. As reported by the DC Schools Insider blog on August 16, AFT Prez Randi Weingarten issued an ultimatum to Parker to 'comply or else'. Parker was given until noon on August 17 to comply with the AFT August 4 order. Parker's refusal to comply with Weingarten's directive by the deadline date has lead to President Weingarten placing the WTU at 11:30 am on August 17 under limited administratorship. In an August 17 letter to George Parker, Weingarten states: "This action (administratorship) is part of our ongoing efforts to ensure that the WTU elections are carried out in a manner consistent with the WTU Constitution and the AFT executive council Decision and Order dated August 4, 2010." Weingarten revealed in her correspondence to Parker that she has sent an electronic copy of a letter to union members notifying them of this action. In addition, she made Parker aware that he will be contacted shortly for a date and time for the administratorship hearing to be scheduled. Al Squire, AFT Director of the Southern region will serve as the administrator.

Weingarten stated in an August 17 letter to union members : "I have received written notice that the leadership and executive board of the WTU have refused to comply with the order issued by the AFT executive council. This noncompliance constitutes a denial of the democratic right of WTU members to participate in a timely, fair and transparent election process. None of us has the right to overrule or subjugate the democratic rights of any members of your union or any other union. For this reason the AFT executive council has voted to place the WTU in a administratorship for the purpose of conducting the internal election."

Read Bill Turque's article on the actions that led to this takeover (below).

Weingarten to WTU: Comply or else by Bill Turque
"AFT president Randi Weingarten says Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker has until noon Tuesday to comply with an Aug. 4 order to hold a mid-September election for new officers and delegates, or the contest will be taken out of his hands and conducted by the national parent organization.
In a letter to Parker on Monday, Weingarten said that unless AFT gets "an unequivocal sworn undertaking" from WTU complying with the order, an administrator "will be appointed effective forthwith and without further notice to restore the rights of members ... to secure and safeguard the vital records and assets of the WTU from immediate threat, and to take such actions as are necessary to protect the interests of the membership."

Elections were scheduled for May but held up because of a dispute over the legitimacy of an internal committee that handles some aspects of the contest. Parker and the union's executive committee reset the election for late November, contending that they wouldn't have accurate membership lists until later in the new school year. Also swirling in the mix is the long time feud between Parker and general vice president Nathan Saunders, once allies, but now opponents in the presidential race. The executive board voted to eliminate Saunders's $131,000 annual salary and withheld renewal of his leave of absence from classroom duties because of what it characterized as his refusal to account for the time he has spent on union business.

But after a July 21st hearing at AFT headquarters, Weingarten ordered a mid-September election with ballots to be counted Oct. 4, and said anyone who was an active member June 30 was eligible to vote. She also ordered Saunders placed back on the union payroll, calling the timing of the decision to zero out his salary "unfortunate."

In an Aug. 13 letter asking Weingarten to reconsider, Parker said Saunders is strictly a WTU matter. He also said the election orders are illegal and step on the prerogatives of the WTU executive committee. He contended that the June 30 eligibility cut-off would effectively disenfranchise hundreds of new teachers now in the process of signing up for union membership. (What he didn't say is that it might also allow teachers fired or excessed after that date -- union members who may might not look so favorably on reelecting Parker -- access to a ballot).

"We are greatly concerned about the damage caused by AFT's actions here," wrote Parker, who declined to comment on Weingarten's ultimatum early Monday evening because he had not spoken with his lawyers. "

