My Beauty Best Teacher

Mutumwa Mawere recently addressed the Nigerian diaspora he stated:

...There are countless examples of African entrepreneurs and professionals who have substantial amounts of money in Africa but it is evident that the prosperity has not been democratized to the extent of creating an African ownership class able to take the continent’s majority into a new and dynamically positive direction underpinned by new values of work, combined with saving, investment and an ownership mentality. It is also important to underscore that there is a distinction between being “rich” and being “wealthy”.
Yes, some Africans have made money but because financial literacy and “platinum rights” was not stressed as much as a sense of public justice and civil rights were by our founding fathers and we did not keep it (the money) and we certainly we did not grow it.
Many have made money but no one has really taught us how to keep it in our communities.
Imagine, after 13 years of South Africa’s democratic dispensation, we still do not have a new mutual for blacks? No one taught us about financial literacy and the basic tenets of a free enterprise system that appears universally to capture the imagination of many progressive and successful nations.
The challenge of understanding the free-enterprise system and making it work for the majority of Africans has to become a core part of any conversation among Africans concerned about wealth creation and creating sustainable wealth addresses for Africans. Most of our wealth addresses are not assignable and transferable let alone from one African generation to the next.
Any successful nation building enterprise must necessarily be sustained by a healthy, robust and growing tax base and not foreign aid. Africa’s post colonial budgets still remain principally funded by bilateral and multilateral sources of finance.
Africa must create its own dominant class of very successful entrepreneurs, at all levels. We should have our own wealth builders and not become a continent specialized in distributing other people’s wealth.
As we approach the 47th birthday of Nigeria, we must focus on converting ourselves from cash economy customers into banking (our own banks), tenants into homeowners, small business dreamers into small, medium and large scale business owners, minimum wage workers into living wage workers, economically illiterate into economically empowered citizens.
Many of us are consumed with directionless conversations that are primarily focused on what governments can do for us and not what we can go for ourselves. We tend to be good at being against something and not for something.
Literacy can be a sustainable instrument for poverty eradication. They often say that when you know better, you tend to do better.
Any when Africans know better, I have no doubt that we can transform ourselves from islands of affluence to oceans of hope and prosperity. We have not invested much in literacy and integrated the literacy challenge in our post colonial agendas.

Any nation is as good as the interests that inform it. The only power we have as Africans in any field on endeavor whether it is in politics or the wealth game is the power to organize ourselves. One hand cannot clap but two hands can surely make a noise.
Why then is it the case that we have not been able to use our collective spent to our advantage? Many of our African governments have benefited from the financial illiteracy of Africa’s intellectuals. Africa has invested in human capital and yet such investment has not been able to provide any leadership on the bread and butter issues.
Surely, it is evident to all of us that any consolidation of our pain and opportunities can create a critical mass that is missing in action. Imagine if all Nigerians resident in South Africa could consolidate their mobile phone expenses into one pool, how much impact would they have in the South African economy.
Equally, if all Zimbabweans resident in South Africa chose to use one bank, how much would that bank be worth? Even the obvious things that Africa needs to do are not so obvious to our leaders.
I think it is self evident that the poor need the rich in as much as the rich need the poor. Can you imagine a nation of only poor people with the same means and possibilities? On the key ideological questions, we have heard many people argue that a free enterprise system is not suited for Africa and many of our governments in Africa have perfected the skill of creating ideological and theoretical entrepreneurs/bureaucrats without asking the question whether in fact if all the rich people were eliminated, Africa would be any better.
The post colonial experience has confused many of us to the extent that we are now looking for intelligent leaders to govern us when leadership may have little to do with intelligence. Even in a family, it would not be normal for all the children to be the same. Those who do well in one generation inspire the next generation to do better.

Is Africa’s future safe with a system where the state thinks for its citizens or where the citizens think for themselves and act in their own self interest? Many believe that governments (created by the same citizens) can and should be expected to lead the anti-poverty crusade and yet human history has not given us any good examples of governments acting in the interests of citizens who are not in government.

We must take ownership of our destinies and we must be the change that we want to see in the continent. No one else is going to do it for us. We must sell ourselves as worthy of investment and we must change our attitudes because in the final analysis, our attitude to wealth determines our altitude.

Anyone can make money in a growing economy than can be stolen in a decaying and dysfunctional system. If we look at Africa’s unmet needs, then we can appreciate the possibilities that exist in the continent and yet we think and act in a fragmented and confused manner. Those who should ordinarily lead appear to be visionless preferring to focus on yesterday (which is gone) and not on actions that create a better Africa.
Before we can think of creating an African pool of wealth, we need to understand the meaning of wealth. Wealth has come to mean an abundance of items of economic vale or the state of controlling or possessing such items and encompasses money, real estate and any personal property.
In many countries wealth is also measured by reference to access to essential services such as health care or the possession of crops or livestock. Accordingly, an individual who has accumulated wealth relative to others is often described as wealthy.
Therefore, wealth refers to some accumulation of resources. In light of the above, Africa is not recognized as a wealthy continent because of the inferior relationship between the majority of us and items of economic value. We are generally challenged in the resource accumulation enterprise...

photo courtesy of ZimDaily

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.

Although I am no expert in this, I have always felt that the 1930's were an interesting time period in our nation. The Victorian age had come to a bloody conclusion with World War One, and a whole generation of people were now being raised in a society that saw their parents as failures- their attempts to repress their sexual urges, their attempts to stick to the old ways, their attempts to put in place world peace, their attempts to build multinational nations- all had led to one of the most bloody and brutal and worthless wars of all time. Technology was changing fast- cars and telephones and radio and motion picture- and the children of the 1910's and 1920's thought that they had everything figured out- they thought that where other generations had failed due to their reliance on religion, traditional values, free markets, republicanism, and limited government, they would succeed by figuring out a third way of doing things, a practical way of doing things, a way of doing things that used the power of government to make society a better place to live. This new generation, horrified by WWI and mocking their parents lack of technology skills, had it all figured out, and ushered in an era of fascism and communism and World War Two.

