My Beauty Best Teacher

Today (July 9) a new nation was created, the nation of South Sudan. South Sudan became an independent state on 9 July 2011 at midnight (00:00) local time following a referendum held in January 2011 in which nearly 99% of voters opted for separation from the rest of Sudan. It has been an Autonomous Region of Sudan or at war with Sudan on and off since 1972, and now is finally its own nation. Sudan has recognized it, and so has the United States, it has ratified a Constitution, and now it is busy forming up its government.

Although I have few readers from Africa, perhaps I might have a couple from South Sudan, and so in that spirit I would like to pass on some advice on how to form a successful state.

People are very powerful, and by giving them as much freedom and liberty they will demonstrate their power by creating a prosperous economy, a strong military, and a vibrant civil society. The biggest obstacle to people is an active and large government that takes away responsibility and freedom from the individual, acts as a barrier to innovation and risk-taking, and sucks all of the money out of the system for projects that elites (government agents) deem important. It is my suggestion that any government created by South Sudan have a healthy respect to the dignity of human life, truly believe in the power of liberty and freedom, and work to put in place strong rule of law that protects above all the fruits of ones labor (private property).

A new nation must put in place barriers to itself, checking itself by separating power between different branches of government and then creating checks between branches to limit the abilities of each to overreach and act in a tyrannical manner. It also helps if the nation limits itself further by separating power between a national government designed to address national issues and local governments designed to address local issues, much like our fading federal system here in America.

Although I no very little about this nation so far, it appears that the current President Salva Kiir Mayardit has a chance to be a good one- a former general who was unambiguous about being free, if he can limit himself and set important precedents in his office than he will be a great one. Most nations that achieve independence get stuck with the first President for a long time as that person eventually becomes a dictator- Kiir needs to recognize that what made George Washington great was that he served his nation for two terms and then left office, turning over power peacefully. It is bothersome that he is so closely associated with the military, and that the legislative assembly is so weak and completely controlled by his party, but I have hopes for him, especially if he is a regular reader of my blog.

It is also not a good sign that the nation is so dependent on oil, especially when these oil resources are largely being developed by foreign companies, especially the Chinese government. One hopes that the government will use the ample oil revenues it receives to fund a limited government that will engage in national defense (not war), control its border, and distribute funds to local governments to put in place police and fire services, build libraries, and support transportation and education services. With the amount of revenue that oil provides, there would be little need to borrow abroad or tax its citizens or companies within, and this low tax and low regulation environment would be an engine of economic development that will eventually lead to a more diverse and prosperous economy. Note I did not suggest that the government use its oil revenue to provide a social safety net or redistribute wealth to poor people- a free and prosperous people will do that better than any sort of forced charity that the government could ever do.

Good luck South Sudan- I hope you take my advice and create a government for the people, by the people, that serves the people, in the spirit of life, liberty, and protection of property.

See the memeorandum story for more details on this new nation.

UPDATE: I really didn't want to make this a political issue, but I did see something interesting over at Ace of Spades...

Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede. On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said "Thank You George Bush."

A principle is a fundamental law of nature or a code of conduct that you should follow, and America was built on principles. In particular, our nation was built on six specific principles, which are sometimes called the 'First Principles' or 'Founding Principles', and throughout our history we have followed these fundamental laws of nature or codes of conduct. In no particular order, here they are, with some discussion and things to think about.

Popular Sovereignty. If you have trouble remembering what popular sovereignty is, first think to yourself "What does the word “popular” mean?" (people) and then think to yourself "What does the word “sovereignty” mean?" (king). Popular sovereignty (or sometimes called the sovereignty of the people) is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will of its people- or in other words, that the state needs the consent of the people to rule, because the people of the state are the source of all political power. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." Our Preamble begins by specifying that the power for our government comes from "we the people." But it is important to ask whether America still follows this principle today? Do government officials today behave as if they are working for you- or you are working for them? Does our government still do the will of the people? Who is the servant and who is the master in America today?

Limited Government. This is an easy one to figure out- limited government is a government where any more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not allowed. Also called constitutionalism- government must limit itself to the constitution on which it is based  Another way of thinking about it is that in a limited government, government can ONLY do those things which it is specifically given the power to do. Our nation wasn't based on 'weak' or 'strong' government, or 'active' and 'inactive'- it was based on a limited government that can only do those things that are given to it to do. If it isn't a limited government, that means it is an unlimited government, and an unlimited government is a scary thing. This principle was so important, our founding fathers built in many features of our government to promote it- checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and even the Bill of Rights. Does America still follow this principle today? If you said yes, show me where in the Constitution the government is given the power to....make schools take assessment tests? Regulate and control healthcare? Regulate companies in the name of fighting global warming? Control banks? Buy stock in housing companies? Punish baseball players for taking steroids? Make someone join a labor union? Speculate on windmills? Tell an executive he/she is making too much? You can debate whether these things are desirable or not, but it is much harder to debate whether or not a limited government has the power to even do these things.
 
Federalism. Self-government was important to our founding fathers, so they put in place a federal system of government, where the power is shared between the national and state governments. Think about it yourself- who should control your behavior- your local township/city? Your state? Your nation? The world? Who should be telling you what you should and should not do? Our Founding Fathers (correctly) believed that your local friends and family and coworkers in your state know best how to run some aspects of your life, yet other aspects should be run in Washington DC- and yet other aspects of our lives should only be run by ourselves. So they put in place a federal system of government to reflect where power should properly lie. Does America still follow this principle today? Do you ever hear this principle mentioned by any government officials, especially national leaders? Do they ever talk about letting states decide major issues, or do they always push for the national government to decide everything? Who should decide (state or national)…healthcare- who is covered, how much, etc? Education- what is taught, what standards, etc? Transportation- where roads, speed limits, etc? Natural Resources- parks, drilling, etc? Before any discussion can be attempted on what to do, you need to ask 'who should be doing it'.
 