Africa has long been saddled with poor,even malevolent, leadership: predatory kleptocrats, military-installed autocrats,economic illiterates, and puffed-up posturers. By far the most egregious examples come from Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zimbabwe—countries that have been run into the ground despite their abundant natural resources. But these cases are by no means unrepresentative: by some measures, 90 percent of sub-Saharan African nations have experienced despotic rule in the last three decades. Such leaders use power as an end in itself, rather than for the public good; they are indifferent to the progress of their citizens (although anxious to receive their adulation); they are unswayed by reason and employ poisonous social or racial ideologies; and they are hypocrites, always shifting blame for their countries’ distress. Under the stewardship of these leaders,infrastructure in many African countries has fallen into disrepair, currencies have depreciated, and real prices have inflated dramatically, while job availability,health care, education standards, and life expectancy have declined. Ordinary life has become beleaguered: general security has deteriorated, crime and corruption have increased, much-needed public funds have flowed into hidden bank accounts, and offcially sanctioned ethnic discrimination—sometimes resulting in civil war—has become prevalent. This depressing picture is brought into even sharper relief by the few but striking examples of effective African leadership in recent decades. These leaders stand out because of their strength of character, their adherence to the principles of participatory democracy, and their ability to overcome deep-rooted challenges. The government of Mozambique, for example, brought about economic growth rates of more than ten percent between 1996 and 2003, following the economic catastrophe wrought by that country’s civil war (which ended in 1992). And in Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki has strengthened civil society, invested in education, and removed barriers to economic entrepreneurship instated during the repressive rule of Daniel arap Moi.The best example of good leadership in Africa is Botswana. Long before diamonds were discovered there, this former desert protectorate, which was neglected by the British under colonialism, demonstrated a knack for participatory democracy, integrity, tolerance, entrepreneurship, and the rule of law. The country has remained democratic in spirit as well as form continuously since its independence in 1966—an unmatched record in Africa. It has also defended human rights, encouraged civil liberties, and actively promoted its citizens’ social and economic development.
GOOD APPLES
What has enabled Botswana to succeed where so many other African nations have failed? Some observers point to the relative linguistic homogeneity of the country. But Somalia, which remains unstable despite a similar uniformity, shows that this factor is far from sufficient.Others point to the century-old teachings of the congregational London Missionary Society—the peaceful, pragmatic outlook that is inextricably bound up in the country’s political culture. But this explanation also fails to explain why the same positive effects have not been witnessed in other countries with a history of Christian teaching, such as in neighboring Zambia. Nor are Botswana’s plentiful diamond reserves responsible:Angola, Gabon, and Nigeria all have abundant natural resources, but none has seen comparable returns for its people.It is Botswana’s history of visionary leadership, especially in the years following independence, that best explains its success. Sir Seretse Khama, Botswana’s founding president, came from a family of Bamangwato chiefs well regarded for their benevolence and integrity.
When Khama founded the Botswana Democratic Party in 1961 and led his country to independence, he was already dedicated to the principles of deliberative democracy and market economy that would allow his young country to flourish. Modest, unostentatious as a leader, and a genuine believer in popular rule, Khama forged a participatory and law-respecting political culture that has endured under his successors, Sir Ketumile Masire and Festus Mogae. Although operating in very differerent circumstances, Mauritius’ first leader,Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, held to the same leadership codes as Khama.Ramgoolam gave Mauritius a robust democratic beginning, which has been sustained by a series of wise successors from different backgrounds and parties.Both Khama and Ramgoolam could have emulated many of their contemporaries by establishing strong, single-man, kleptocratic regimes. But they refused to do so.Effective leadership has proved the decisive factor in South Africa, too: without Nelson Mandela’s inclusive and visionary leadership, his adherence to the rule of law, his insistence on broadening the delivery of essential services, and his emphasis on moving from a commandeconomy toward a market-driven one, South Africa would probably have emerged from apartheid as a far more fractured and autocratic state than it did.Too few African leaders have followed the examples of Mandela, Khama, and foreign affairs . Ramgoolam. Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, and Senegal are all showing promise. But in many other African countries,leaders have begun their presidential careers as democrats only to end up, a term or two later, as corrupt autocrats: Bakili Muluzi of Malawi, Moi of Kenya,and, most dramatically of all, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Other leaders, such as Sam Nujoma of Namibia and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, may be heading in the same direction.
A BOLD INITIATIVE
To build on the positive leadership examples, a select group of prominent past and present African leaders who met over the last year decided to confront the continent’s pathology of poor leadership with deeds as well as words. At the conclusion of a series of private meetings(the final one of which was held in Mombasa, Kenya), they established the African Leadership Council, promulgated a Code of African Leadership with 23 commandments, issued a Mombasa Declaration promoting better leadership,and proposed a series of courses to train their political successors in the art of good government.Members of the council believe that absolute standards of leadership are both appropriate and attainable. Good leaders deliver security of the state and of the person, the rule of law, good education and health services, and a framework conducive to economic growth. They ensure effective arteries of commerce and enshrine personal and human freedoms. They empower civil society and protect the environmental commons. Crucially, good leaders also provide their citizens with a sense of belonging to a national enterprise. Conscious that Africa’s poor are getting poorer and that good governance is essential for successful economic development, the council sees itself at
the vanguard of fundamental reform in the continent. Its approach certainly goes far beyond the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (nepad) and proposals for the African Union. The Code of African Leadership, for example, says in its first commandment that leaders should “offer a coherent vision of individual growth and national advancement with justice and dignity for all,” implying that most leaders today do not. Other commandments demand that African leaders encourage “broad participation,” adhere to the letter and spirit of their national constitutions (especially term limits), encourage dissent and disagreement, respect human rights and civil liberties, strengthen the rule of law, promote policies that eradicate poverty and improve the wellbeing of their citizens, ensure a strong code of ethics, refuse to use their offices
for personal gain, oppose corruption, and bolster essential personal freedoms. This uncommonly bold agenda seeks to avoid renewed patrimonial leadership debacles, such as those presided over by Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Moi in Kenya, Idi Amin in Uganda, and Jean-Bedel Bokassa in the Central African Republic. The council is highly conscious,too, of the hijacking of Zimbabwe’s government by Mugabe, which has resulted in starvation and drastically reduced living standards.The council is chaired by former President Sir Ketumile Masire of Botswana and includes former Nigerian head of state General Yakubu Gowon,Vice President Moody Awori of Kenya, former Prime Minister Hage Geingob of Namibia, and a dozen other present and former prime ministers and cabinet ministers from Sierra Leone to Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda. All are regarded throughout Africa as men of unusual personal probity and esteem and as accomplished proponents of good governance. The council intends to recruit additional members from the ranks of Africa’s outstanding democratic leaders, Francophone and Anglophone, female and male. Together they will serve the continent by advising international organizations, individual countries, and donor agencies on how to improve leadership. The group stands ready to assist civil societies in countries undergoing serious leadership crises. It will also urge greedy national leaders to attack corrupt practices and adhere to term limits (the current presidents of Gabon, Malawi, Namibia,Uganda, and Zambia, for example, have all had pangs of desire for illegal third terms). Next year(2005), it expects to begin holding special seminars for cabinet ministers and others. The council’s curriculum emphasizes constitutionalism, the rule of law, ethics, accountability,diversity, good fiscal management, coalition building, and the fundamentals of modern micro- and macroeconomics. Training courses will soon be launched.Whether the efforts of the African Leadership Council will reduce bloodshed,diminish corruption, and encourage more prosperity for citizens across Africa is by no means certain. But as a unique African response to the continent’s immense needs, this innovative endeavor is a promising, dramatic step forward.