In my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong I cataloged all of the laws that were passed in the 1930's in America that are with us today- such as the Unemployment Compensation Tax (MI, 1936), Oil and Gas Severance Tax (MI, 1929), Social Security Act (USA, 1935), Fair Labor Standards Act (USA, 1938), Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (USA, 1930), Hoover Tax Hike (USA, 1932), National Labor Relations Act (USA, 1935), Private Schools, Act 302 of 1921 (MI, 1921), Roosevelt moves traditional Thanksgiving Day (1939), Regulating Firearms, Act 373 (MI, 1927), US moves off gold standard (1933), Reapportionment Act (USA, 1929), etc. Looking through that list and thinking of how much America was changed by one generation, by one President, by one party, by one decade (mostly), I was always stunned, and wondered how people had let that come to pass.

As it turns out, the Republican Party of 1936 had put together a platform to oppose a lot of these fascist ideas, but people loved their hope and change and returned FDR to the White House instead, and so the Great Depression dragged on for another decade. Via Conservative Hideout, let's take a walk back in history and see just exactly what the GOP was offering as an alternative back then to the high taxes, high regulation, crony capitalism, fascist third way system that FDR was pushing our nation into. Here is a good chunk of the 1936 Republican Party Platform:

1936 Republican Party PlatformAmerica is in peril. The welfare of American men and women and the future of our youth are at stake. We dedicate ourselves to the preservation of their political liberty, their individual opportunity and their character as free citizens, which today for the first time are threatened by Government itself.

For three long years the New Deal Administration has dishonored American traditions and flagrantly betrayed the pledges upon which the Democratic Party sought and received public support. The powers of Congress have been usurped by the President... the rights and liberties of American citizens have been violated... regulated monopoly has displaced free enterprise.... it has intimidated witnesses and interfered with the right of petition... it has been guilty of frightful waste and extravagance, using public funds for partisan political purposes... it has promoted investigations to harass and intimidate American citizens, at the same time denying investigations into its own improper expenditures... it has created a vast multitude of new offices, filled them with its favorites, set up a centralized bureaucracy, and sent out swarms of inspectors to harass our people.... it has bred fear and hesitation in commerce and industry, thus discouraging new enterprises, preventing employment and prolonging the depression.... appeals to passion and class prejudice have replaced reason and tolerance.

To a free people, these actions are insufferable. This campaign cannot be waged on the traditional differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. The responsibility of this election transcends all previous political divisions. We invite all Americans, irrespective of party, to join us in defense of American institutions. We pledge ourselves:

...To preserve the American system of free enterprise, private competition, and equality of opportunity, and to seek its constant betterment in the interests of all.

The only permanent solution of the unemployment problem is the absorption of the unemployed by industry and agriculture. To that end, we advocate: Removal of restrictions on production. Abandonment of all New Deal policies that raise production costs, increase the cost of living, and thereby restrict buying, reduce volume and prevent reemployment. Encouragement instead of hindrance to legitimate business. Withdrawal of government from competition with private payrolls. Elimination of unnecessary and hampering regulations. Adoption of such other policies as will furnish a chance for individual enterprise, industrial expansion, and the restoration of jobs.

Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The New Deal policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it. We propose a system of old age security, based upon the following principles: 1. We approve a pay-as-you-go policy, which requires of each generation the support of the aged and the determination of what is just and adequate, 2. Every American citizen over sixty-five should receive the supplementary payment necessary to provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want. 3. Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and general minimum standards, should receive from the federal government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own, up to a fixed maximum....

...Nearly sixty percent of all imports into the United States are now free of duty. The other forty percent of imports compete directly with the product of our industry. We would keep on the free list all products not grown or produced in the United States in commercial quantities. As to all commodities that commercially compete with our farms, our forests, our mines, our fisheries, our oil wells, our labor and our industries, sufficient protection should be maintained at all times to defend the American farmer and the American wage earner from the destructive competition emanating from the subsidies of foreign governments and the imports from low-wage and depreciated-currency countries....

...We recognize the existence of a field within which governmental regulation is desirable and salutary. The authority to regulate should be vested in an independent tribunal acting under clear and specific laws establishing definite standards. Their determinations on law and facts should be subject to review by the Courts. We favor Federal regulation, within the Constitution, of the marketing of securities to protect investors. We favor also Federal regulation of the interstate activities of public utilities...

...We pledge ourselves to the merit system, virtually destroyed by New Deal spoilsmen. It should be restored, improved and extended. We will provide such conditions as offer an attractive permanent career in government service to young men and women of ability, irrespective of party affiliations.

The New Deal Administration has been characterized by shameful waste, and general financial irresponsibility. It has piled deficit upon deficit. It threatens national bankruptcy and the destruction through inflation of insurance policies and savings bank deposits. We pledge ourselves to: Stop the folly of uncontrolled spending. Balance the budget—not by increasing taxes but by cutting expenditures, drastically and immediately. Revise the federal tax system and coordinate it with state and local tax systems. Use the taxing power for raising revenue and not for punitive or political purposes.

We advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards. The first requisite to a sound and stable currency is a balanced budget. We oppose further devaluation of the dollar. We will restore to the Congress the authority lodged with it by the Constitution to coin money and regulate the value thereof by repealing all the laws delegating this authority to the Executive....

...We assume the obligations and duties imposed upon Government by modern conditions. We affirm our unalterable conviction that, in the future as in the past, the fate of the nation will depend, not so much on the wisdom and power of government, as on the character and virtue, self-reliance, industry and thrift of the people and on their willingness to meet the responsibilities essential to the preservation of a free society.

George Ayittey of the Free Africa Foundation writes:

1) Never Forget Your Roots

Africa's traditions, institutions, and customs are integral part of your heritage. This heritage includes participatory democracy based on consensus, free village markets, free enterprise and free trade. You cannot reject this heritage and remain African.

2) Seek Ye First the Economic Kingdom in the Private Sector

There is nothing wrong in wanting to be rich, but nobody became rich working for a wage/salary, unless he was prepared to steal or embezzle, like the African kleptocrats. But that does not pay in the long run. Earn your wealth in the private sector by actually producing something, even charcoal. If capital is a problem, do as the illiterates do by pooling savings as in the revolving credit schemes.