Separation of Powers. One of the ways of preventing tyranny is to set up government so that one branch or one person doesn’t have all the political power. So the basic powers of government are distributed among three distinct separate independent branches of government- the legislative (who makes laws), executives (who executes laws), and judicial (who judges laws). In the US, this is Congress, President, and Supreme Court. There are problems with this system- by putting political power in 3 branches, it takes political power from the branch closest the people- the legislative- and give it to branches more prone to tyranny- the executive and judicial. It also creates an inefficient government that can never seem to get anything done, and some people doubt whether or not we have the luxury of following this principle in in times of war? Because of this, this principle has been under attack for years. What do you think- does America still follow this principle today?

Checks and Balances. Although it is important to create three separate and distinct branches of government, you don’t want them to be totally separate or else there will be no way to check them and balance their power. So, in reality, the branches are not completely separate or independent of one another. Each branch is subject to another of restraints, or checks, on it by the other branches. These restraints work to balance the three branches, so that one branch does not become more powerful than the others. The good thing about this principle is that our founding fathers spelled these checks out pretty clearly in the Constitution, and it is rather tough to get around them. But one does wonder- does America still follow this principle today? Are all the branches still balanced? If not, which branch of government has emerged as the most powerful branch today?
 
Judicial Review. One check is so important to our political system, it is elevated to a founding principle soon after our nation was created. What if Congress or the President uses their power in a way that the Constitution does not allow them to do? Or, who decides if everyone is following the Constitution? Judicial review is the idea that the judicial branch can review laws of Congress or actions of the President and judge whether they are following the Constitution. Careful though- judicial review doesn't mean that judges get to decide whether Congress and the President are 'right' or 'wrong'- only whether they are in fact following the Constitution. Is it right that the Supreme Court (9 unelected old lawyers with lifetime terms) get to decide what our Constitution says- shouldn’t the Congress or President do this? What if judges decide to read things into the Constitution that are not there- do we have to follow what they say? Who rules America- judges/lawyers or elected officials? Does America still follow this principle today?

These questions and these thoughts are important, because for some reason, America grew from thirteen little tiny poor states crowding the Atlantic to conquering a continent, and then dominating the world in a way that has never been done before. A lot of nations have a lot of different advantages, but for some reason, America is strangely more powerful then any nations before or after, whether you judge by military power, economic power, cultural impact, or anything else. Why is America Exceptional? What is it about America that makes it different from any other country in the world- different from any other country ever- that makes it exceptional. What is it that makes America exceptional, and not just another country? Is it religious- are we blessed by God? Is it genetic- racial traits or brain drain? Is it environmental- fertile lands, mild climate, rich natural resources? These may play a role, but I would advance that what makes America Exceptional is our our continued belief in the basic principles on which our nation was established. Popular sovereignty, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial review, and federalism- our ancestors fought and died to build a government based on these foundational principles behind our Constitution, and by following these codes and fundamental laws, our nation has become the greatest ever.

One last question to leave you with today- what will it mean for our country if we stray from these principles?

You've all been great! Class is over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This blog is about my attempts to increase protection of private property from tyrannical and unjust takings by government, my attempts to increase protection of liberty and freedom and its practices from the tyrannical and unjust actions by government, and my attempts to protect life and celebrate the joys of being alive.

You see, I love people. Even though there are bad people out there and people that do bad things, I still believe deep in my heart that people are a blessing from God, made in his image and thus in a small way a glory to him, and that every person that is born is someone that should be treasured and loved as one of God's creations. As a teacher, I fully believe in the spirit of 'no child left behind' because I believe that every student should receive a great education no matter what their background. In high school I was part of the Free Tibet movement because I thought that the actions of the Chinese government against the culture and people of Tibet were wrong. Believing that the best way to prevent destructive wars and mass-murder dictators is through a strong military, I've been a big supporter of the military. I've weighed in from time to time on abortion. And I've celebrated the practices of living by putting up pictures of beautiful women and writing about fun movies or great books. Life is something that me, and many conservatives like me, value and support and love.

On the other hand, there are those people out there who don't celebrate and love life. They are supportive of the ending of unborn lives. They supported the Soviet Union and China in their economic and social policies, even though many millions of people died because of those policies. They are against using military force to remove evil mass-murder killing dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan. And these people feel that adding more people to the United States is not a good thing.

Froma Harop may indeed be such a person who does not love life, liberty, and property. She could be characterized by many as a 'liberal' based on the sort of editorials that she writes in the Detroit News- editorials like "Dems need better pitch to tax the rich" and "Obama, Democrats saved the nation" and "(Health) Insurance requirement is fair" are clearly liberal. Liberals don't love life, liberty, and property- they love government and control and power. Froma Harop, who supports the national government taking property rights away from individuals through unjust tax policies or insurance mandates, who does not like liberty based on support she has for czars and regulations over our lives, not surprisingly also is not a big fan of people. In her editorial today called Fewer people good for us all, she writes:

...For Americans concerned with a loss of open space and thickening congestion, a 10 percent growth rate should seem darn high....

...I don't know many Americans, or noncitizen immigrants for that matter, who think that 100 million more people would make the United States a better place. If the U.S. population is slowing, let's celebrate — and hope it slows some more....