By
Robert I. Rotberg

Reprinted with permission
Copyrighted 2004 Council on Foreign relations Inc. All Rights Reserved

Gary Peters is one of the least independent Congressman in Congress, and votes with his party 96% of the time. He does not work with Republicans, he isn't a voice of moderation, and he is not independent. According to his voting record, he is a liberal Democrat who votes the party line almost every time- a reliable vote for the Pelosi/Waxman wing of the Democratic Party.

Recently, The Oakland Press, the local newspaper in the area, wrote the following editorial called "Peters has done some independent thinking", and this prompted me to do some research:

Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, is not in a very enviable position as a Congressmen. He’s a Democrat from a district that has historically voted Republican. The exact Democrat-Republican split is not known, but it is safe to say that he was elected because of strong support from independent voters. As his first Congressional year ends, we are not going to judge or rate him on his work.

However, The Oakland Press believes you should give credit where credit is due.At times during his very critical and harsh first year in office, Peters has shown that he can break away from the “party-line” and thus think and act independently. Let’s give him credit and kudos for some independent thinking.

This is garbage. According to OpenCongress.org, a non-partisan website set up to track the votes and news about US Congressman, Gary Peters has voted the Democratic Party line 96% of the time, including important votes in favor of the Democratic party line on healthcare, cap-and-tax, stimulus, government-takeovers, and national security. That means that 96 times out of a 100, he has voted Democrat, and only voted with the Republicans 4 times.

The facts- a 96% party line votes- demonstrate that this editorial is pure garbage and that Peters is not an independent voice in Congress or someone who breaks the party line, and I question who wrote it or approved it without doing a little research first.