3) Privatize the Universities

Africa's universities should be privatized. They may be given a fixed annual government subvention and then allowed to raise their own revenue and manage their own affairs. This way, they can uphold academic freedom, which is currently not possible with the head of state, often a military imbecile, as the chancellor.

4) Demand and Defend Freedom of statement/Media

Recall that the first critical step in problem resolution is the exposure of the problem. Without freedom of statement this is nearly impossible... "African governments are responsible for the underdevelopment of African literature. Among the four main problems inhibiting the development of African literature is the expulsion of prominent African writers . . . the absence of African writers in international debates, absence of integrative policies and lack of publishing infrastructure" . All African intellectuals must demand the right to free speech and defend the rights of others for the freedom to speak, publish and write...

5) Practice Intellectual Solidarity

Respect and assist members of your own profession, regardless of differences of opinion. If one is under siege, all wherever they may be --- in or out of government, in or out of the country -- must go his or her aid. You may need group assistance yourself in the future. And extend this solidarity to other groups fighting the same cause as well...
6) Demand National Conferences

When a national crisis erupts, demand that a national dialogue or conference be set up to resolve it, as is done in African villages. The national conference must be sovereign and its decisions binding on all parties, including the government...

7) Disband the Military or Cut It in Half

No African intellectual with an iota of intelligence and a modicum of Pan-Africanist spirit would support, much less serve, a barbarous military regime. Ever! All those African countries that imploded were ruined by the military.

8) Pan-Africanism

Pan-Africanism, originating from the belief that African countries share common problems, common solutions, and common destinies will remain a dream unless you learn more about African countries other than your own.

9) Set Up a Rival AU
The time has come for the useless OAU(nowAU) to be disbanded or for a rival body, the Organization of Free African States to be set up. It should be made up of strictly democratic countries. OFAS can be set up under the aegis of President Nelson Mandela of South Africa.

10) Selectively Repudiate Foreign Debt

Insist that foreign aid be given only to democratic African countries. Time and again, foreign loans are taken by corrupt, illegitimate and repressive African regimes without the approval of the people.

George Ayittey stated that "...the solutions to Africa’s problems lie in Africa itself. It involves Africa going back to its roots and building upon its own indigenous institutions. Indigenous institutions of freedom, free markets in Africa, free enterprise and free trade. Some of us may not know these indigenous institutions, and this is why people like us have to talk about it in this book(Indigenous African Institutions)..."

In January, a 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti and over 230,000 people tragically died. In February, a 8.8 earthquake hit Chile and over 700 people tragically died. Even though the earthquake that hit Chile was nearly 500 times more powerful than the one that hit Haiti (Earthquake magnitudes are measured on a logarithmic scale), Chile's death toll was only a tiny fraction of Haiti's. Why the difference?

The liberals point to building codes, regulation, and strong government involvement in society are the reason for the difference in death and destruction between the two states. On liberal talk radio, callers and hosts praise the communists who ruled Chile in the 1960's and forced business to adopt strict building codes. They praise the government building inspectors who work hard enforcing these regulations. And they point to the strong and active government in Chile that took control of the situation and told people where to go when the quake struck.

The BBC says this to explain the difference:

People in Chile knew the safest places to go to when the earthquake struck. Chile has developed a seismic design code for new buildings, which has made them better able to stay standing in an earthquake.

Huffington Post, where Obama gets his news and views from, explains the difference this way:

Chile was better prepared, with strict building codes, robust emergency response and a long history of handling seismic catastrophes.

Treehugger.com explicitly advocates the liberal view when it says:

Builders cut corners all the time, and are interested in building at the lowest possible cost. They are perfectly happy to shift the burden to the owners and the insurance companies. And occupants don't know risk either, and happily live in old brick unreinforced structures in the middle of earthquake zones. Building codes, and their proper enforcement, are about the only thing protecting them.

Conservatives point to free market and conservative economic policies that brought Chile from being one of the poorest countries in South America in 1970 to being the richest country in South America by 2010. This wealth, generated by liberty and respect to property rights, led to buildings that were built soundly with good materials. The respect for liberty and freedom in Chile led to a respect for rule of law, which meant that building inspectors were not bought off and codes were indeed followed.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal puts it:

It's not by chance that Chileans were living in houses of brick—and Haitians in houses of straw—when the wolf arrived to try to blow them down. In 1973, the year the proto-Chavista government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Chile was an economic shambles. Inflation topped out at an annual rate of 1000%, foreign-currency reserves were totally depleted, and per capita GDP was roughly that of Peru and well below Argentina's.

In March 1975, Pinochet had a 45-minute meeting with Friedman and asked him to write a letter proposing some remedies. Friedman responded a month later with an eight-point proposal that largely mirrored the themes of the Chicago Boys- sharp reductions to government spending and the money supply; privatization of state-owned companies; the elimination of obstacles to free enterprise and foreign investment, and so on.

As for Chile, Pinochet appointed a succession of Chicago Boys to senior economic posts. By 1990, the year he ceded power, per capita GDP had risen by 40% (in 2005 dollars) even as Peru and Argentina stagnated. Pinochet's democratic successors—all of them nominally left-of-center—only deepened the liberalization drive. Result: Chileans have become South America's richest people. They have the continent's lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant-mortality rate, and the lowest number of people living below the poverty line.

Chile also has some of the world's strictest building codes. That makes sense for a country that straddles two massive tectonic plates. But having codes is one thing, enforcing them is another. The quality and consistency of enforcement is typically correlated to the wealth of nations. The poorer the country, the likelier people are to scrimp on rebar, or use poor quality concrete, or lie about compliance.

For all the talk about the morality of liberalism, look at the results of countries where liberal ideas are dominant- when government increases spending, when government takes on more debt, when government owns businesses or heavily regulates private businesses, where tariffs are increased and trade wars are elevated, where corruption and influence buying runs rampant, and when more government is the only solution for all of societies problems. Look at the results! You don't even need to look at other countries- look at what has happened to Michigan under Democrat control- or better yet, look at Detroit, where there are no Republicans to blame.

Conservative policies make the world a better place whenever they are tried. That's the difference between 700 dead and 230,000 dead- liberal policies.

UPDATE: Thank you for linking to this page Newmark's Door! Please look around my site and see what else interests you! And remember- the difference is liberal policies.

