My Beauty Best Teacher

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong writes:
Prof. Ali Mazrui’s address at the 30th anniversary celebration of the Dakar, Senegal-based CODESRIA on the theme “Intellectuals, Nationalism and the Pan-African Ideal” reveals the growing talks, African-wide, about the implications of the African culture and the continent’s development process. The central theme of Mazrui, currently Chancellor of Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, address is twofold. Why African intellectuals are mediocre and why this informs their inability to appropriate Pan-Africanism ideals into Africa’s development process. I would prefer why African elites have not being able to appropriate African cultural values into Africa’s development process as other elites in other parts of the world have done in their development process.

Using the East African region as a continental reference, Mazrui, known globally as one of Africa’s leading thinkers, reveals how undemocratic political climates undermined Africa’s intellectual growth, and how, by extension, this impacted on the continent’s development process. Unlike other ex-colonies, such as Japan, of which Mazrui used greatly as an example to show how African elites failed to match their Western education with their African values in both their intellectual development and the continent’s progress, the trouble with African elites and the continent’s development process is that, the elites play with ideas are not informed by Africa’s innate, indigenous values or ideas by rather the Western ideas that they have had in formal schools.

Mazrui himself shows this contradicting and confusing state of the African elites in this statement: “Uganda had for Head of Government a person who had changed his name because of admiration of the author of the great English poem, Paradise Lost. Obote became Milton Obote out of admiration of John Milton.” While in the spirit of universal intellectuality Obote could admire Milton, his admiration for a non-African poet and the fact that he is a Head of State, may have let Ugandan and African youth to admire more non-African elites than indigenous Ugandan and African elites. The central issue here is role model, values, and inspiration in the development process. In this sense, Obote did not deeply help the growth of African values and her progress. If Obote had done so, and by implications of Mazrui’s own account of the mediocrity of African intellectuals, and greatly touted a non-African value not because he was educated in Western paradigms but, like most African elites, because either he did not understand African values deeply enough or was mesmerized by Western values or did not respect African values or was confused about African values in relations to the continent’s progress.

Still, Mazrui’s argument that “The capacity to be curious and fascinated by ideas has to start early in the educational process. The spirit of intellectualism has to be nourished from primary school onwards, but it can die at the university level if mediocrity prevails,” reveals that the problem of Africa’s intellectual growth is not only at the university level but also at the primary school level; where the values, images and examples which are heavily European-centred are formed. So, if the African primary education system is heavily Western structured, it flows and grows to the high school level, and then later to the university level; thus sowing a culture of mediocrity, in terms of African values not predominantly dictating the intellectual life of the African child early enough. It is in this sense, that Ghana’s Dr. Y.K. Amoako, the former UN Economic Commission for Africa executive secretary, has observed that Africa is the only region in the world where foreign development paradigms dominate her development process. Not only does this indicate that Africa’s development process is not “culturally close” to Africans, but also a revelation that African elites are mediocre in both their intellectualizing and their direction of the continent’s progress.

This has made the African elite mediocre in their own innate environment and in their development process struggles. The mediocrity has come about because Africa’s elites do not think deeply from within Africa’s values first and the enabling aspects of their colonial legacies second in the continent’s development process. Mazrui himself testify of the Japanese elites doing so in their country’s development process. “In this connection it is worth bearing in mind important differences between the westernization of Africa and the modernization of Japan after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Japan’s original modernization involved considerable selectivity on the part of the Japanese themselves (“Western Technique, Japanese Spirit”). The whole purpose of selective Japanese westernization was to protect Japan against the West, rather than merely to submit to western cultural attractions. The emphasis in Japan was therefore on the technical and technological techniques of the West, rather than on literary and verbal culture. The Japanese slogan of “western technique, Japanese spirit” at the time captured this ambition to borrow technology from the West while deliberately protecting a substantial part of Japanese culture. In a sense, Japan’s technological westernization was designed to reduce the danger of other forms of cultural dependency.”

This process should starts from childhood to adulthood based on a curriculum skillfully cast in African values first and any other borrowed ones second; more especially, in preparing African elites’ minds at an earlier stage: from primary and high schools levels. It is in this process that African elites, from their early formation to their university crystallization, will be “culturally close” to the African society, will be culturally close to the African’s progress in the continent’s development journey. By not being culturally close to the African society, African elites could not undertake the Japanese cultural selectivity in relations to their colonial legacies and the enabling aspects of the global culture, and, have, therefore, become both heavily technologically and culturally dependent upon the Western world despite their superb innate culture having huge technological and cultural values for progress. Writes Mazrui, “The nature of westernization in Africa has been very different. Far from emphasizing western productive technology and reducing western life-styles and verbal culture, Africa has reversed the Japanese order of emphasis. Among the factors which have facilitated this reversal has been the role of the African university as a vehicle of Western influence on African culture.”

The challenge for African elites today is how to overturn the contradiction they have caused in Africa’s progress by thinking first from within African values first, by matching African values with the enabling aspects of their colonial legacies and the global values, and by intellectually linking this “to the wider world of scholarship and science.”

Last year, as my wife, five kids, and I were all wandering around Washington DC, I though the following (from Deep Thoughts on DC Trip- LaHood, Palaces, Rainbows, Washington, and Lincoln):

Washington DC is booming. I think it is one of the few states in the nation to actually have increasingly employment, job growth, and GDP growth. There are signs everywhere of prosperity and building- roads are being repaired, monuments are being revamped, buildings are adding on, and fresh paint and plaster is in abundance. On a guidebook of DC I read that our capitol was designed to look like the capitols of the Emperors and despots of Europe, but it was okay because we lived in a free nation that celebrated liberty and property. Well, as our country becomes more despotic and tyrannical, it is going to look increasingly like those capitols of the old days, when the Emperor took money from the countryside to build himself new statues and bigger palaces.

A new POLITICO poll proves that while the countryside is being plundered, the Democratic lords and Emperor Obama are living in a different world based on luxury, hope, and change. In Washington, Obama is far more popular than he is in the rest of the country, while Palin, the former Alaska governor, is considerably less popular in DC than in the rest of the country. To the vast majority of D.C. elites, the tea party movement is a fad, but for the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is a revolutionary phenomonum.

From the Politico story on the poll:

According to the poll, roughly 45 percent of “Washington elites” said the country and the economy are headed in the right direction, while roughly 25 percent of the general population said they felt that way. Seventy-four percent of those 'Washington elites' surveyed said the economic downturn has hurt them less than most Americans.