An 'independent thinker' who 'breaks the party line' votes with the party line 96% of the time? I wonder if The Oakland Press is going to start writing glowing editorials of how independent of a voter Thaddeus McCotter (R, MI-11, 92% party line) is? Or Candice Miller (R, MI-10, 87% party line)? Or Vern Ehlers (R, MI-3, 85% party line)? The only Congressman from Michigan who are less independent and who vote less with the party line are fellow Democrats Sandar Levin (99% party line) and John Dingell (98% party line).

Congressman Peters has sponsored 8 pieces of legislation while in office. They are not 'independent' pieces of legislation that demonstrate his willingness 'to break from the party'. One is to increase taxes (HR 1527). The rest are minor bills requesting tax breaks for favored constituencies or resolutions recognizing various things. Is this what The Oakland Press was raving about? Crossing the aisle to express a sense of Congress for a civil rights activist? Wow.

The Oakland Press ignored his 96% party line vote and his vote on major issues, which is a reliable liberal Democratic vote in favor of bills that even harm his district, and wrote a garbage of an editorial.

Congressman Gary Peters is a solid left-wing liberal, and come 2010, you remember that and vote accordingly.

How do we evolve grassroots democracy with regional characteristics? Hierarchical systems within most of Sub-Saharan Africa have proven to be almost completely removed from the citizens they claim to govern, the following statements/initiatives offer varying perspectives on the subject, firstly Fred Foldvary suggests that:

Democracy must start small. Each village and city neighborhood elects a local council. These would be the cells of the political body. Where a traditional clan leadership is in place, it would be recognized as the local authority. The cell would be small enough so that the people can hold meetings and know the candidates personally. There would be no need for large amounts of campaign money.

While an effort in Puntland Somalia, emphasizes the devolving of power:

Decentralisation of government by devolving decision making down to the lowest constituencies is a fundamental principle of the Puntland administration. Evidence shows that smaller, more local bodies are generally more efficient, but also that taking the process of decision making down to the community level gives rise to a more responsive organization on the one hand, and greater community involvement and buy-in on the other.

Hu Jintao building on the "Democracy with Chinese characteristics" model proposes that:

The most effective and extensive way for the people to be masters of the country is that they directly exercise their democratic rights in accordance with the law to manage public affairs and public service programs at the primary level, practice self-management, self-service, self-education and self-oversight, and exercise democratic oversight over cadres. Such practices must be emphasized and promoted as the groundwork for developing socialist democracy.

In summation we can postulate the need for indigenous, adaptive, fractal governing systems that are imbued with continuous reactive input from a representative citizenry.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Democracy Gains Amid Turmoil
• Behold the New Africa

In the Economist

Human-rights campaigners think the limpness of America and European Union countries, especially Britain, in the face of Mr Zenawi gives him a free rein to abuse his own people. This week’s report by Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby, claims that, after 20 years in power, Mr Zenawi’s ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front has “total control of local and district administrations to monitor and intimidate individuals at a household level.” With a general election due on May 23rd, opposition supporters, says the report, are often castigated as subversives by the government, denied the right to assembly, and harassed. The press has been “stifled”. Newspapers avoid writing about opposition parties or people the government says have terrorist links...[continue reading]

via Texas in Africa

For many years, African Americans in the United States have been a solid Democratic constituency. It didn't used to be this way- the Republican Party fought and died to free the blacks in the south from slavery, and for generations thereafter pushed for more equality and freedom for blacks in America. Even the great Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's that Democrats signed into law was only done so with the strong support by the Republican party, who overcame the Democrats from the south who filibustered it. But in recent decades, African American support for the Democratic party has been so solid (90-95%) that the Democratic party has taken it for granted, and instead of improving the situation for this constituency, the results have been considerably worse. Look at the results- after voting solidly Democrat for decades and putting Democrats in control of cities, states, and national government, look at the results- African Americans have far higher rates of crime, far lower rates of educational attainment, lag in income, and suffer higher rates of poverty. African-Americans voted for 'change' in 2008, and all that gave them was more of the same- more of the taxpayer paid dependency, welfare, and anti-school choice that have caused African-Americans to lag behind every single ethnic group in a range of measurable categories for years. That's bad, and I think that voting Republican might change things.

So do others. Despite largely unsubstantiated allegations of racism in 'Tea Party' organizations, the Republican Party, and conservative groups, 2010 has witnessed more black Republican activism than ever before. Thirty-seven African Americans in 16 states have been in contention for seats in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives this year. And unlike African-American Democratic candidates, the majority of the Republican candidates do not come from areas where African-Americans are the majority. They are just good candidates, running for office on a platform of liberty, freedom, and equality, and just happen to be black too.