Government officials actually had a decent idea in Lansing. Instead of working on raising taxes, letting go dangerous prisoners, or outlawing behaviors they don't like, some senators actually got to work trying to improve a real problem in our state- education. Senators in Michigan introduced a plan today to allow teachers and parents to convert their local schools into independently run schools with more flexible rules.

These new 'neighborhood schools' would still have to comply with strict state standards and would have to be sponsored by a mayor, city, county or township, although they could not be affiliated with a church or religious organization in any way, because apparently that would be bad.

Neighborhood schools could hire non-state certified teachers (like lawyers, businessmen, or doctors) and could offer merit pay to their teachers (like raising MME scores or having a slew of 5's on an AP test). The schools would be funded in the same way current charter schools are funded, with an annual state grant that’s based on enrollment.

As I understand it, these schools would be governed locally and would cut out the many layers of middle-management that make schools so inefficient, and could employ any other innovative practices that they think would help their students out.

This is a good idea- but it won't go anywhere. Other Senators are working on another plan for school improvement that will involve dumping more money into the system and put in place more restrictions on the free-market and parents, and this is a bad plan, and that system is closer to being passed than the 'neighborhood schools' idea.

The good plan is sponsored by Republicans, the bad plan by Democrats. Vote appropriately in future elections.

UPDATE: Some people have emailed me and accused me of selling out to the teachers union with this one- they want to know how this squares away with my usually free-market bent. Well, these types of schools create yet more competition, and they will be run by local companies (composed of teachers and parents), so as I see it, this is a very free-market based approach to education.

UPDATE II: Okay, did a little bit more research on this idea, and I like it more and more. Turns out there is a book out on this very premise: Can Teachers Own Their Own Schools- New Strategies for Educational Excellence, By Richard K. Vedder. Here is a review of it online:

Vedder presents a bold plan in which teachers, administrators and others involved in the educational process would become the owners of schools, acquiring an attractive financial stake in the process. Such privatization reforms could empower those directly involved and affected by school performance and end interest group barriers, paving the way for new, cost-effective means of improving educational outcomes. As a result, schools in which teachers, administrators, and parents have a significant financial stake would foster vibrant school communities with increased parental involvement and the innovation and efficiency essential to produce educational excellence.

Look, there is no way teachers would ever go for any sort of privatization scheme- to them, this is code for job layoffs and lower pay. I don't agree with that mentality- I think privatization can be a useful means of protecting jobs and even increasing teachers pay- but that is the way it is. The key is to put in place free-market schemes that are teacher-friendly.

Selling teachers on competition and privatization by letting them run their own schools and have an ownership stake in them is a great idea. This is not like GM or Chrysler where we are giving unions an ownership stake in a private company to encourage them to work harder and be more efficient- this is giving unions an ownership stake in a government-run enterprise to make them work harder and be more efficient. And that is a great idea.

Ah, to go undercover and explore the heart of that evil capitalist enterprise, Wal-Mart. The very symbol of what makes America bad, right? Charles Platt did go undercover at Wal-Mart, and has some pretty surprising insights in his article. To be honest, this was one of the most intesting things I've read in a while. I've pulled out the best pieces- the full article is much better- seriously, check out the full article here:

The company is rebuked and reviled by anyone claiming a social conscience, and is lambasted by legislators as if its bad behavior places it somewhere between investment bankers and the Taliban.

Considering this is a company that is helping families ride out the economic downturn, which is providing jobs and stimulus while Congress bickers, which had sales growth of 2% this last quarter while other companies struggled, you have to wonder why. At least, I wondered why. And in that spirit of curiosity, I applied for an entry-level position at my local Wal-Mart.

Getting hired turned out to be a challenge. The personnel manager told me she had received more than 100 applications during that month alone, chasing just a handful of jobs. Thus the mystery deepened. If Wal-Mart was such an exploiter of the working poor, why were the working poor so eager to be exploited? And after they were hired, why did they seem so happy to be there? Anytime I shopped at the store, blue-clad Walmartians encouraged me to "Have a nice day" with the sincerity of the pope issuing a benediction.

I was called in for an interview. I sat at a table that was covered in untrimmed fabric under a protective layer of sticky transparent vinyl, like a couch cover. I'd seen better-looking decor at firehouse bingo evenings. Was Wal-Mart going out of its way to emphasize its commitment to cost-cutting? I guessed that the utilitarian ethic was so deeply embedded, it was just taken for granted.

A friendly lady in her 50s, wearing the Wal-Mart Smile, sat opposite me and started asking questions from a printed form. I managed to satisfy her expectations, and then went through two additional interviews, followed by a drug test, before I received formal approval. It may have been one of the most intense hiring processes I've been through; hardly the schedule of a company that didn't care who it hired, or employees who didn't care about getting a job.

A week later, I found myself in an elite group of 10 successful applicants convening for two (paid) days of training in the same claustrophobic, windowless room. As we introduced ourselves, I discovered that more than half had already worked at other Wal-Marts. Having relocated to this area, they were eager for more of the same.

Why? Gradually the answer became clear. Imagine that you are young and relatively unskilled, lacking academic qualifications. Which would you prefer: standing behind the register at a local gas station, or doing the same thing in the most aggressively successful retailer in the world, where ruthless expansion is a way of life, creating a constant demand for people to fill low-level managerial positions? A future at Wal-Mart may sound a less-than-stellar prospect, but it's a whole lot better than no future at all.

In addition, despite its huge size, the corporation turned out to have an eerie resemblance to a Silicon Valley startup. There was the same gung-ho spirit, same lack of dogma, same lax dress code, same informality - and same interest in owning a piece of the company. All of my coworkers accepted the offer to buy Wal-Mart stock by setting aside $2 of every paycheck.We were given only a handful of outright prohibitions. No swearing in the store, for instance - not even the word "damn," because some people might be offended. No funny-colored hair or blatant skin piercings, because some people might be offended. In fact almost all the rules devolved to the sacred principle of never, ever offending a customer - or "guest," in Wal-Mart terminology.