Sixty-five percent of the general population views Social Security as “very important,” compared with only 41 percent of Washington elites. The same goes for immigration — 53 percent of the general public says it’s very important, compared with 36 percent of Washington elites — and family values — 62 percent versus 23 percent, respectively.

Taxes are another issue where Washington does not appear to have its finger on the pulse of the country. Fifty-three percent of the general public ranked taxes as a “very important” issue, while 37 percent of elites said the same.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is viewed favorably by 45 percent of Washington elites but by only 23 percent of the rest of the country. When asked which party they would vote for if November’s midterm election were held today, the general population is split among Democrats and Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent. Washington elites however, chose Democrats by 53 percent to 26 percent for Republicans.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Washington DC, the home of the imperial palaces of our rulers, is living large on taxpayers money and enjoying doing so. Therefore it isn't surprising that the lords and ladies that inhabit our nation's capital-of-consumption have different views than the rest of the reality-based Americans out of DC.

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.

President Barack Obama raised $86 million last quarter in fundraising- and over 40% of that was from bundlers. Twenty-seven big-donor bundlers each collected more than $500,000 in contributions- the list of these donors demonstrates that Obama finds most of his support with celebrities and the well-connected. Another 200 people scooped up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each in contributions for the president, collectively amounting to at least $35 million, and these ranks are filled with lawyers and lobbyists.

You see, the Democrat Party has increasingly become a divided party- super rich politically connected elites who have already made their wealth, and those who they want to control. It is a party of elites who deliver goods to others and others who receive goods from elites- the modern day Democratic Party has become exactly the sort of thing that our nation rebelled against.

This probably explains why the 'Tea-Party' movement has exploded and is marked by symbols and discussions of our founding- the direction that the Democratic Party has lurched under Obama and Pelosi and the other liberal Democrats is a direction that goes directly against the traditional nature of our nation and attacks everything that our nation was born into.

The modern-day Democratic Party seeks to rule over us as lords and nobility- for our own good, we are told. But they are not lords and nobility- those don't exist in America- and so they need to take this following advice from Billy Hollis in his post Eat my peas? Screw you, Obama – I’m not a child for you to raise:

• We need to be responsible for our own retirement. We don’t need to be treated like children who don’t understand the value of money, can’t see the future, and don’t have the self-discipline to save.
• We need to be responsible for our own healthcare. We don’t need to be treated like children who must be told what to eat, when to exercise, and what treatment they are to get when they are sick, without any thought to how to pay for it.
• We need to be responsible for our own businesses. The vast majority of business owners are adult enough to know what safety precautions to take, and what accounting standards to use. The small minority that doesn't understand safety should have their butts sued off and lose their businesses when they are negligent. The tiny minority that commits accounting fraud should be put in prison.
• We need to be responsible for our property. That starts with allowing us to keep our own money, and spend it as we like. It also implies some stability that is not currently in evidence, so that we don’t lose huge sums in real estate and stock investments because of governmental incompetence and cronyism with the executives of large companies.
• We need to be more responsible for our own safety. Sure, there’s always a need for law enforcement, but it can’t be the first resort for personal safety. Any law enforcement that could do that would be indistinguishable from a police state. Therefore, we need the right to buy, possess, and use the weapons that provide that safety.
• We need to be responsible for raising our own children. We need to have more influence over their education, and we particularly need to stop wasting our time reversing the indoctrination they suffer at the hands of the educational bureaucracy.
• We need to be responsible for treating other people appropriately. If we are stupid or obnoxious in our treatment of others, we need to suffer social consequences, not legal ones.

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong writes::

The heavy criticism of the African elite in relation to Africa’s progress is that they are the frontline directors of progress and, as intellectuals, are the main players of development ideas for progress. They should be questioned about Africa’s development troubles. Whether they are playing with ideas or directing development, the elites should be informed by African values first. Because of their education system or their own inability to think within their values first, especially in policy-making, African elites have projected “debilitating intellectual incoherence” in tackling the continent’s development. They are skewed, more or less, towards talking Western values or thinking of Western values when tackling Africa’s progress.

When I was in college, the toughest class that I had was a class called Political Economy. The reason why I had such a difficult time with this class is because I opposed on a moral and intellectual level everything that it taught- it taught how to use the power of the state to guide and control companies. We learned all of the great ways and reasons for unelected bureaucrats and corrupt elected officials to deny freedoms and choices to individuals and businesses and use the power of threats of force to create an economy that protects and rewards those with political connections. Oh, of course the class never stated these aims, but they were the aims of the class regardless, and at the end of the year, the real aims of the class were revealed when we were asked for our final exam to write an essay detailing one political system that could best guide and shape an economy that was fair for everyone; I wrote an essay on the beauties and joys of the most brutally oppressive and corrupt and controlling communist system of government, and earned a 4.0 for the class.

Under Democrats like President Barack Obama, Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Congressman Gary Peters, our nation is fully embracing a 'Political Economy', which is an economy that is ruled over and controlled by those connected to the political process. In this sort of economy, those industries that political elites do not like or understand are to be taxed and controlled and driven out of business, and those companies that donate to the correct political elites are to be rewarded and given tax breaks. It is an economy where the guiding principle is not how efficiently can a company or industry produce a good that is most valued by citizens making free choices, but rather the guiding principle for these Democratic elites is whether or not you donated money to them to help them get in office and gain more power and wealth. It is only the right-wing nuts and crazy tea-party people that restrict these people from becoming completely corrupt; even still, the evidence is piling up that the best way to become wealthy in our nation is to get a job as a low-paying Congressman and than retire a millionaire several terms later (the millions all being earned 'under the table'), or donate to these sort of Congressman so that your company can be given loopholes and tax breaks so that you pay nothing in taxes.

Let us to perfectly frank here- there is little to no money to be made by supporting Republicans or Tea Party candidates- they push for limited government and free choices. Even the whole 'George Bush took us to war in Iraq to reward his oil buddies' rhetoric only reveals that those uttering that rhetoric have no idea what they are talking about since most of the oil contracts in Iraq went to non-US companies. Nope- the real money to be made is in donating to and supporting Democrats, who will then give you waivers for healthcare or create tax breaks so that you pay no taxes.

A great example of what I am writing about is GE. General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010, in spite of the rest of the nation struggling. The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, with $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States. The United Stats has a progressive corporate tax rate that punishes companies that are increasingly successful with higher and higher taxes, and for companies making more than $18 million, the corporate tax rate is 35%. So, one could reasonably assume that GE's tax bill in 2010 was $1.785 billion, but they would be wrong.