This election, it is my hope that Americans of all colors, creeds, philosophies, ideologies, and parties will all unite and vote for the candidate who best represents the values and ideals and beliefs that made America great- an unshakable belief that America is exceptional, that governmental power should be limited to protecting life, liberty, and property, and that the ultimate goal of political power in America is to further the freedom and liberty of its people. Since there are very few Democrats who speak this message (are there any that do any more?), I guess that means you'll have to vote Republican.

Check out this great video (h/t to theblogprof) encouraging African-Americans to vote for candidates who all champion liberty, equality, and freedom. Unless you are a racist or someone who wants to keep blacks on the plantation, this should stir your soul and make you very proud to be part of the GOP:

For those who are interested, check out this book on this subject: Silence Makes the Loudest Sound: A Conversation between African Americans and the Republican Party

Look at this group- is this an angry mob of hateful racist people, as some liberals liken these groups to be? No- this is America- waving flags, loving liberty and freedom, and opposing Obama's government takeover of healthcare.
I've got more pictures- I will update a little later showing you some of the for and against posters, and also record some of my thoughts and impressions, as I frequently engaged supporters of Obamacare in debate and discussion. Enjoy for now!

UPDATE I: As some of you might have picked up on from my earlier posts about going to protests, I enjoy talking to supporters of Obamacare. My hope is that through discussion and conversation, I can introduce doubt into their belief system and put that little bug of freedom and liberty in their brains and hearts. Some people who support Obama are too far gone to even try- one guy told me to go back to torturing innocent people and invading law-abiding countries- I assume that he was referring to the enhanced interrogation techniques of terrorists and the War on Iraq, but regardless, he is too far gone down the path for me to talk to.

One of the frequent arguments that liberals trotted out was that healthcare was a right. I've already blogged about my thoughts on this, and tried to bring them up to Obamacare supporters- that healthcare is not a right. Several told me that my ideas about rights were outdated and no longer correct- that rights come from government and are the same thing as entitlements. That they believe this makes me sad.

Another argument that was frequently advanced (and the good thing about liberals is that they are all working off of the same playbook and always fall back on the same talking points) was that people accept fire departments, and police, and schools, and libraries, so why not give the government the power over healthcare too? I responded by saying that those were given to local and state government, not national government, and they said that didn't matter, that the federal government now runs everything, as it should- they openly laughed at the principle of federalism. I asked where does it stop then- what do we not give to the government? The supporters of Obamacare said 'somewhere', but I got the feeling that they would be willing to give the government the power over every aspect of your life.

See, this is not a debate about healthcare- this is a debate about the very nature of government- when pressed, liberals fall back on their belief system in government control, and the details no longer matter any more.

UPDATE II: Here are some pictures of some of the posters of those who oppose Obamacare. Notice how almost all are homemade, and they each advance a different and unique argument against national socialized control of healthcare.

The poster in this picture says "Give me Liberty, Not Debt":

The poster in this picture says "Congress is the problem":

This gentleman's sign says "Question Boldly, Demand Answers"- always good advice when the government is trying to nationalized 1/4 of the economy- it's surprising that people were shouting at him and one guy in all black even gave him the finger:


UPDATE III: Anyone who was at this event noticed right away that it was heavily astroturfed by liberal Democrats supporting Obamacare. There were two varieties of posters that they carried. The first that I will show you a picture of was paid for by Health Care for America NOW! This interest group looks like a group that the President of the United States is actively supporting (at least its website claims this), and kind of looks like a Moveon.org/George-Sorus funded clone. Here is the sign they provided for this event- there were about 50 like this- it says "Standing Together for Health Insurance Reform":

The other major variety of sign that was found at this healthcare rally is seen below. There were over 30 of these signs that I counted, and they were all carried by a group standing near the front of the line to get in. They all were on the same posterboard material, the same handwriting in the same colors, and all parroting similar messages. I asked one of the people carrying the sign where he got it- he said he made it himself. I asked if he made all the rest- he said that each one was made my the individual carrying it. I didn't call him a liar then because I wanted to be polite, but I'll say it now- he was an astroturfing liar, as you can see by this picture. No signs were allowed in the townhall, and so here is the pile of them outside. The slogans on these signs say "Equal Care 4 All," "Rich Grannies for Healthcare Reform Now," "Hate Kills and Care Cures," "Republicans Lie," etc.:

Thanks to the Detroit News, I figured out who produced all of these signs. According to the article in the newspaper, these signs were produced by a lady named Karen MacKenzie. According to Open Secrets, she lives in Northville, which is not part of Peter's district. Tsk-tsk- the invite said 'constituents only', Ms. MacKenzie. Oh, I also notice that she is married to an activist judge in Oakland County who is chair of the local Sierra Club. This information was pulled off later versions of the Detroit News story.

Also, speaking about the MSM, they got it all wrong as always. The Detroit News says "about 200 who weren't allowed into the full auditorium milled around outside during the forum"- as you can see from the video and pictures, there was well over 200 people- I estimate that about 800 people didn't get in, and 3 hours after they didn't get in, there was still over 200 people outside. And they weren't 'milling around' any more than our patriot forefathers 'milled around' during their civic protests. Thank you MSM for slighting and miscounting all of those who showed up for this event but couldn't get in.

UPDATE IV: Welcome readers of Pundit & Pundette, Gateway Pundit, Right Michigan, Motor City Times, Vox Popoli, The Other Club, Critical Narrative, and The Blog Prof. This post is simply a journalism-style post- be sure to enjoy while you are here my other posts on education, the environment, and other political issues.

UPDATE V: Here is another picture of an Obamacare supporter. I've talked to this lady previously- see my post The People vs a Person for more on that encounter, but this time I simply took a picture of her with her sign. It reads "Dems Won, GOP Lost, Healthcare NOW." When I asked her what her sign meant, she said that once the Democrats won control of Congress and the President, it gave them the authority to pass any laws that they wanted, without regard to the Constitution or minority rights. I informed her that 'we won and now can do whatever we want to you' is the justification for dictators and bad guys- she said she didn't care, that's the logic she wanted to use. Understand this- the loudest liberal supporters of Obamacare on the front lines of this debate are not really even hiding their support for a fascist dictatorship. Are you hiding your opposition to it? Here is the sign:

Democrats Host Union-Bashers
by Candi Peterson
published in Labor Notes Magazine , No. 355 October 2008

Here in Washington, DC schools chief Michelle Rhee contends that her education reform plan will be done either with teachers - or to teachers. She argues that urban schools do poorly due to union contracts that prevent schools from firing bad teachers. Teachers' seniority rights, she says, stand in the way of the best education for our children.

Odd Bedfellows
Rhee and DC Mayor Adrian Fenty were invited to a forum before the Democratic National Convention in Denver last August to sell their management scam. They appeared with N.Y. Chancellor Joel Klein and Reverend Al Sharpton for a panel discussion that bashed teachers unions.

These self-styled education reformers can't document a case where slashing teacher seniority and tenure has led to higher student achievement. The platform presented at the Denver forum clashes with the Democrats' historical alliance with teachers union and stated commitment to workers' rights.

In Rhee's typical style, she vowed to impose her educational reform if contract talks with the union continue to stall. This doesn't fit the Democrats, which claim support for teachers unions and public education.

These anti-union plans support more privatization and outsourcing of public education while gutting hard-earned job protections. In exchange, teachers would be bought off with hefty raises and bonuses.

Fight Under-Funding, Not Teachers
Rhee and the people who invited her to speak before a crowd of Democrats, whose convention delegates were 25 percent union members, need to refocus. If half of the energy they spend fighting teachers went to fighting the under-funding of public education and budget cuts, our children would be much better off.

The nationwide assault on teachers unions from corporations and conservatives has intensified in recent years. N.Y. public schools have doled out millions of dollars to private contractors. DC is following suit, and millions more will be spent on hefty contracts with groups such as Teach for America and New Teacher Project - an approach that encourages a teaching force that will have a high turnover rate and an equally high number of novice teachers.

Without teachers unions and experienced teachers who are willing to speak out against budget cuts, understaffed schools, high-stakes testing and unsound educational practices, schools may become the personal plantations of principals beholden to corporate forces.

Our union allows us to pool our resources, knowledge and lobbying power to ensure better working conditions and better schools, and fight off attacks like the one we face in DC.