The reason was clearly articulated. On average, anyone walking into Wal-Mart is likely to spend more than $200,000 at the store during the rest of his life. Therefore, any clueless employee who alienates that customer will cost the store around a quarter-million dollars. "If we don't remember that our customers are in charge," our trainer warned us, "we turn into Kmart." She made that sound like devolving into some lesser being - a toad, maybe, or an ameba.

And so we came to the Wal-Mart Pledge. Solemnly, each of us raised one hand and intoned: "If a customer comes within 10 feet of me, I'm going to look him in the eye, smile and greet him." Having pledged ourselves, we encountered the aspect of Wal-Mart employment that impressed me most: The Telxon, ronounced "Telzon," a hand-held bar-code scanner with a wireless connection to the store's computer. When pointed at any product, the Telxon would reveal astonishing amounts of information: the quantity that should be on the shelf, the availability from the nearest warehouse, the retail price, and (most amazing of all) the markup.

All of us were given access to this information, because - in theory, at least - anyone in the store could order a couple extra pallets of anything, and could discount it heavily as a Volume Producing Item (known as a VPI), competing with other departments to rack up the most profitable sales each month. Floor clerks even had portable equipment to print their own price stickers. This was how Wal-Mart detected demand and responded to it: by distributing decision-making power to grass-roots level. It was as simple yet as radical as that.

We received an inspirational talk on this subject, from an employee who reacted after the store test-marketed tents that could protect cars for people who didn't have enough garage space. He was invited to corporate HQ as a guest at a management conference. "It was totally different from what I expected," he told us. "I thought it would be these fatcats talking about money, but no one even mentioned money. All they cared about was finding new ways to satisfy customers. I met everyone including the chairman of the company."

My supervisor reminded me unfailingly to take my mandatory two (paid) quarter-hour breaks during each eight hours of working time. I was cautioned never to abbreviate my lunch hour. Most of all I was encouraged to educate myself using instructional videos on computer terminals at the back of the store.

These videos served Wal-Mart's self-interest by teaching skills ranging from customer service to the art of lifting heavy boxes without hurting your back. I was paid to view them, and was rewarded with an increased hourly rate when I finished the course.

In our free-enterprise system, employees are valued largely in terms of what they can do. This is why teenagers fresh out of high school often go to vocational training institutes to become auto mechanics or electricians. They understand a basic principle that seems to elude social commentators, politicians and union organizers. If you want better pay, you need to learn skills that are in demand.

The blunt tools of legislation or union power can force a corporation to pay higher wages, but if employees don't create an equal amount of additional value, there's no net gain. All other factors remaining equal, the store will have to charge higher prices for its merchandise, and its competitive position will suffer.

To my mind, the real scandal is not that a large corporation doesn't pay people more. The scandal is that so many people have so little economic value. Despite (or because of) a free public school system, millions of teenagers enter the work force without marketable skills. So why would anyone expect them to be well paid?

Based on my experience (admittedly, only at one location) I reached a conclusion which is utterly opposed to almost everything ever written about Wal-Mart. I came to regard it as one of the all-time enlightened American employers, right up there with IBM in the 1960s. Wal-Mart is not the enemy. It's the best friend we could ask for.

• Solitude and Leadership

  A lecture sharing how leaders need solitude. If you study great leaders you will see this to be true. Yet another reason to unplug and get away from the noise.

  tags: leadership news solitude

• My first photowalk with Lytro’s lightfield camera — Scobleizer

  Robert Scoble shares his walk with the Lytro camera that Dan Pink named the technology to watch in 2012. Time will tell.

  tags: education news photography

• Drinking with William Faulkner

  A very random but entertaining piece on William Faulkner that could be used tonprove the point that sometimes authors don't have a clue what they are writing. My son's term paper is on "As I lay Dying" and he has this article readybto use if necessary.;-)

  tags: education news faulkner literature

• January 2012: Free Continuing Education Events | Library Developments

  A list of free continuing education events for librarians and educators. Nice list.

  tags: education news

• Shakespeare Teacher » Blog Archive » Top Ten Posts of 2011

  Love reading top 10 posts. Here are some from Shakespeare teacher. A blog for you lit teachers out there.

  tags: education news

• A. Kipta's Blog: Crayola For Educators

  From a nice edtech resource sharing blog a. Kipta. ". Crayola For Educators: 2011/2012 Grant Opportunity: Champion Creatively Alive Children™ is a collaboration between the National Association of Elementary School Principals and Crayola. Principals who are members of NAESP may apply for a grant (valued at $3,000) to develop an innovative, arts-infused education program. "

  tags: news grants

• Tennessean: Teacher training holds the key « State Collaborative on Reforming Education

  Current report on education in Tennessee. Of course 100% of the states will only be happy when they are all #1. it is time for states to start comparing themselves to how they did last year, not where they are in the rankings. Rankings dont tell you how you have improved. but one big point in this: "One of the key recommendations in SCORE’s report was a charge to ensure that teacher training programs in our state are producing high-quality teacher candidates who meet the needs of local school districts. We proposed revising the “teacher training report card” to measure the success and effectiveness of teachers in the classroom after they have completed teacher training programs.".

  tags: education news

• A Teeny Tiny Teacher: Uno, dos, tres

  This teacher has a contest and over 150 teachers responded. she is an elementary teacher and her blog is a hoot. while it is too late to enter the contest (ended at midnight on the first) it you want to know how to engage and have fun on your blog, you can learn a lot here.

  tags: education news

• Online pirates threaten Kindle profits as thousands turn to sites to download free eBooks | Mail Online

  The pirates are coming to ebooks with 20% of books being downloaded illegally for frew. a scanner and ocr seems to be a simple way to do this. I personally wouldn't download and steal a book but then again, many have stolen music as well. I guess I think those who read would know better.

  tags: ebook piracy news

• The Best Shooting Challenges of the Year

  Photography buffs have got to see this set of best "shooting challenges" of 2011.

  tags: education 2011 news photography

• Private Tutors - Tutorspree

  Tutorspree is an online market for tutors. We will continue to see things like this. i wonder, of course, about the online versus face to face aspect. i would be careful hiring a tutor for my child without really checking them out. however, I guess that vetting, etc. if it uses ebay like rankings would eventually emerge. who goes first?

  tags: education news tutoring

• Google Health's Lifeline Runs Out

  Google kills another service. I didnt use this one. Google Health dies for anemic performance.