You see, GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama. GE-owned NBC recently joined Hollywood in inserting environmentally-friendly messaging into network programming. Furthermore, NBC promotes two annual campaigns — “Green Week” and “Earth Week” — that focus on environmentalism. GE recently found a loophole and became the biggest benefactor of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, a federal bailout initiative. Over $192 million was recently given to GE in government-sponsored projects. GE has created a new “joint venture” called Greenhouse Gas Services (GGS).  GGS invests in and seeks to manage greenhouse gas credits, and without the government stepping in to restrict greenhouse gases, GGS cannot turn a profit.

After doing all of these things, the reward is that GE does not pay any taxes. Yep, zero. GE not only didn't pay over a billion in taxes this year as you'd assume, but it actually was given an additional tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Koch brothers eat your heart out! That's how you game the system and screw American tax payers- not be supporting limited government, libertarian, freedom of choice, and constitutional powers, but by backing good old-fashioned done-a-hundred times crony capitalism and government corruption of power.

Oh, and no, this never happened under George W Bush, and George W Bush hasn't been our President for several years either, so I doubt even deranged leftist liberals can pin it on him.

UPDATE: Today my youngest kid was watched, fascinated, as my wife smoothed cold cream on to her face. 'Why do you do that, mommy?' he asked. 'To make myself beautiful,' my wife said, and then began removing the cream with a tissue. My kid watched for a second and then said 'What's the matter mommy, are you giving up?'

UPDATE II: Powerlineblog has a powerful post that is perhaps even better than mine- I suggest you all go read John's post Free Enterprise vs. National Socialism:

GE strikes us as a "modern" company, in that its business strategy consists largely of exercising political influence. In truth, however, the concept is not new: the virtual merger of Big Government and Big Business has long been a hallmark of national socialism.

One can hardly resist comparing GE with another American company--one that has steadily increased its American workforce, rather than cutting it. One that has never gone to the federal government for a bailout. One that lobbies out of self-defense, as all companies do, but not to secure special privileges for itself at the taxpayers' expense. One that pays lots of taxes. One that not only advocates free enterprise, but lives by it, competing for business with superior products and services.

A number of companies would fit that description, but I have in mind Koch Industries. Koch is smaller than GE, although not radically so--$100 billion in revenues vs. $150 billion--but it pays a whole lot more in taxes. One might think that a company like Koch would be honored and respected compared with a company like GE, but that is not the case--not on the left, anyway. On the contrary, it is Koch's very integrity that makes it public enemy number one for the Democratic Party.

So the questions are posed rather starkly. Which company should Americans respect, the company that lays off more and more Americans, or the one that keeps hiring them? The company that dodges taxes, or the one that pays them? The company that makes money by partnering with government to force uneconomic products on an unwilling public, or the one that sells top-notch products that consumers want, without any compulsion from Washington? The company that stands for a Big Business-Big Government partnership, or the one that stubbornly defends, and practices, free enterprise?

UPDATE III: Koch Industries is clearly the good guy and GE is clearly the bad guy if you look at the world through the lens of life, liberty, and property protection, and yet as is typical now of the bizzaro world of the left, right is wrong and wrong is right. Today via memeorandum I saw two more posts attempt to make light dark- Adam Sewer at the 'American' Prospect takes a couple drive-by shots at David Koch or Politico's The battle to define Charles and David Koch which tries to redefine good as bad.

A a recent article that Charles Moore wrote, I think he put his finger on exactly what is going on today- the success and advance of the twin threats of fear and doubt. Moore, who is a British journalist and former editor of The Daily Telegraph, in an article about Margaret Thatcher, wrote that after the long boom and success of capitalism and free market economics that "the worm of doubt entered the system":

You borrowed all the money needed for the price of a house. This made you, in your mind, though not in full fact, an owner. Because the value of the house was rising, it also made you, again in your mind, richer. The bank, which actually owned the house, found clever ways of mixing and selling on the loans it had granted so that it, too, felt richer. Governments, happy at rising revenues, thought it was their business to make sure that when the symptoms of high risk began to present themselves, they were suppressed.... (then) the roof fell in... (and now) when people now hear words like globalization or capitalism... they feel slightly sick.

Free market economics and capitalism did not lead our nation to failure- rather, during its wild success at making millions around the world more prosperous over the past centuries, communism and socialism and fascism latched on to it, sucking from its prosperity to feed its sick aims like parasites, and over time, many smart people began to become confused and unable to see the parasites from the concepts that they latched on.

Where free markets and capitalism created wealth and encouraged personal responsibility, governments and elites put in place rules and regulations which weakened the foundations of the system, subsidized risky behavior such as sub-prime mortgages and leveraging investments, and gave out handouts to favored industries and distorted the market by doing so. When banks, businesses, and corporations operated in a free market of capitalism, they could succeed or fail based on their own efforts and innovation; but in the new markets, which were no longer capitalistic or free, government subsidies and spending and lobbying and regulation and rules determined whether or not a business, corporation, or bank was successful or failed. And although this was no longer capitalism or free markets, but rather markets once free now twisted to the aims of elites and socialists and communists and fascists, many smart people became critical of the markets or capitalism because of the failures of the government bureaucrats who were twisting and corrupting the system.

And then the parasites of leftism began to weaken and kill the free market and capitalism, and the people cried out 'capitalism and free markets are failing us'- when it wasn't the free markets and capitalism that failed, but rather the people who failed the system.

They were led to this failure by fear and doubt- they did not believe in the hand of the God and the freedom of individuals and life, liberty, and the protection of private property.

The people (or The People, as leftists call them) feared that although they were becoming prosperous and their lives were rapidly improving, they were somehow falling behind others who were advancing more rapidly. Rather than looking at why they were successful in the free market capitalism- because of their hard work, innovation, and yes, luck- they instead demanded government policies to hold back others and help out themselves, corrupting the very system that had brought them so far. They doubted that if people were free and made free decisions, they would make 'the right decisions'- that is, the decisions that they would make if they controlled the other people and had power over them (their definition of 'right decisions').

Rather than just letting go and trusting that the unseen hand of God, trusting to the thousands and millions of individual decisions, and working to ensure that private property rights are strengthened and respected, they doubted that this giant experiment of capitalism and a free market would work, and feared that they would somehow fall behind others in material wealth if they didn't vote for and support people who promised to corrupt the system and abuse the system and circumvent the system. Many people trusted and believed in the power of men to control other men and redistribute property to other men, and in so doing rejected free markets and capitalism.