I would imagine that Harop, like Obama, believes that children are a mistake, and that the world be a lot better place if there were fewer people in it. Perhaps we spew too much carbon monoxide out of our mouths and are ruining the environment so we should all be killed; perhaps it is because we all are prosperous and doing things and that bothers Harop because she wants us all poor and controlled; perhaps it is because by adding all of these people, these treasures from God, we have demonstrated that our nation indeed is a great place because of its conservative traditions; but for whatever reason, rather than celebrate life and the expansion of it in America, liberals like Harop reveal their disdain for life, liberty, and property.

No wonder liberals don't like the reading of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, documents which celebrate and enshrine the ideas that the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and not to redistribute income, provide healthcare, tell me what I can and can not eat, protect the 'right to abort a child', or do all the other things that liberals would have the government do. They don't like reading these documents because unlike me and fellow conservatives like me, perhaps they don't love life as much as they sometimes pretend they do, as demonstrated by columns like the one by Froma Harop in today's Detroit News.

Fuzzy Logic has attempted something that our own Congressman and Senators are terrified to do- read the actual health care bill and try to understand it. I don't think Fuzzy Logic is a team of lawyers, so perhaps the analysis isn't perfect, but the stunning nature of HR 3200 should be driving everyone to the Healthcare Rally's today (where people rally to save healthcare in America from the Obamanation it may become). I haven't read the bill yet, but I find the Fuzzy's Notes: HR 3200, Pages 1-95 more insightful than the platitudes from President Obama, so here is some of that analysis (read the whole post for all of it):

The only way you can make your own choice about having employer-based, rather than the government-run, health insurance is if you have it when the bill is enacted. This is the "grandfathered health insurance coverage" (pg 16). So in a way, BO actually got that part right. The part he left out is that if you don't have insurance when the bill is enacted, you're screwed (go straight to government-run health care, do not pass go, be sure to pay as you pass go). Also, if you do get "grandfathered" in with your own employer-based insurance, your future dependents cannot be added to that (also page 16), so you'll either have to pay for two policies, deductibles, etc. or switch yourself to the same coverage as your poor, doomed children.

So it looks like our generation will indeed live better than any other generation in the world- all those who follow will be on the government-run healthcare. And all of those young people who voted for Obama in such large numbers will also no longer have the hope of a good health insurance plan- they'll be forced to take the government-run healthcare.

The Commissioner will be very powerful. And it'll be his or her job to ensure "adequate enrollment" in the government option by whatever means are necessary, up to and including changing the regulations, taxes, "incentives" for staying out of the government option, and whatever else the Commissioner "deems appropriate."

Obama has created already a bunch of czars and commissioners, unelected people with extensive power and few checks, to rule us. This administration now wants to create an even more powerful one- the High Commissioner of Health- to control our health. Unelected. Unaccountable. Tyrants.

The president will appoint the Commissioner. Of course. That's not why I mention it. The interesting little detail here is what is not said (as is always the case with politicians in general and with BO in particular). There is no term limit (there is for the Committee--3 years), so I guess it's a lifetime appointment. That's good. Covers all the bases when BO is booted out of office in 2012; he'll still have his man (or woman) running health care. That's encouraging.

Hear that? Lifetime appointments for government czars to run large segments of our economy. That's Democrat-control of our lives, forever. Keep voting Democrat if you like that sort of stuff.

Sec. 1173a gives the government access to your financial records, including your bank and other assets (this section starts on pg. 57). Not surprising as they will need to determine eligibility, but this SHOULD be freaking out people on the Left who were so against Bush's "invasion of privacy." BO won't be in office forever, and once he goes (2012 at this rate), you can almost bet the ranch that a republican will win the Office (and access to all your private information.). Think I'm kidding? Read the bill yourself. It's all right there. And no, as I've explained above, you are not exempt. No one is. That's what the bill is about.

Do you want the government agents having access to your bank accounts? After another couple rules of Obama and Pelsoi running things, it probably won't matter much because your bank account will be empty, but I know of a couple people out there hiding some gold in safety deposit boxes- what do you think the government is going to do when it knows for a fact that you have that in your safety deposit box?

There's a 1-3+ year description (terribly written like the rest of this bill) that qualifies groups (individuals and various size businesses) for the government-run health care plan. They've got it all in here, too. Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, and the military and their dependents. So I guess all these plans will be dissolved at some point. Single-payer all the way.

It's a sad world when the government screws over veterans and retirees to move them to a crappy healthcare plan that Congress won't even get on. I'm going to point out right now that I voted straight ticket Republican last election, so none of this is my fault.

The plans unveiled. The basic plan is well, basic. It's the government's idea of "basic" and "necessary" and is subject to change based on recommendations by the aforementioned Committee or because the Commissioner had a bad (or good) day. Hmph! This plan is tier-priced, based on income--the more you make, the more you pay. Lovely. At least socialized medicine in most other countries provides shoddy care to its populace for free, but we get to pay for shoddy care. Yay. Only the premium-plus offers dental and optical, if the Commissioner approves, that is (pg 86).

Oh yes, this plan is bad. My years of experience in designing and recommending public policy lead me to suggest that this is poorly written garbage unworthy of being even considered by respective public officials, must less being advanced by Presidents and Congressman. If the Democrats wanted to help lower costs or expand government provided welfare insurance, they could have done so- but instead they put together this healthcare bill. No one, not a single person in our nation, should support this bill once you actually read it. It is not American- it does not protect life, liberty, and property.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy I found this highly fasinating analysis of federalism and the nature of government in the Star Trek universe. Read the whole thing and the comments here, but here is a snippet of it:

While teaching my Federalism seminar recently, I made an analogy to Star Trek's United Federation of Planets. That got me thinking about the role of federalism in Star Trek. How much power does the Federation's central government have, and how much is left to the individual planets? Does the central government's Star Fleet have a monopoly of military force, or do Vulcan and other planets have their own local forces? Does the Federation subsidize planetary governments heavily, or are there hard budget constraints? Despite five Star Trek TV series and numerous movies, these questions haven't really been answered. Unfortunately, the academic literature on Federation law isn't much help either (see also this supposedly comprehensive volume on Star Trek and the law, which almost completely ignores federalism issues).