  tags: news Google

• 7 Reasons Schools Should Outsource Social Media Marketing

  Edudemic writes about why schoolsmshould outsource social media marketing. I disagree. Genuine, real interactions with real people does more to help a school than some marketing firm. We do it ourselves at our school. the main thing I do wish to oursource,..processing and uploading the film to Youtube and pics. Either way, every school should have a social media marketing plan. No exceptions. you are either part of the message or the message just moves as it will.

  tags: education social media news schools marketing

• Walk

  Need the motivation to walk? share this post with your buddies and get out there.

  tags: fitness news inspiration

• Few teens sexting racy photos, new research says - Lake County News-Sun

  Typical of the panicnthe news media causes about teen habits, a new study shows only 1% of teens are actually sexting nude pics. as always, we must get our facts and often the media gets it wrong. "Only 1 percent of kids aged 10 to 17 have shared images of themselves or others that involve explicit nudity, a nationally representative study found. Roughly the same number said they’d shared suggestive but less graphic photos; while 7 percent said they’d received either type of picture."

  tags: education news digiteen digitalcitizenship sexting

• New year holds hope for particles, planets | The Columbus Dispatch

  What breakthroughs do scientists hope for in 2012? this is one for high school and college level profs to read. nice overview.

  tags: science news education

• AFP: Long-awaited Facebook IPO looms in New Year

  Facebook to go public in 2012 say analysts.

  tags: news facebook ipo

• New Research Brief Defines The Value OF A Best-Of-Breed Approach To Unified Communications

  Although this research brief is touting a particular company, the point that productive companies integrate technology, cloud computing, and telecommunications for increased productivity is ne to consider as we look at helping our students be more "productive" in their learning. i still wonder whybwe ignore telecommunications as a link to our students when it is the one technology they have with them all the time. " top performing companies were more likely to have integrated enterprise communications with other enterprise applications, and with the most current approaches to technology delivery-including cloud computing, virtualization and mobility."

  tags: research news productivity telecommunications mobile cellphone

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

In my post Crony Capitalism Booming Under Obama Rule in February of 2010, I wrote:

One of my biggest fears about the Obama administration is not that it is liberal and not that it is communist, but rather that it is the beginning of a renaissance of National Socialism. One of the common misconceptions that people have about National Socialism is that it was against big business, or that big business opposed it. Free markets oppose national socialism, and individuals oppose national socialism, but Big Business, threatened by government, does the logical thing, and joins in. National socialism leads to an alliance of Big Business, which enjoys government protection against challenges to its market share and in exchange transforms itself into a tool of government control over the economy. Top executives and lobbyists do very well under a National Socialist regime, while the people suffer.

At the time, I was responding to a post that I found on powerlineblog called Crony Capitalism, which itself was a response to the article from Michael Barone called: "Under Obama, crony capitalism again rules the day."

That was several months ago now, and with the passage of time, we can re-evaluate my thesis- that the Obama administration is putting place a version of fascism that you can nicely called Crony Capitalism or State Capitalism, whereby the government subverts the free market for the good of the 'state' and makes alliances with Big Business to crush smaller companies through regulation and taxation.

Gregory Scoblete updates the situation with his article Will Free Markets Give Way to State Capitalism:

State capitalism, Bremmer writes, "is a system in which the state dominates markets primarily for political gain." From state-owned corporations operating in strategic industries like natural resources or defense, to enormous sovereign wealth funds in the hands of autocrats with opaque operating principles, state capitalism has enabled the world's autocratic states to reap the benefits of capitalist enterprise while maintaining a vice-grip on political freedom.

In Bremmer's telling, the world's autocratic states learned a valuable lesson from the implosion of the Soviet Union: command economies do not work and when they fail, they can bring down the over-arching political system with them. They also watched the post Soviet experiment in crash liberalization with horror. To protect their hides and preserve their privilege, autocratic rulers in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have created a "hybrid" system that leverages many of the tools of capitalism to generate wealth while the heavy hand of the state ensures that wealth is put to the service of the elites and rulers of each country.

Here in America, we have a ruler who wants us to emulate China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia- he wants to create a 'hybrid system' here where the fascist state can leverage capitalism for the good of the all-powerful state through the heavy hand of a tyrannical government. I'd love to sugar coat this, but the evidence is piling up that this is his intention.

Lars Thunell of the IFC comments on a changing approach in development philosophy "...More and more development and aid organizations – multilateral banks, foundations, nonprofits – are looking at an entrepreneurial approach to development. They are asking how they can harness the power of private capital, free enterprise, and social entrepreneurship to bring about needed change,” Thunell said. “This is where IFC, with 50 years of experience in this area, can play an even larger role”..."
Via NextBillion

Just read this interview that Investors Business Daily had with Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, one of the largest home improvement stores in the nation and employer of lots of people. The interview is stunning because Marcus says what we're all seeing- that the biggest barrier to wealth creation is now the government, that Obama and the Democrats are contributing to the problem, that the White House doesn't even know how to talk to wealth creators, and that the reason why no one is speaking out is that they are all afraid of the powerful wealth destroying government targeting them if they don't toe the line in this now tin-pot banana-republic. Well said Mr. Marcus, and great interview IBD!

IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What's your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

IBD: Washington has been consumed with debt talks. Is this the right focus now?

Marcus: They are all tied together. If we don't lower spending and if we don't deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes. Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.

IBD: If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?

Marcus: I'm not sure Obama would understand anything that I'd say, because he's never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the businessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.

IBD: Why don't more businesses speak out?

Marcus: They are frightened to death — frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them. In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration.

IBD: What's your message to the business community?

Marcus: It's time to stand up and fight. These people in Washington are out there making your life difficult, and many of you won't survive. Why aren't you doing something about it? The free enterprise system made this country what it is today, and we've got to keep it alive. We are on the edge of the abyss.

We are the edge of the abyss, or perhaps already falling into it, but that only means that we have to fight even harder to return our nation to its founding principles which unleashed humanity in freedom and wealth.