Fear and doubt came to the people's mind every time there was a recession, or even during periods when great wealth was created but wasn't immediately distributed evenly. The people reacted to the Great Depression by doubting that the free market would correct (as it had done in the 1920's and dozens of times before in the 1800's) and feared that he return to prosperity wouldn't come fast enough- and so they worked to destroy the system, corrupt the system, and make the market less free- and the results were a slight recession during into a decade long destruction of wealth.

And today, government policies and regulations and taxes and laws which corrupted the free market and corroded private property rights have let the worm of doubt creep once more into the people's minds, and in their fear that maybe they won't get to loot the dying Republic of its wealth they vote for Democrats who promise to manage the downfall and distribute the ever-decreasing wealth in the system to their supporters and voters and friends.

To return to success and advance again as a nation in wealth and happiness, we must reject doubt of the free market system and capitalism and trust the people- we need to trust and believe again that the thousands of decisions of free people will create more wealth and make more people happy, and reject those who suggest that having a smaller number of elites make those decisions for us is better. We need to let go of our fear that if we don't control the market and the system that you'll lose out, and instead work hard, innovate, save your money, and invest wisely.

UPDATE 12/7/11: President Obama delivered a major speech today on the economy, in which he expressed his doubt that the capitalist system could continue to provide wealth and prosperity for many and work to make society more equal, and from this place of fear he instead wants to trust himself and his fellow men to run a better system that will somehow do a better job of creating wealth and distributing it than having free people make free decisions.

Via memeorandum, in his Remarks by the President on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas, we read the following fear and doubt from US President Barack Obama, one-term Democrat. These are selections from the speech- (you can read the whole thing yourself here if you want):

My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried -- no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success -- from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.

In this passage, Obama communicates to us that his parents believed in capitalism and free markets and personal responsibility and liberty and protection of property. And furthermore, Obama knows that this system worked. But yet, he has this nagging doubt and fear...

But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

He doesn't BELIEVE in capitalism. He has no faith in people, freedom, liberty, and rights. It's clear he doesn't have any hope that people will make the 'right decisions' (the decisions he would make) and he wants to therefore control other people. He continues:

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.

And it is around here that we get to the heart of the matter- in the last quarter of his speech, after ripping on capitalism and freedom for 3/4's of the speech, that we finally here what he wants to do...

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want.

We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools. Of course, those productive investments cost money. They’re not free. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

So, in summary, here is Obama's alternative to free markets and capitalism- give him more power. Give him the power and authority to tell employers what to pay their employees, give him the power and authority to combine big government with big business and big labor (ie, fascism), give him and his cronies the power to give money to favored constituent groups to fund pet projects of vanity (palaces, statues, etc), and the power to demand that all of these decisions are paid for by someone else who does not want to pay for it- to use the power of guns to the head to make people give up cash to Obama and his people to feed their wrong ideas about the power of men to control others for their benefit.

Obama is wrong. He needs to be defeated- not just politically, but his ideas and beliefs need to be rejected by all good people and good citizens and patriots and he and his policies need to be forever rejected in decent society. We must instead look to capitalism and freedom and liberty and property protection to our future, and not look backward to the sort of tyranny that Obama is proposing.

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong responds to Y. Fredua-Kwateng's question "Are you an internalist or externalist? "...there is no internalist or externalist in the Ghana/African development process debate, there is the confused African elite not trying to grasp all the factors that have contributed to Africa's so-called "agonies," including the long-running exclusion of deeper implications of the African culture in both local and international development planning or thinking in Africa's development process.The Internalists came about because for uncritically long time African elites, for their own benefits against the peoples upkeep, which demonstrated their weaknesses, had blamed the continent's problems on external factors alone without looking at the internal factors that have also contributed to the continent's problems. "Imperialism, Down with Imperialism," said the largely the Externalists' slogans of the 1960s against today's Internalists rantings such as the Dr. George Ayittey-minted "African Solutions for African Problems," which opened up the African development process debate, both locally and internationally, by incorporating the Interenalists' stance. The Internalists are not saying Ghanaians/Africans should separate the internal factors such as predatory elites that have slowed down Africa's progress from the external forces such as the impact of colonialism; what they are saying is that in discussing Africa's problems we have to take note of the internal factors too so as to have fuller understanding of the continent's problems, especially in making policies. This is what South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki is saying in his "African Renaissance" project, and other thinkers such as Dr. George Ayittey, of American University in Washington D.C., and myself are advocatng...",GhanaWeb.

In an address (see video) to The House Committee on International Relations George Ayittey stated that:

Africa's experience shows that a corrupt government is incapable of efficient economic management and eliciting the sacrifices necessary for the development effort. A corrupt African government cannot attract foreign investment or spur domestic investment. Like the colonial state, the predatory African state is also
extractive. Under colonialism, Africa's resources and wealth were plundered for the development of metropolitan European countries. Today the tiny, parasitic ruling elites use their governing authority to exploit and extract resources from the productive members of the society. These resources are then spent lavishly by the elites on themselves or siphoned out of Africa.

Brill's overview of George Ayittey's Indigenous African Institutions-2nd edition:

Since the publication of the first edition of Indigenous African Institutions in 1992, Africa has undergone a substantial change. Still, much mythology and misconception enshroud Africa and its people. An enduring myth claims that pre-colonial Africa had no viable institutions. This book is an attempt to provide a better, modern understanding of Africa and its people – not for cultural rehabilitation or romanticism but for practical reasons.
Traditional or indigenous Africa has not vanished; it is still the home of the real people of Africa – the peasant majority, who produce Africa’s real wealth using ancient institutions and practices. Kings, chiefs, and village markets still exist in Africa.
The object of development is to improve the lot of the peasants – not the pockets of Africa’s ruling elites – and it starts from the “bottom up” – not from the “top-down.” What is there at the bottom are the peasants, their institutions, practices, and economic ways of life. Africa cannot be developed by ignoring its traditional sector, nor can this sector be developed without understanding how it works. Africa’s salvation, then, lies in returning to its roots and building upon its own indigenous institutions. This ethos is captured by such phrases as “sankofa” by the Asante, “majimbo” in Swahili, and the mantra, “African Renaissance,” touted by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa.
Botswana is the only African country that built upon its own indigenous institutions and prospered. Moreover, it was the same indigenous institutions African peasants utilized to engineer what historians call, “The Golden Age of Peasant Prosperity, 1880-1950.” In recent times, pro-democracy activists revived and modernized an indigenous African institution (the village meeting) into a “sovereign national conference” and used it as a vehicle to craft a new political dispensation for Benin, Cape Verde Islands, South Africa and Zambia – in the same way as the United Nations used a loya jirga, an ancient tribal democratic institution, to chart a new political order for Afghanistan in 2002. Similarly, the same indigenous African institutions can also be used to craft uniquely “African solutions to African problems.” Thus, the blueprint for Africa’s economic rejuvenation can be found in its on backyard; that is, its own indigenous institutions. Tragically, African leaders, elites and their Western development partners have seldom looked there.