The evidence in the TV series' on these points is contradictory. On the one hand, the Federation seems to have a socialistic economy with a massive welfare state and no currency, which would require a high degree of centralization and planning incompatible with meaningful federalism. In the absence of a currency and price system, central planning seems to be the only way to coordinate a complex economy to even a limited degree. On the other, member planets apparently have considerable autonomy. For example, Vulcan seems to have very different laws from Earth. And Vulcan's economy seems to have a large market sector dominated by family-owned enterprises. In Deep Space Nine, the planet of Bajor applies for Federation membership. Although Bajor is at least a partial theocracy with a government heavily influenced by religious leaders, anti-Federation Bajorans never argue that Federation membership would lead to the end of Bajor's quasi-theocratic political system (as it surely would if the highly secular Federation denied political autonomy to member planets).

How to reconcile the evidence? I would suggest that it is only Earth that is socialistic, while the other member worlds have free market systems or mixed economies. The human-dominated Star Fleet military is the only Federation military force, and is tasked with collecting tribute from the nonhuman planets for redistribution to Earth. But as long as they pay their taxes, which subsidize Earth's welfare state and Star Fleet itself, they are largely left alone to govern their domestic affairs as they see fit. The Federation is essentially a big protection racket (in both senses of the word: providing external security, and also "protection" against its own depradations). There is even a good historical precedent. The 5th century BC Athenian-dominated Delian League also collected tribute from the other member states (which had no independent militaries) and used it to finance government spending on welfare benefits and the Athenian Navy, an analogue to Star Fleet. As long as the allies paid their tribute, Athens mostly left them alone and did not try to influence their domestic policies.

This theory explains a lot. For example, it is now clear why Star Fleet is so completely dominated by humans. I don't think we have ever seen a nonhuman Star Fleet admiral, and there are very few nonhumans serving even as lower-ranking officers. Except for a few collaborators like Mr. Spock (who is criticized by his fellow Vulcans for accepting too many "illogical" human ways), the nonhumans can't be trusted to force their own people to pay tribute. It also explains why the human-dominated Star Fleet military force seems to have near-total control over Federation foreign policy (e.g. - Star Fleet officers such as Capt. Picard make major policy decisions without any significant civilian oversight).

Furthermore, in one of Star Trek movies, a Klingon spokesman denounces the Federation as a "homo sapiens-only club." Taken literally, this is too obviously false to be effective propaganda; the Federation surely does have nonhuman members. But this propaganda line makes sense if it actually refers to the fact that Federation and Star Fleet are tools for expropriating wealth from nonhuman planets and transferring it to Earth.

Why don't we ever see Captain Kirk or Capt. Picard on tribute collection runs? Because the Enterprise is one of Star Fleet's most advanced warships, and is therefore reserved for more difficult missions, such as going "where no man has gone before" in search of new wealthy star systems to occupy and tax. Note the term "no man," which further underscores human control of Star Fleet.

How does the Prime Directive fit into this? On the surface, it seems incompatible with an imperialistic Federation. But remember that the Prime Directive only applies to planets which are at a much lower level of technological development than the Federation itself. That is, only to planets that are not wealthy enough to be worth the cost of occupying and taxing. Star Fleet Command wants to prevent glory-seeking captains like Kirk from taking over underdeveloped worlds that are likely to drain more revenue than they bring in. The Prime Directive serves this goal, while also cloaking Federation imperialism in a veneer of righteousness that has been all too successful in fooling generations of TV viewers.

I highly doubt that this is the interpretation of Star Trek that Gene Roddenberry intended. However, it does account for the available evidence, doesn't it?

If you are intersted in learning more about Star Trek, try reading Star Trek Organizations: Star Trek Governments, Starfleet, United Federation of Planets, Maquis, Dominion, Kzinti Hegemony, Section 31 or Four visions of the century ahead: will it be Star Trek, Ecotopia, Big Government, or Mad Max?(technological optimism and skepticism): An article from: The Futurist or Political Science Fiction.

Shortly before the Presidential Election of 2008, I felt that it was important that I highlighted the fact that Members of our Military are Being Disenfranchised. Several personal cases were documented in my posts, and I became more uneasy about the disenfranchising of military voters, who usually vote Republican and whose votes are usually not counted by Democrats. No accusations were made, but I did feel important questions were raised.

I returned to this theme in January of 2009 with my story Soldiers Deprived of Right to Vote, which discussed that according to a Pew study, Michigan doesn't allow soldiers fighting bad buys overseas enough time to get their votes in, and that in 2006, about two-thirds of the estimated 1 million ballots distributed to military voters were not counted because they weren't returned on time, came back too late or had other problems.

So it is with great anger that I read the story on Pajamas Media BREAKING: DOJ Undermines Pentagon, Allows Wisconsin To Ignore Military Voting Protections:

Today the Department of Justice effectively rewrote the 2009 MOVE Act designed to protect military voters. In a settlement reached with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the Holder Justice Department allowed Wisconsin to mail ballots to overseas military voters only 32 days before the election, instead of the statutorily mandated 45 days.

The Pentagon had denied Wisconsin’s application for a waiver from the 45-day requirement: “The states granted waivers presented thorough and comprehensive plans to protect the voting opportunities for military and overseas voters,” Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, said in a statement. Wisconsin’s waiver application didn’t even come close to compliance with the MOVE Act. They wanted to send ballots only 29 days before the election. The folks at the Pentagon rightfully denied the waiver request.