George Nyongesa writes in The African Executive:

Time is ripe for us to consider a “do it ourselves philosophy” or some form of self help program that focuses on our largest resource: the ordinary people, most often called poor people. This group has been the target of poverty reduction efforts and has been viewed as problems. This mindset has led to disenfranchising the poor from the development process. It is unwise to presume that the poor, be they illiterate, are bereft of inherent skills, experiences and talents that can be useful in building our communities. The same people are our heroes who daily create better livelihoods for their children. They fought colonialism and resisted slavery. How can we suddenly ignore them in our new struggles? These are the days of building economies based on people; not on gold, diamond or oil. The world today revolves on the axis of mind economy. African governments should develop confidence in the ordinary people, quit business, and maximize their citizens’ free enterprise.

A Conservative Teacher officially endorses Mitt Romney in the Michigan Republican Presidential Primary of Michigan and encourages all of his family and friends and colleagues to vote for him next Tuesday, February 28. Do not sit at home hoping that change will come to our nation and that hope will be restored- go vote for Mitt Romney in the primary and assure it.

After spending a year following the campaign, after watching all of the campaign commercials, after researching all of the candidates, after recently hearing them all speak in person, after shaking the hands of Romney and Santorum, and after spending a lot of time thinking about what kind of candidate our Founding Fathers would have wanted as President, I have decided that the best candidate that there is from either party to be the next President of the United States is Mitt Romney.

As Rick Santorum said about Mitt Romney in 2008- “this is the guy who is really conservative and we can trust him.” He is conservative in that he believes in and attempts to put in place policies that follow the founding principles of our nation- limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, and national security. And we can trust him as a person- he does not back down from his views, he is a decent guy who has spent time volunteering and giving back, he says what he means and means what he says, he stays on his message even without a teleprompter because he believes in his message, and he has a firm handshake.

Oh, I know some of his positions and views and statements are nuanced and guarded, filled with technical details and complicated arguments, and that this at times has made him sound like a technocrat or a cold robot- but I think that it is time for our nation to go back to electing competent, articulate, and measured people to the President and ignore all the candidates with thin resumes who simply preach hope and change.

Our nation can no longer afford to have as President someone who governs based on rhetoric and gimmicks- we need someone able and competent who will issue executive orders, make judicial appointments, act as commander-in-chief, hire the proper administrators, and budget appropriately. Being President is not about being a symbol, or making a statement, or doing the will of some sort of heavenly being- being President is about doing a job, and doing a good job of it, and Mitt Romney is the best one to put at that desk to push papers around, make decisions, talk with people, and do the real work of being President.

Conservatives want a magical being to be the White House who will throw conservative pixie dust around and say pretty conservative things; liberals want a magician in the White House who will dazzle them with tricks and gimmicks and pithy sayings- but real patriots should want someone in the White House who will return our nation back to its first principles and do the right things through competent hard work based on a lifetime of experience in managing and being an executive, and that man is Mitt Romney.

As I wrote in my post Elect a 'Clerk' For President in 2012 and Restore Founding Father's Vision of Executive Branch?:

...The President of the United States should be clerk, and nothing more. Conservatives and Tea Party people should not be looking for the President to be a 'king' who commands us to go forth and do his bidding, they should not be looking for the President to be the source of ideas about how government should run, and they should not be looking for the President to be an outsider who will shake up Washington.

The office, as designed by our Founding Fathers and illustrated in Article II of the Constitution, is an office that empowers the President of the United States to execute the laws passed by Congress in the most efficient manner, act as Commander-in-Chief of our military, act as the dignified ceremonial chief of state, handle foreign policy with other nations, and discharge effectively the various other duties of the office. A true conservative or someone who wants our nation to return to its Founding Principles should be pushing for the person who is best able to act as a clerk, a manager, and a CEO for America Inc…

… Look, I know this isn't exciting to you guys- you all want a President who will blow your socks off, light up the system, ride in on a horse of hope and change and remake the world. You want a king to rule you and control other people who you disagree with. You wish that someone who will go into the White House and then start just shutting down executive departments, slashing spending on programs, and ignoring the Judicial and Legislative Branches to bring you closer to our Founding Fathers. The problem is, that isn't how our Founding Fathers designed the office of the President and it is not how our Founding Fathers would have wanted the system to work…

I know- you want to go to the polls on Tuesday and feel like with one vote you will once again restore America back to its founding principles and with one magical check mark or bubbling in you will have fixed all of our nation’s problems. There are candidates out there who are basically telling you that.

But the truth of the matter is that the damage that President Barack Obama did to our nation is not going to be fixed by one President, or even two, and so we should not indulge in these sort of fantasies but rather go about electing someone as our next President who is willing to do the hard and solid and thankless work of stopping the decline that Obama has ushered in and perhaps- and I personally think this is a small possibility- putting in place a culture that will push further down the road for the real changes our nation needs to once more have hope for the future. And Mitt Romney is that guy- he is a hard worker, an able administrator, and a positive person, and just the kind of person who you should vote for on Tuesday.

Many of you conservatives and tea party supporters who read this post will think that we need a President who will be a source of conservative ideas and that Romney isn’t- my reply to you is that our system, as designed by our Founding Fathers which you all pretend to honor, clearly makes the legislative branch the source of ideas and legislation and merely makes the executive branch a clerk and executive. Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul would all be great legislators- even President Obama would have made a fine liberal Democrat Senator- but we are electing a President in 2012, not a legislator-turned-king, and the best executive in the race is clearly beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt Mitt Romney.

As Governor of a liberal Democrat state with an overwhelmingly liberal Democrat Congress, Mitt Romney was able to hold the moderate line on a range of issues and push for conservative policies as well and only let slip through an occasional liberal policy (like Romneycare)- imagine what he would be able to do as President of the United States with a Republican Congress animated by conservative tea party values. To make this image come true all you need to do is vote for Romney in the primary elections.

The image of stronger property rights, more protection and support for life, a recovering and prosperous economy, freedom and liberty embraced, and class warfare ended is a lot more welcoming to me than an image of President Barack Obama destroying a far-right wing GOP nominee and then ignoring the GOP Congress and issuing executive orders and making arbitrary policy decisions, and the only way we can avoid this image is by voting for Romney in the primary elections.