Moeletsi Mbeki writes(pdf) "...When the colonies in Africa and Asia became independent, their political leaders were faced with two main challenges: achieving domestic political stability and transforming their economies from the production of raw materials to industrial production...At the root of Africa’s problems is ruling political elites that have misused the economic surplus generated by the African continent over the last 40 years. African political elites have exploited their position in order to
■ bolster their standard of living to Western levels,
■ undertake loss-making industrialisation projects that were not supported by the necessary technical,managerial, and educational development, and
■ transfer vast amounts of money from agriculture and mineral extraction to overseas private bank accounts, while borrowing vast amounts from developed countries.What were the results of those predatory policies? According to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which have become Africa’s fairy godparents, Africans are poor and getting poorer..."
Via Global Growth Org

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong writes:

Africa has seen all kinds of development paradigms that have never fully factored in her rich values and experiences, unlike places like Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia. Why should Africa be made to go through all these non-African-created development paradigms? Because the Western world thought that Africans are not developed, or more appropriately, not "civilized," and that they could replicate their values and experiences in Africa in their self-imposed "civilizing mission." They did this without factoring in Africa's values and experiences because they wanted to play God by re-creating Africans in their development image...Still, in terms of Africa's development progress, almost all the foreign development paradigms are not bad. The problems have been how to mix Africa's environment with these development paradigms so as to facilitate a better sustainable development, as advocates of the modernization theory say. This inability of African elites to creatively mix their values and experiences with their colonial legacies and the enabling aspects of the global development values, have not only seen Western governments continue largely with the modernization theory but also international development agencies' programs that come in the form of foreign development aid.

Over the last several days, I have been battling with liberals on the internet who want to score political points with the awful tragedy in Arizona. I have been trolling on many different sites, commenting and battling comments on my comments, trying to communicate that it is wrong to try to politicize this awful tragedy- that it was not a conservative who committed it, that it wasn't Sarah Palin, that it wasn't tea party people, etc. Today, I finally felt that the conversation was changing and that those who had made those arguments had lost credibility and respect such that they would cease and desist with using the killings of innocent people to engage in character assassinations of people they don't agree with politically, and then I read the following article in Slate from Jacob Weisberg that was published today.

In The Tea Party and the Tucson Tragedy: How anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism made the Giffords shooting more likely Weisberg writes:

There's something offensive, as well as pointless, about the politically charged inquiry into what might have been swirling inside the head of Jared Loughner. We hear that the accused shooter read The Communist Manifesto and liked flag-burning videos—good news for the right. Wait—he was a devotee of Ayn Rand and favored the gold standard, so he was a right-winger after all. Some assassinations embody an ideology, however twisted. Based on what we know so far, the Tucson killings look like more like politically tinged schizophrenia.

Let's start with this paragraph. Weisberg first establishes that Loughner has a lot of typical liberal views, such as his belief in wealth redistribution and  supporting free speech over honoring the American flag, to which I could add that the sicko also bought other views associated with liberals like the 9/11 Truther argument and opposition to drug control, and we should probably add to that list that in high school he was characterized as being very much liberal, and apparently enthusiastically supported Democrat Obama in the 2008 election.

But then Weisberg submits as evidence that the sicko was 'right wing' that he read Ayn Rand and favored the gold standard. Is that indeed evidence of 'right-wing' views- the wringings of a libertarian who disliked the traditional social structure and supported abortion? And apparently the nutjob shooter's preference for a gold standard wasn't because he wanted a more stable and solid fiscal system, but was because he thought that elites in the government (likely right-wing elites) really controlled the monetary supply in our nation and he wanted to fight against that. The evidence is not very strong at all that the nutjob was a conservative- the evidence that he is a liberal is considerably stronger. But for now I'm going to be nice and just go with what he registered as and call him an 'Independent'. Let's continue with the article that Slate published...

It is appropriate, however, to consider what was swirling outside Loughner's head. To call his crime an attempted assassination is to acknowledge that it appears to have had a political and not merely a personal context. That context wasn't Islamic radicalism, Puerto Rican independence, or anarcho-syndicalism. It was the anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism that flourishes in the dry and angry climate of Arizona. Extremist shouters didn't program Loughner, in some mechanistic way, to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. But the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did.

Here is where the utter derangement of liberal bloggers like Weisberg is demonstrated. Weisberg says that since what was going on inside Loughner's head wasn't important (which I disagree with), we should instead blame what was going on inside of his head. To do so though would be beyond foolish though, because by all accounts, Loughberg was increasingly withdrawing from the world around him (the world that Weisberg characterizes as increasingly conservative) and was focusing more on his dreaming and sleeping and philosophizing and smoking pot. As he became increasingly isolated and along and unconnected to the world around him, the world around him returned to conservative values- based on that information, you could definitively assert that it was not the increasingly conservative views of Arizona that affected him, but rather his past liberal views and the liberal environment of 2006-2009 that shaped and formed him and then left him to float away and disconnect from a world that went conservative in 2010. Let's continue with the article though, since this liberal blogger just gets more and more wrong with each statement that he writes...

At the core of the far right's culpability is its ongoing attack on the legitimacy of U.S. government—a venomous campaign not so different from the backdrop to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Then it was focused on "government bureaucrats" and the ATF. This time it has been more about Obama's birth certificate and health care reform. In either case, it expresses the dangerous idea that the federal government lacks valid authority. It is this, rather than violent rhetoric per se, that is the most dangerous aspect of right-wing extremism.