But instead of aggressively suing Wisconsin immediately after the waiver denial, the DOJ engaged in secret negotiations. An immediate lawsuit would have strengthened the negotiating position of the DOJ as well as preserved various equitable legal arguments, including the argument DOJ waited too long to commence litigation. Instead of doing the right thing, the DOJ did the easy thing and reached a settlement with Wisconsin that undermined the Pentagon’s denial of Wisconsin’s waiver request.

The tough negotiating stance of the Holder DOJ extracted a whopping additional three days out of Wisconsin. Ballots will mail 32 days before the election instead of 29. A consent decree filed Friday will reflect this quisling agreement.

This is a disgrace, plain and simple. Military voters, their families and veterans organizations should be outraged at the Holder DOJ.

Democrats often say that they care about democracy and pretend like every vote matters, but again and again have demonstrated that when it comes to the votes of the members of our military, they couldn't care less. They work to shorten the length of time that military voters have to vote, they quibble about spending additional money and time putting together alternatives or mailing ballots overnight, and they break the law and then have Democrat AG's agree with the breaking of the law. It is a disgrace, and they need to be held accountable.

Imagine that you lived in a state of nature- your plane crash landed on some previously unclaimed island that has no inhabitants and there is no hope of being rescued or contacting your previous home nations. Or you go to the moon, or an asteroid, or the bottom of the ocean, or some other location where there are no laws and no legal rights are written down. What sort of rights would you have?

Another way of asking this question is for you to think of things that others would do to you that you would think are wrong- that you would believe are wrong because you know that to do these things are wrong, with or without a government or any sort of legal authority telling you that they are wrong. These are what are called your natural rights.

What sort of natural rights would you have, whereby you would feel violated and wronged by others, even if there were no government or state or authority? Let's say you crash land on the island or find yourself on the moon- would you feel that you had been horribly wronged and violated if your fellow citizens didn't pay for your healthcare insurance in case you got injured? You're on an asteroid, and you demand that the other people on the asteroid buy a house for you or subsidize your loan, and they say no- have you been wronged and your natural rights violated? Of course not- you don't have any sort of right to have others pay for your healthcare insurance, house, car, food, or anything of that sort.

Imagine that you begin to work on your island, tilling a field and growing a crop, where others lay around and do nothing other than to watch you. After you are done growing your crop, they all band together in a large group and vote to have you distribute your crop to everyone, with everyone getting an equal share, even though you contributed all the labor. Were you wronged? Did someone violate your rights? Or let's say on the moon, you provide some sort of service that is essential- taking care of the banking, entertaining others by playing a sport, taking a risk and thinking up a new product- and you work hard at your service and in return others pay you some sort of compensation, that they voluntarily pay for your service because they recognize its worth; and after this, someone else comes along and demands a share of your 'money' in order to pay for someone else to conduct a study of the effects of drinking in prostitutes in China, or to build a road that you will never travel on the other side of the moon, or to cut a check to the older people stranded on the moon, or to hire a bureaucrat to supervise you and tell you all the things you are doing wrong. Would you be wronged then?

Of course you would have been wronged- your labor is yours, and the profit from your labor is yours, and the government does not have any 'right' to your labor, not unless you are a slave to the state. You are okay with voting to provide a military to protect your property from outside aggression, or police or fire service to protect it from theft or fire, or to create a court system to resolve any disputes that may arise regarding your property. But for the government to come and demand the fruits of your labor and lay claim to it is tyranny- it is your property, it existed before government, it will exist after government, and you are the only person who can lay any sort of right to that property. This in your natural right to property.

The purpose of our government is to protect these natural rights- life, liberty, and property. There is no such thing as a 'tax cut for the rich'- the government does not have any sort of claim on the rich citizens' property, so a more proper name for this would be a 'lessening of the unequal taxes levied on those earning high incomes'. You do not have any sort of right to healthcare or housing; but neither do you have any sort of right to social security or medicare- those are provided to some in our society by violating my rights and the rights of other young people in society to keep and earn property in order to provide forced charity to those who have had ample opportunity to earn and pay for their own retirement and healthcare- but they have no right to this sort of forced charitable giving.

Understanding property rights and the nature of them is important, because once the state becomes destructive to these property rights that state is on the road to tyranny. We can see it already in our nation, where our government has arbitrarily violated contracts because a car company is going bankrupt, failed to properly issue permits to energy companies who have gone through the (excessive and capricious) permit process, or the forcing someone young and healthy and full of life to buy a product like health insurance in order to subsidize the costs for others in society. Once it has been established that your property rights can be violated by a government- that rights to keep and earn property that existed before government was around and would be around even if government was not around- then the next step is to go after your freedoms and liberties, and lastly, your life.

Fight for the right to keep and earn property, and stop engaging in class warfare, because it will only lead to tyranny and injustice.

For more, check out John Locke, property rights, and economic theory.: An article from: Journal of Economic Issues or John Locke and Property as a Human Right Today: Towards a New Theory of Property Rights.