Over the past year, Mitt Romney has been challenged from the right and left and has beaten them all, emerging time and again as the front-runner. This was an important process and has forced him to be better- but at a certain point the primary needs to end and the race for the President needs to begin, and that point is now. Romney has responded to Perry, Huntsman, Bachman, Gingrich, Cain, Daniels, and now Santorum, fending off their attacks from the right and the left, and he is now a fine candidate to support. Let go of your anger and fear and embrace the good side of the force- Mitt Romney is the candidate who we can win back America with.

As President, Mitt Romney will leave America better than he finds it, he will work to reduce the intergenerational theft that is robbing our grandchildren of their future, he will work on repairing the destroyed foundations of our nation’s social safety nets, he will continue to keep our military proud and strong, and he will stop the incredible and amazing decline in our nation that has taken place over the past 4 years.

Mitt Romney says that America’s best days are ahead- with him as President and with a Republican Congress dominated by conservatives and tea partiers and with a Democratic minority party that regains its sanity, I think he could be right. He needs your vote though- go to the polls on Tuesday, February 28 and vote for Mitt Romney for Presidential nominee for the Republican Party.

Nile Gardiner, a British conservative commentator and former aide to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, unleashed on US President Barack Obama (Democrat) in his latest column, summing up Obama and his Democratic administration's actions perfectly:

The decision by credit agency Standard and Poor’s to downgrade America’s AAA credit rating for the first time in 70 years is a massive blow to the credibility of the Obama administration, and a damning indictment of its handling of the economy. No doubt the White House will pathetically try to blame the Bush Administration, Republicans in Congress, and of course its favourite target, the Tea Party, for the move by S&P. But without a shadow of a doubt, responsibility for the country’s financial mess and staggering levels of debt lie with the current US president and his administration. They have been in charge of running the economy for over 30 months, during which time the United States has witnessed an unprecedented increase in government spending and borrowing.

As the Congressional Budget Office revealed In January, the deficits generated under the Obama administration are the largest since the end of World War Two...

...Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the United States has embarked on the most ambitious failed experiment in Washington meddling in US history. Huge increases in government spending, massive federal bailouts, growing regulations on businesses, thinly veiled protectionism, and the launch of a vastly expensive and deeply unpopular health care reform plan, have all combined to instill fear and uncertainty in the markets. Free enterprise has taken a backseat to continental European-style interventionism, as an intensely ideological left wing administration has sought to dramatically increase the role of the state in shaping the US economy. The end result has been a dramatic fall in economic freedom, sluggish growth, poor consumer confidence, high unemployment, a collapsing housing market, and an overall decline in US prosperity, with more than 45 million Americans now reliant on food stamps – that’s over one seventh of the entire country.

These are increasingly dangerous times, with American leadership being challenged across the globe. Only an historic reduction in government spending combined with pro-growth measures including lower business tax rates to stimulate job creation and attract investment can turn the US economy around. Unfortunately, as Standard and Poor’s decision has shown, this is a presidency in extreme denial over America’s towering debts, leading a nation on a precipice while blindfolded to reality. The United States badly needs another Reagan-style revolution to stave off further economic disaster, preserve American leadership on the world stage, and secure the future of a superpower. Ultimately, greater liberty and freedom, not the deathly hand of Big Government, are needed to turn this great nation around.

He nails it- sometimes it takes a guy from across the pond to really sum up things over here. Click on these links to check out Gardiner's books such as Forever in the shadow of Churchill?: Britain and the memory of World War Two at the end of the 20th century (Historical roots of contemporary international and regional issues occasional paper series).

Last year, our nation had a choice for President. On one hand we had a man who sprouted very nice sounding platitudes but lacked experience and had a very extreme voting record. On the other hand we had a man who spoke truthfully about the situation and had a lot of experience and had solid and well thought out policy positions. Sadly, those two were not on the same ballot- the experienced solid conservative lost in the primaries to John McCain. If only we could have had a chance to elect Mitt Romney last election, things might have turned out differently.

That's not to say that there would have been no recession, healthcare would not have been a concern, and Iran would have continued to enrich uranium. If Mitt Romney would have become President instead of Barack Obama, those things would still have happened. But the key question is how would Romney have handled those situations differently than Obama and how those differences might affect our nation.

Some people think there is no difference between the two major parties or think that Romney wasn't really that different than someone like Obama. They are wrong. In many important and key situations Romney would have advocated considerably different policies than Obama, policies that may have led to a shorter and less severe recession, that would have lowered the cost of healthcare, and that would have led to Iran thinking twice about seeking the bomb.

This is not idle thoughts- Mitt Romney wrote an editorial this week in USA Today where he laid out some things he would have done as President differently than Barack Obama. This is why he was and remains my choice for President:

• Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven't yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.
• Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring. For example, install a robust investment tax credit, permit businesses to expense capital purchases made in 2010, and reduce payroll taxes. These will reignite construction, technology and a wide array of capital goods industries, and lead to expanded employment.
• Prove to the global investors that finance America's debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements. These are key to strengthening the dollar, reducing the threat of rampant inflation and holding down interest rates.
• Close down any talk of carbon cap-and-trade. It will burden consumers and employers with billions in new costs. Instead, greatly expand our commitment to natural gas and nuclear, boosting jobs now and reducing the export of energy jobs and dollars later.
• Tell the unions that job-stifling "card check" legislation is off the table. Laying new burdens on small business will kill entrepreneurship and job creation.
• Don't allow a massive tax increase to go into effect in 2011 with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The specter of more tax-fueled government spending and the reduction of capital available for small business will hinder investment and business expansion.
• New spending should be strictly limited to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad and essential infrastructure at home.
• Install dynamic regulations for the financial sector — rules that are up to date, efficient and not excessively burdensome. But do not so tie up the financial sector with red tape that we lose a vital component of our economic system.
• Open the doors to trade. Give important friends like Colombia favored trade status rather than bow to protectionist demands. Now is the time for aggressive pursuit of opportunities for new markets for American goods, not insular retrenchment.
• Stop frightening the private sector by continuing to hold GM stock, by imposing tighter and tighter controls on compensation, and by pursuing a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Government encroachment on free enterprise is depressing investment and job creation.

These are great points and both Republicans and Democrats should get behind Romney and support his bid for President in 2012.