Often the two issues are blurred together, because if government is illegitimate, rebellion is an appropriate response (hence the Colonial costumes). Conservative entertainers like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like to titillate their audiences with hints of justified violence, including frequent reminders that they are armed and dangerous. Palin went so far as to put a target on someone who subsequently got shot. Whether or not the man who fired the gun was inspired by Palin isn't the point. The point is that you shouldn't paint targets on people, even in metaphor, or jest.

Did you all follow the logic for this liberal? Oklahoma bombing to birth certificate to climate of violence to assassination of Congresswomen? Really? That's what he is committing to? I would contend that he is simply grabbing unrelated examples that he cherry-picks from history to prove his point, rather than evidence pointing him towards a conclusion.

On a related note, I play a game with my US history students where I ask them to time-travel back to 1776 and pick which side of the US Revolution they would be on- the Colonists or the British. Myself, seeing how much I love liberty and freedom, I'd side with the Colonists. Weisberg and other liberals though would likely side with the British- look at how he constructed his argument above- he thinks that rebelling against government is an illegitimate response to misuse of government power and that the Colonists were examples of this. He's a Loyalist! I'd suggest tar and feathering the guy if it wasn't now frowned on to joke about violence.

The next parts of his editorial are simply reasons why the government should take our guns from us- we'll skip over that for now and simply go to his conclusion-

Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening. It was in criticizing writers on his own side for their naivete about communism that George Orwell wrote, "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot." Today it is the right that amuses itself with violent chat and proclaims an injured innocence when its flammable words blow up.

Again, in his editorial that was published by Slate he didn't write any even slightly convincing arguments that connects the Tucson tragedy with anything related to conservative politics, the tea party, the right-wing, or anything related to those. Orwell's quote is a great one to bring up here, because much of what left-wing Weisburg wrote was simply baseless accusations that sounded good (ie, fire) being thrown around by someone who don't even have a clue what they are writing about.

Ali A. Mazrui writes

Institutions were inaugurated without reference to cultural compatibilities, and new processes were introduced without respect for continuities. Ancestral standards of property, propriety and legitimacy were ignored.When writing up a new constitution for African countries, the elites would ask themselves: “How does the US House of Representatives structure its agenda?”; “How do the Swiss cantons handle their referendum?”; Or even wonder how the Canadian federation would handle such an issue.On the other hand, these elites almost never asked, “How did the Banyoro, the Wolof, the Igbo or the Kikuyu govern themselves before colonisation?” In the words of Irish philosopher, Edmund Burke’s words: “People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.”

via Which Way Nigeria

As a good patriot, today I am celebrating the 4th of July like every American should- displaying my patriotism with flags and fireworks, improving my property by mowing my lawn and trimming the bushes, enhancing the quality of my life by eating great food and spending time with my family, and remembering my liberty by re-reading our founding documents and doing what I want free from government control. It doesn't matter to me what the elites who increasingly rule over me think- I'm going to eat a nice juicy hamburger made with real butter and cheese in it, sit on a chair and watch a ball game for a bit, and maybe even smoke a cigar. The fireworks I'll light off will be loud and bright and I'm not entirely sure if they are legal, if one of my kids gets a skinned knee from playing a game of touch football I'll take care of it, and we'll drive to go see our parents in our biggest SUV. I'm going to live the dream of a free man on this 4th of July and savor in the freedoms that are under continual assault by elites from the beginning of time until today.

If you haven't done so already, make sure you take a minute of your time today to reflect and read the Declaration of Independence, and don't feel silly about reading it before the BBQ or as the bedtime story for your kids tonight.

In particular, read and think about the first part of it:

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. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

Those lines mean something, to me, to conservatives, to Republicans, and to America, and we should always remember how revolutionary those ideas are, how incredible it is to actually believe them, and how much of a leap of faith you must make to follow them. You really need to BELIEVE in those ideas- not just say them and not just work to put policies in place to govern our nation, but believe in your heart of hearts in those words that lay out truth of the human condition and the nature of government.

Those ideas needed to be fought for back in 1776, and our Founding Fathers did so in the Revolutionary War- but the ideas in the Declaration of Independence still need to be fought for today and every day, because it is the nature of tyranny to slowly strip away life, liberty, and property and to enlarge the government so that it unaccountable and tyrannical. Today, we have watched our liberties been rationalized away by our leaders, our legislators spend us into servitude and seize our own property to do so, our courts regularly mock the Constitution and believe it to be a dead thing, and especially lately, unimaginable tyranny and government control of our day-to-day lives.

You and I will always been free and independent- no government can take that away from us- but every day, our free and independent condition is lessened- with each new dollar taken from us, with each new exception to our rights made, with each life lessened, and with each regulation passed. As a nation, we are dishonoring our Founding Fathers and what they fought for and letting down our children, who will not get to grow up in a nation based on life, liberty, and property, but instead will be raised in increasing tyranny and rule of man.

So on this Independence Day, rededicate yourself to our founding ideas, enjoy your life, liberty, and property, and be sure that you spend some time reading the Founding Documents to your friends, family, and children. Happy Independence Day 2011!

This year I'm getting off to kind of a slow start- for example, just yesterday I got my new Franklin planner pages and figured out what is going on for this month and this year. This post is another example- my obligatory 'best of' post. 2011 was a good year for my blog- readership is way up and lots of radio and newspaper interviews were set up- and there were a lot of great posts from which to choose from, so I basically just went with the numbers. Some of you are new regular readers and might have missed these, and my usual readers will also enjoy reading some of these posts again. So here you go, the Best Posts of A Conservative Teacher 2011:

How I Helped Mary Beth Hicks Write her Book 'Don't Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid'

Many of you know that I have been interviewed by newspapers (Detroit News) and by major radio shows (Larry Eldar Show) and some of you have even tuned in to hear me occasionally co-host a radio program (Total Education Hour), but it may surprise you all to know that I have also been a part of a major best-selling book- Don't Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left's Assault on Our Families, Faith, and Freedom by Mary Beth Hicks...

The rest of the post is about how I helped out Mary Beth Hicks- although again, I did very little other than nudge her in a direction. You really all should pick up her book- it's great.

Yulia Tymoshenko, former PM of Ukraine, is Now in Prison for Political Differences

For some reason, my blog has been getting very popular in Ukraine recently- after the US, the second largest source of readers of my blog is coming from Ukraine over the past month, and all-time, Ukraine is the 5th biggest nation of readers of my blog. Why Ukraine? Perhaps it stems from a post I wrote in January 15, 2010 supporting Yulia Tymoshenko for President of Ukraine...