We present the concluding part of Rina Okonkwo's article on corruption see part 1 here:

The military coup of January 15, 1966 was a direct response to the corruption of the First Republic. The popular support for the coup showed that people rejected corruption. Despite the brutality of killings of First Republic politicians, there was widespread rejoicing in the country for the acts. The assassinations of the Minister of Finance Chief FS Okotie-Eboh, who was notorious for flaunting his ill-gotten wealth, Premier of the Western Region, Samuel Akintola, nicknamed “rigging” and Ahmadu Bello, Sardauna of Sokoto, the Premier of the Northern Region, “whose wardrobe was the most elaborate in the world,” were applauded.13 The coup eliminated “the old brigade of politicians who were destitute of public spirit.” 14

The Ironsi government instituted a series of commissions of inquiry into affairs of the Nigeria Railway Corporation, the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria, Nigeria Airways, and the Nigeria Ports Authority. The report on the Ports Authority revealed that a number of ministers, including Okotie-Eboh, Ribadu, and R.Njoku had formed companies and used their influence to secure contracts.15 In Nigeria Airways, the minister, K. O. Mbadiwe had interfered with award of contracts to a company not registered in the register of companies. K.O. had gone against the board to send “Operation Fantastic,” the maiden flight of Nigeria Airways to New York. Friends and relations of the minister travelled free to New York. Many stayed on in the United States. Chief Dafe, the chairman of the board, was found guilty of hiring many unnecessary party workers in the airline. “Chief Dafe did not know the difference between Nigeria Airways and the party headquarters of the NCNC.” 16

Dr. Ikejiani, Chairman of the Nigerian Railway Corporation, was found guilty of misallocation of funds and disregarding the Board and recognized procedures of the NRC. When Ikejiani became the Chairman, he was in debt. Ikejiani left the NRC with a fleet of cars and buildings. The building of the Railway medical centre, which was estimated cost L75, 000, was inflated to L440, 000. The inquiry thought Ikejiani had diverted railway funds to build his private hospital. The architect for the medical center designed a building for Ikejiani in Lagos free of charge. The panel recommended that Ikejiani never again hold public office. 17

The zeal to punish the wrong doers of the First Republic died with the Gowon coup of July 1966. The politicians in detention were freed. Corruption increased. “Youths knew no other life than corruption.” “One could steal if he shared with those in the right places.”18

The coup of 1975 was an attempt to end corruption. Murtala Mohammed began by declaring his assets and asking all government officials to follow his example. Murtala instituted a series of probes of past leaders. The Federal Assets Investigation Panel of 1975 found ten of the twelve state governors in the Gowon regime guilty of corruption.
One of the exonerated military governors, Rotimi, was later appointed to head a commission of inquiry in 2000. The guilty persons were dismissed with ignominy and forced to give up property in excess of earnings.

The Belgore Inquiry investigated the “Cement Armada.” The Gowon government had imported sixteen million metric tons of cement at a cost of N557 million. Millions of Naira was lost in demurrage charges, as the cement rotted in the seas outside of Lagos. The ports were too congested to enable ships off-load their cargoes. The inquiry noted that the Ministry of Defence needed only 2.9 million tons of cement at a cost of N52million. The orders were inflated for private profit at great cost to the government.19

State governments held similar commissions of inquiry. Corrupt officials were dismissed with immediate effect and asked to refund the money they had stolen. Murtala was assassinated after only two hundred days in office. The Obasanjo regime did not show the same zeal in its prosecution of wrongdoers.

The Second Republic, under President Shehu Shagari, saw a resurgence of corruption. Shagari was ineffective in stopping the looting of public funds by the democratically elected officials. On December 31st, 1983, General Buhari led a popular coup with the aim of halting corruption. Buhari arrested the state governors and commissioners and brought them before tribunals of inquiry. All accounts of politicians were frozen.

In less than two years, Babangida replaced the reformist Buhari regime. The next fourteen years saw no serious attempt to stop corruption. Leaders found guilty in tribunals under Mohammed and Buhari found their way back to public life and recovered seized property. Wole Soyinka observed that for Abacha to launch a war against corruption was a “huge joke.”

The Third Republic has instituted numerous commissions of inquiry. The Oputa panel and the Akanbi Commission have investigated corruption. Yet all the commissions of inquiry and reports have not stopped corruption. The Transparency Index rated Nigeria the number two corrupt country in the world in 2001.

An historical look at corruption in Nigeria demonstrates that rhetoric against corruption does not end corruption. All the inspiring words of our leaders and journalists have not changed anyone. We have heard the most eloquent appeals and strongest language castigating wrongdoers to no avail. Azikiwe and Shagari were two excellent writers who did not act to stop corruption of their party members and colleagues.

From our survey of corruption in Nigeria, it would appear that change in Nigeria must come from the grass roots and not from the leaders. The British realized, as far back as 1947, that an educated, enlightened citizenry was the key to stopping corruption. Government could not legislate an end to corruption. Punishment of wrongdoers, while necessary, was not sufficient to stop corruption.

In his comparison of corruption in Nigeria and Britain, Ronald Wraith pointed to the need for education in good character and the importance of diffusion of wealth, power, and education in the society. There was need to build a tradition of disinterested public service. In Britain, responsible government began with the emergence of people who entered government service after they had amassed substantial wealth. They joined government, not to increase their fortunes, but to contribute to the country. When the people of Nigeria reject corruption, they will demand and receive good behavior from their leaders.

Yesterday I watched Russia - Land of the Tsars, a History Channel production that told the history of the Tsars of Russia from Peter the Great to Nicholas II. Russia has an interesting history, and no matter how many times I've studied it or investigated it, I always come out a little more confused- as Winston Churchill once said "Russia is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." That being said, the people of Russia are people too, and one theme that is common to all people is the desire for human liberty and freedom and the desire of other people to control and use other people. The struggle for life, liberty, and the protection of property that one earns from ones labor is a struggle that transcends nations and peoples, and while I watched this production I was reminded again of this struggle.

Tsars in particular were fascinating to me- Alexander I and Alexander II. Both had a chance to move Russia towards a liberal moderate constitutional monarchy, but both were defeated in these efforts by well-meaning democrats and socialists, who instead moved Russia closer to communism and fascism through their actions. This is frequently the case- some people work actively to defeat moves in the right direction because they are not the 'perfect' direction to move, without understanding that an oblique move is still a move forward.