A Political Battle
The major party alternative to the Denver forum is certainly no better. Senator McCain regularly bashes teachers and public education. He supports private vouchers with no proven track record for raising student achievement. Obama meanwhile supports a compensation package developed with teachers, not imposed on them, and has said he would close failing charter schools. Rather than blaming teachers for the ills of our education system, he pledges more funding for public education.

For a long time, the obstacle to school reform has been political. We know how to make schools better. But we simply have not had political backing to separate education funding from local property taxes, which guarantees abundance for some schools and poverty for others. Seeing Rhee's deeply misguided ideas trumpeted in front of Democratic audiences makes one wonder which direction the party is heading. Posted by The Washington Teacher.

In Reuters:

The Ethiopian government is using development aid to suppress political dissent by conditioning access to essential government programs on support for the ruling party says Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch urged foreign donors to ensure that their aid is used in an accountable and transparent manner and does not support political repression.The 105-page report, "Development without Freedom: How Aid Underwrites Repression in Ethiopia," documents the ways in which the Ethiopian government uses donor-supported resources and aid as a tool to consolidate the power of the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)...[continue reading]

Featuring Candi Peterson, blogger in residence

Domestic policy results are a mix of both Congress and the President, and so Obama supporters can attempt to say that the reason why domestic policies have failed so badly over the past years is because of the Congress (House under Democratic control 2007-2011, Senate under Democratic control 2007 to today). But the results of foreign policy decisions are almost always the result of actions made purely the President, so these results can not be blamed on former President Bush (2001-2009) or the Republicans in Congress (House 2011+). President Barack Obama is responsible for foreign policy actions of the last several years.

And the latest news from Egypt is that Obama messed up badly and in so doing has led to the people of Egypt being less free, less prosperous, and private property rights being less protected. Via the New York Times:

Egyptian authorities confirmed Saturday that a political coalition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the 84-year-old group that virtually invented political Islam, had won about 47 percent of the seats in the first Parliament elected since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. An alliance of ultraconservative Islamists won the next largest share of seats, about 25 percent....

...Parliament the authority to choose the 100 members of a constitutional assembly, so it may shape Egypt for decades to come, although the military council has sometimes tried to influence that process...

...The Brotherhood has said it intends to respect personal liberties and will focus on economic and social issues, gradually nudging the culture toward its conservative values. By contrast, the ultraconservatives, known as Salafis, put a higher priority on legislation on Islamic moral issues, like the consumption of alcohol, women’s dress and the contents of popular culture.

Among the remaining roughly 30 percent of parliamentary seats, the next largest share was won by the Wafd Party, a liberal party recognized under Mr. Mubarak and with roots dating to Egypt’s colonial period.

It was trailed by a coalition known as the Egyptian Bloc. It included the Free Egyptians, a business-friendly liberal party founded by a Coptic Christian businessman, Naguib Sawiris, and favored by many members of the country’s Coptic Christian minority, about 10 percent of the public. The Egyptian Bloc also included the liberal Social Democratic Party, which leans further to the left on economic issues.

A coalition of parties founded by the young leaders of the revolt that unseated Mr. Mubarak won only a few percent of the seats, as did a handful of offshoots of the former governing party....

There is no way to spin this. Mubarak gave a speech where he said that he would transition power over to groups that were business-friendly, were supportive to liberty and freedom, and would not be radically-intolerant Muslim, and President Obama went on TV and gave a major speech demanding that "Mubarak must go now."

"An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must peaceful, and it must begin now," Obama declared in his address, and he got his wish- Egypt has now gone from being a moderately bad regime to putting in place a coalition of radicals that support terror and the destruction of Israel- and it happened in under a year. He got his meaningful change for the worse pretty quickly- and it was all on him, the blame was exclusively on Obama, and the results of his actions were bad for millions of Egyptians and America.

Obama said that he turned on Mubarak in order to support the young leaders of revolutionaries in Egypt- the group that won the least from this revolution. The group that got the most out of the Egyptian revolution was the groups that we supported the LEAST- the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists.

Obama messed this policy decision up. Hold him responsible.

My stances on this issue are also on the record- see my posts Obama is Picking Worst of Bad Options in Egypt: Is Obama Getting Advice from Jimmy Carter? and Obama's Egypt Policy Was a Failure?.

Featuring Candi Peterson, blogger in residence and candidate for WTU General Vice President