The rest of the post is about Mrs. Tymoshenko, who is a pro-democracy former businesswomen who rejected the communist approach of keeping the masses poor while the elites proposer, so the elites manipulated the voting processes and the masses to defeat her, and then they turned around and imprisoned her and likely will kill her while she is in prison.

Evaluating the Leadership of Obama and Romney Using Howard Putnam's Principles of Leadership

...Yesterday I heard some more about leadership from Howard Putnam at the Get Motivated Business Seminar that was held in Auburn Hills (see my post Get Motivated Business Seminar Review: Powell, Giuliani, Cosby, Putnam, Walsh, and More! for my full review). Mr. Putnam rose through the ranks at Southwest Airlines to become CEO of the company, where he led it to great profitability and success. According to Putnam, there are several principles of leadership. Let's look at each one, and then evaluate whether Obama, Romney, or I follow these rules on how to be an effective leader:...

The rest of the post looks at Obama and Romney and evaluates their leadership in light of the principles that Putnam laid out.

America will Realign Towards the Tea Party in 2012; Write it Down in Stone

...In my post NYT's Douthat is Wrong: Realigning Elections Exist and One is Coming I countered an argument that was advanced by the New York Times Ross Douthat where he claimed that Harvard Professor V.O. Key's theory on realigning elections was wrong. Douthat thought that 2008 was supposed to the be realigning election, and now that we can all see that it was not, he has become disillusioned with the theory that Key advanced in his iconic essay “A Theory of Critical Elections” and now thinks that elections that change America's direction are no longer possible. But he is wrong. In my post Why 2008 Was Not a Historic or Realigning Election (written in 2009) I addressed Key's theory of realigning elections and looked back on the election of 2008 and looked forward to 2012....

This post is one of my more educated posts- I pull from political science and pundits and election data to project 2012 as a re-aligning election that will be dominated by the Tea Party (in Congress).

USA Today Is Wrong- 58.5% of Americans Have Jobs, not 45.4% as Reported

...But I have some issues with this data. According to my own analysis of the information provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing the employment-population ratio from 1988 to 2011 (seasonally adjusted), the number of people employed in our nation is holding steady at a new-normal post-Obama post-recovery number of 58.5%...

This post has been updated from time to time- and in spite of the supposed 'recoveries', the number of employed in our nation has actually gone down. Go to the post and you can link to the numbers yourself and see just what the 'new normal' of employed is under Obama and the Democrats.

Increase the Number of Representatives in the House? An Argument in Favor.

...In my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong I wrote that "At one time, I thought the 1930's were at the root of all that is wrong about America, and compiled a list of all of the laws and taxes and liberal decisions passed during that time." That post contained a list of all of those bad laws that came out of that time of fascism and communism and war and depression and collapsing social values. But one law that I left off that list was the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which established a permanent method for apportioning a now constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives according to each census, essentially capping the number of Representatives at 435...

This post goes on to argue in favor of increasing the number of Representatives in the US House. Yeah, if I were in charge we'd move past the cartoonish arguments that Republicans and Democrats are currently having in the political world and really start getting to the root of bringing our nation back towards conservative principles. Check out this post and get educated.

The Story of a Bear named 'Bearack Obama' and How Liberal Policies Are Affecting His Brother Bears Too

...According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there are even reports of a black bear that has recently taken to sitting every day at the picnic table, apparently waiting to be fed. He also has refused to dig out his own winter den, forcing government employees to do so. Although the bear once was self-sufficient, he now begs for a handout every day from our generous government, who provides him with food and a home because those rich fat cats who make a profit deserve to suffer or something or other. Because the bear was once a healthy and prosperous bear but now is just a lazy welfare case of a bear, the local residents have taken to calling him Bearack Obama...

This post is amusing, but it was based on a true story.

Abolish the Department of Education- What Does the Data Suggest?

...the massive spending in education at the federal level was largely a waste of money and did nothing to improve our test scores.... this group would argue that all of the spending done at the federal level is having little to no effect on test scores for students because the money is being gobbled up by bureaucrats in Washington who are far removed from the real educating of students at the local level. They would suggest spending less amounts on education at the federal level and seeing what might happen- perhaps test scores would remain flat as they have done for over 30 years, but if this happens than our nation could save that $77 billion dollars/year and use it in other areas where it might be needed or not use it at all and have our government run a balanced budget....

This post considers two arguments in favor of the Department of Education- you'll have to read the full post to find out what the data suggests regarding this federal agency.

Friedrich von Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom that (via wikipedia's entry, which serves my purposes here) centralized planning is inherently undemocratic, because it requires "that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people." The power of these minorities to act by taking money or property in pursuit of centralized goals destroys the Rule of Law and individual freedoms, making the individual "more than ever become a mere means, to be used by the authority in the service of such abstractions as the 'social welfare' or the 'good of the community'" In both socialism and nazism he saw "the increasing veneration (of) the state, the admiration of power, and of bigness for bigness' sake, the enthusiasm for "organization" of everything (we now call it "planning") and that inability to leave anything to the simple power of organic growth."

President Obama increasingly uses the state to plan out society, acting in an increasingly autocratic way, imposing his will and the will of his small minority of elites on the people who is supposed to be serving. In his own words he states this as his goal- he says “I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer” as he claimed new powers for himself in making recess appointments while Congress was not in recess; he has already explained that “where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves,”; the co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, even said that "Obama would be ready to rule on day one." President Obama sees his role in our political system as our ruler; and if he is the ruler that makes us his serfs and slaves.

And it is not just his words which indict him as an autocratic tyrant who wishes to make us his serfs- it is his policies as well. Increasingly he is centralizing the distribution of wealth under his personal authority- turning TARP into a slush fund from which he can bail out favored industries; using stimulus funds to reward favored industries and give loans to his pet projects; and spending through the general budgets massive amounts of funds that are poorly tracked and accounted for. And his policies almost always involve transferring wealth from those who he personally does not like- the rich, oil companies, health care companies, banks, people who live in suburbs- to those people who he favors, by means of policies such as higher tax rates, more progressive tax rates, higher license and permit fees, increasingly regulation, pressure through the media, or cap and trade schemes.

President and his supporters in the media and in various blogs de-humanize people and their lives, arguing that the time they spend laboring in corporations makes them lesser, that the corporations and companies that they invest their time and effort in are 'not people', and that those people in the heartland of America are lesser people as well- racist, uneducated, unenlightened, and clinging to their guns and false religion.