After the assassination of spoiled and rotten Paul I, his son Alexander I became Tsar and he represents in his one person both the inclination for entitlement and elitism and a desire for control over others that he learned from his father and also a sense of enlightenment and a recognition of the worth of others and the inclination for liberty that he learned from his tutors and his grandmother Catherine II the Great. During his time as tsar, he struggled to reconcile these two competing belief systems. He moved Russia closer to a constitutional monarchy, put in place a Council of Ministers, allowed the serfs more rights, and attention to a more balanced budget all marked him in his early in his life as a liberal reformer who did things to improve the life, liberty, and protection of property of the people of Russia. But Alexander I was badly shaken by a revolutionary conspiracy among the officers of the guard around 1816, and by a foolish plot to kidnap him on his way to the Congress of Aix-la-Chapell in 1818- both undertaken by well-meaning democrats who were unhappy with the pace of change and so decided to speed things. After these incidents, Alexander I was forced to back away from liberalism and stopped reforms, and the moment passed, and his brother and successor Nicholas I reversed much of these actions and was greatly repressive, all because some made perfect the enemy of good.

Nicholas I was one of the most reactionary of all the Russian monarchs, and it is during his reign that we can see what happens when human liberty is not encouraged, when private property is not protected, and when life is respected. Although he ruled for 30 years and was successful in maintaining power and in enlarging the size of Russia, it is during his reign that Russia falls farther and farther behind the rest of the world in military power and economic production, and it is during his reign that the seeds for the future terror that was Lenin and Stalin were put in place. The hallmarks of his administration were abolishing local government, increasing censorship, increased government control over major industries, increased power of the national government, increased taxes, and ran up the national debt. The result- industries lagged, the industrial revolution avoided backwards Russia, revolution and unrest simmered, and the Russian military was embarrassed in the Crimean War. Bribe-taking, theft and corruption were everywhere.

With the death of Nicholas I in 1855, the Russian crown passed to his eldest son, Alexander II. There was little in Alexander II's upbringing or character to indicate that he would be one of the greatest reformers in the history of Russia, but sometimes when people who are good are given a chance, even if they are not perfect, they surprise you. And surprise Alexander II did- he ended the Crimean War, began to clean up the crony capitalism that ran rampant in government, lowered taxes, filled the treasury, exploited natural resources, encouraged business development, emancipated the serfs in 1861, rebuilt the military, put in place a new judicial system, greatly simplified civil and criminal procedures, encouraged rule of law, empowered local police, moved more power to local governments, and generally acted with more humanity towards everyone he dealt with. He was not perfect, but did much to advance human liberty, protect property from capricious actions by government, and protect the lives of people from the state. But there were some who felt that he didn't go far enough often enough, and these radicals, raised in the oppression of Nicholas I's reign, were not just conservative democrats, but instead the more dangerous kinds of revolutionaries, socialists, who sipped the Kool-Aid and truly believed that a better world could be made by using the state to redistribute wealth, control industries, and pick winners and losers in society. They dogged Alexander II, repeatedly trying to assassinate him, until eventually they were successful and killed Alexander II in March of 1881. Alexander II was followed by a conservative and repressive Alexander III and Nicholas II, who did little to return to the agenda that Alexander II had put in place prior to his death.

One of those who were part of the plot to kill Alexander II was Alexander Ulyanov, who was very much looked up to by his younger brother, a young community activist known as Vladimir Lenin. One wonders what might have happened if Alexander I or Alexander II might have succeeded in their attempts to move Russia forward- perhaps it would not have slid backwards and fallen victim to the awful atrocities that were the reigns of Lenin and Stalin, and the millions in dead might still be alive and prosperous today.

Sometimes good is good enough, and even if some Tsars were not perfect, they did advance human liberty, protect property, and protect human lives from the excesses of the state. It is important that we take time to learn about them so that we may learn some lessons from them and apply those lessons to our own nation and to our own choices of who should be governing our nation.

The video can be found at Russia - Land of the Tsars.

Although I am no expert on foreign policy, I do have an undergraduate degree focusing on it, and so I'm always interested in events like those going on in Honduras. The situation is really quite simple, and summed up nicely by the WSJ via Powerlineblog. I'm going to copy the whole story down here, because it is complete and does a great job at showing just how clear the situation is:

Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."

Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.

Again, I'm no expert, and I don't want to oversimplify things here, but the bad buy is the former President and the good guys are whoever is getting rid of the brutal communist who is trying to illegally stay in power. If I were the President of the United States, I would be supporting those people on the side of good- those who want law, freedom, and prosperity. Perhaps I would wait a bit just to make sure my initial take on events was correct, but probably my statement would be supportive of what is going on, or at least as neutral as Obama's statements were on the overthrow of evil dictators by forces of good in Iran.

But Democrat President Obama sees things differently. He quickly sided with the bad guy, and stood shoulder to shoulder with other bad guys (Castro, Chavez, Ortega) in being "deeply concerned" about the ouster of the tyrannical president. Again, he quickly sided with the bad guy- Obama's first impulses, those that show his qualities and character the most, are to side with bad guys. He further makes a call to restore the tyrannical president to his place, and appears to be 100% supportive of the bad guy in this situation.

I've hammered Obama about his domestic policy, where it appears as if he is trying to destroy the United States for no reason at all. Let's not forget Obama's foreign policy though, where he is attempting to hurt our best friends (British, Israel, Georgia) while attempting to give everything to our worst enemies. Not to make this oversimplify or black and white, but Obama appears to be helping the bad guys. That's why he is a bad President.

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.