Liberals and progressives cannot refute this argument- their solution to every problem facing society is 'more government', as if government can do only right and never wrong through its actions and inactions. The solution for Obama and Democrats is always to do more- to control people more, to take away more of their wealth and property, and to restrict their actions more. Their supporters in Occupy Wall Street rail against bailouts while Democrats and President Obama bails out banks, auto companies, green industry, and any other failing enterprises, unwilling to let the market act in creating more efficiency of resources and effort. He pushes for bigger and bigger industries, centralized under increasingly smaller cartels- like health-care exchanges or regulations like Dodd-Frank.

Troll through liberal and progressive blogs, and you will see this is the case- they argue for more control of your life, liberty, and property by smaller and smaller numbers of people who act in increasingly autocratic and undemocratic ways.

Throughout history, there have been two groups largely battling it out for control of society- those people who believe that they are better than you and should make decisions regarding your property and life and choices, and those people who believe that they are no better than anyone else and shouldn't make decisions for others regarding their property, life, and choices. Today, the Democratic Party is the party of control, judgement, elites, and Masters, and the Republican Party isn't- oh, I'll give you that it isn't the opposite, but it sure is a heck of lot better than the Democratic Party. And so your choice in 2012 becomes more clear- vote Democrat for Masters and Serfs, or Republican to block this vision.

Read The New Authoritarianism to see how this inspired my own take, and be sure to order and read your very own copy of the Road to Serfdom.

For some reason, my blog has been getting very popular in Ukraine recently- after the US, the second largest source of readers of my blog is coming from Ukraine over the past month, and all-time, Ukraine is the 5th biggest nation of readers of my blog. Why Ukraine?

Perhaps it stems from a post I wrote in January 15, 2010 supporting Yulia Tymoshenko for President of Ukraine. You see, I keep my eyes on a lot of different subjects (just in the last several weeks alone I have written In Praise of NASA's Curiosity Mission, About Black Friday and why Obama, Robert Frank, and Other Liberals are Wrong for Hating It, and about Teaching and Brain-Dead Liberal Students), and one of the nations that I've always been fascinated with is Ukraine. So during the 2010 Presidential Elections in Ukraine, I read about all the candidates (it was a three-way race- between then-current President Viktor Yushchenko, then-former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, and then-current Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko), and came out in support of Tymoshenko.

Tymoshenko ended up losing the race to Yankukovych. Via wikipedia, you can read what happened next:

...In the first round of the presidential election on 17 January 2010, Tymoshenko took second place with 25% of the vote and Yanukovych took first place with 35%. The two proceeded to the runoff round held on 7 February 2010 in which Yanukovych was elected President of Ukraine with 48.95% of the votes, Tymoshenko received 45.4% of the votes. Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc members immediately claimed that there was systematic and large-scale vote rigging in this run-off. However Tymoshenko herself did not issue a statement about the election until a live televised broadcast on 13 February 2010 in which she said that she would challenge the election result in court. Tymoshenko alleged widespread fraud (according to Tymoshenko, a million votes were invalid) and said Yanukovych was not legitimately elected.

...On 3 March 2010 the Ukrainian Parliament passed a motion of no confidence in the second Tymoshenko Government in which the cabinet was dismissed with 243 lawmakers voting in favour out of the 450 (207 against).... Tymoshenko resigned from the Prime Minister post on 4 March 2010....

...Ukraine's prosecutor's office re-opened on 12 May 2010 a 2004 criminal case against Tymoshenko on accusations she had tried to bribe Supreme Court judges.... Tymoshenko also claimed that she was told by "all the offices of the Prosecutor General's Office" that President Yanukovych had personally instructed the Prosecutor General's Office to find any grounds to prosecute her....

...On 15 December 2010 the General Prosecutor's Office instituted a criminal case against Tymoshenko, alleging that she misused funds received by Ukraine within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. She was officially charged on 20 December 2010. Tymoshenko denied the money had been spent on pensions and insisted it was still at the disposal of the environment ministry and called the investigation against her a witch-hunt....

...A third criminal case against Tymoshenko in connection with alleged abuse of power during the 2009 Russia–Ukraine gas dispute was opened on 10 April 2011.[215][216] This case was labelled "absurd" by Tymoshenko. On 24 May 2011 prosecutors charged her in connection with this (third criminal) case. She was not arrested....

...Tymoshenko's trial (she was charged in May 2011) over abuse of office over a natural gas imports contract signed with Russia in January 2009 started on 24 June 2011.... On 5 August 2011 Tymoshenko was arrested for 'ridiculing the court proceedings'... On 11 October 2011, the court found Tymoshenko guilty of abuse of power, sentenced her to seven years in jail, and ordered to pay the state $188 million. She was convicted for exceeding her powers as Prime Minister, by ordering Naftogaz to sign the gas deal with Russia in 2009.] The judge also banned her from seeking elected office for her period of imprisonment (disqualifying her from participation in the 2012 parliamentary and 2015 presidential elections)....

...A 2001 criminal case on state funds embezzlement and tax evasion charges against Tymoshenko was reopened in Ukraine on 24 October 2011. Since late October 2011 Ukrainian prosecutors are investigating whether Tymoshenko was involved in the murder of Yevhen Shcherban. With that Tymoshenko was under criminal investigation for ten criminal acts; prosecutors have claimed she had committed more criminal acts. On 4 November 2011 the Ukrainian tax police resumed four criminal cases against Tymoshenko. She was charged for these cases on 10 November 2011...

You can see for yourself exactly what is going on- Tymoshenko is a pro-democracy former businesswomen who rejects the communist approach of keeping the masses poor while the elites proposer, and the elites manipulated the voting processes and the masses to win, and then turned around and have imprisoned her and likely will kill her while she is in prison. She's one of the good guys and deserves our support. Under Yankukovych, the President of Ukraine has assumed more and more powers and has acted in an ever more autocratic manner, demonstrating that he intends to centralize more power, freedom, and property under his control and his allies control so that they can live good live while the people of Ukraine are poor and taken advantage of. Equally before the law, rule of law, and civil-rights protections have been trampled on, investment in Ukraine has dropped off considerably, economic growth has staggered to a halt, and relations have fallen apart with most nations of the world.

Yulia Tymoshenko is a political prisoner, and deserves the support of every decent nation and the support of the Ukrainian people.


For more information, check out this story from the Telegraph, or a recent letter that Yulia Tymoshenko was able to get out from prison and publish in the Wall Street Journal.