Doug Ross has put together an excellent summary of all of President Obama's recent foreign policy actions. Let us not forget that while we have a Congress to worry about and work on domestic policy, it falls on our President to worry about and work on foreign policy, and Obama has performed very poorly in it. This is some fairly harsh criticism of Obama, but it is not wrong:

• Pakistan is said to have increased its stockpile of nuclear weapons, secretly surpassing India's level of atomic arms. In addition, Pakistan is becoming 'enveloped by Islamists' as radicals hold more and more sway over the people and the government.
• The government of Egypt is about to fall, threatening a replay of the 1979 Iranian revolution in which a populist democratic movement was quickly subsumed by a well-organized and violent cadre of religious extremists. Unlike Iran, however, Egypt's "military is a powerhouse in the region, possessing hundreds of advanced tanks and fighter aircraft that could fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.
• Lebanon is under new management: the vicious, Iranian-backed group called Hezbollah, which is responsible for the terrorist attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut. Their aim is written into their charter -- to destroy Israel, Britain and the United States
• Tunisia is in the throes of its own revolution with hard-line radical Islamists poised to take control of the government
• Iran continues its work on nuclear armaments and intercontinental ballistic missile technologies, its steady progress delayed only by a clever cyber-attack
• Gaza's Hamas-led government is reportedly importing a new strain of Iranian extremists; Hezbollah agents are said to be making their way into the Palestinian enclave to train soldiers for an attack on Israel; in their spare time Hamas is lobbing missiles into Israel
• Venezuela, Hugo Chavez' dictatorship, is now said to be fielding Iranian military personnel and missiles with 'scientific' collaboration revolving around warhead design and nuclear technology
• The military regime of North Korea recently torpedoed a South Korean warship and is threatening to retest its nuclear weapons. It was also busted importing nuclear technology into Syria and has -- as a bonus -- assisted Iran with its development of missile guidance technologies
• China is on the move: building aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, locking up energy contracts all over the world, and generally preparing to occupy Taiwan and -- eventually -- regions closer to the U.S. All the while, it uses North Korea as a proxy for delivering advanced technologies to rogue regimes to ensure that the United States can never rest easy
• According to a disclosure in Wikileaks, Al-Qaida is "on the brink" of using a nuclear weapon and is far closer to deployment of chemical and biological weapons than previously believed.

Now I know that I have a lot of liberals and Democrats read my blog, so go ahead and list in my comment section all of the incredible foreign policy accomplishments of Obama, and we'll all compare. I predict that the best that Democrats and liberals can do is offer a laundry list of excuses and reasons why bad things occur whenever they are in charge, or lame attempts to pin the blame on someone else, or things that they can take credit for that were things they voted against or spoke out against when they were running for office. The balance is likely to be pointing one way on this one, and that is against the competence of the Obama administration's handling of foreign affairs.

First question was on thoughts about the bailout, whether it was a good thing or bad thing. According to Biden, Obama was THE mover and shaker on it, that his ideas were shaping this policy, and that his ideas became the bailout plan. Huh- so this is what it is like to live in Venezuela- politicians can just make stuff up. Palin's reply was to make it real to every day people. I guess this means she is dumb, because Americans are all dumb, right? She sounds nervous and very coached. Less good.

Asked about gap of polarization. Biden solved many problems, is noted bipartisan... really? He then mocked McCain by going after the "fundamentals are still strong" comment- didn't Obama make that same comment this week? Palin's response- Obama is same old liberal Democrat, bought and sold by special interests. Moderator says "neither answered the question"- what was her question anyways?

Asked about predatory lending. Huh- notice how every issue is through the lens of a liberal- pro-bailout, Republicans are more polarizing than Democrats were, 'predatory lending'... wonder if the next question will be on global warming or something. Palin has to play on their turf. That's rough. Missed their answers- both blah.

Biden did say that the best way to fix economy was to give more power to government. Palin should point out this fundamental difference between the two candidates- Obama/Biden believe in government, McCain/Palin believe in the people. Biden talked about more regulation. Palin talked about tax relief. Biden accuses Palin of not answering the question on deregulation- there was a question on deregulation? That's the Palin I like! She is not going to be led around by Biden or the moderator- she is going to say what she needs to say. That smile is real now. Now look at her go. Opps, cut off now. Time up? Wonder what kind of clock the moderator was using to time this exchange.

Biden says that under McCain's plan 100 million households would have their taxes raised. Are there even 100 million households in the US? I wonder how accurate this figure is. It sounds 100% made up. Palin points out that Obama's plan is a wealth redistribution plan, and that the increased taxes will fall on small businesses. Government is problem, not solution. Biden says that it isn't redistribution when money is taken from rich (small businesses, wealthy individuals) and given to the poor- it is fair. Ring... ring... hello? Soviet Union? How you doing?

Moderator- would you like to defend McCain's healthcare plan? Is she going to ask Biden if he would like to defend Obama's healthcare plan? Nope. The moderator never asked this. Palin says feds can't run poop, so don't give them more power. With the bailout, what expansions of government will you now forgo? Biden says nothing, in fact, like Obama did last week, he said he would expand government further, and eliminate wasteful spending with line-item veto and closing loop-holes in the tax code. Palin says that Obama is hypocritical- voted for tax breaks and now talks about getting rid of them. She interacts well with Biden and the camera. Biden isn't bad- he is a good speaker- I can see why he is a long-time Senator. I don't mind him- he's better than Obama is.

Moderator- Palin, can I get you to say something bad about McCain's policies? Palin, with a tired reply, says you won't suck me into your trap. Moderator- Biden, speak about how your vote helped out people? Biden- okay. Will give more power to courts to adjust your mortgage rate. Wow. Did I hear that correctly? Did he just say he would give our courts the power to tell a bank to lower your monthly payments? Seriously? Palin talked about energy- wasn't really the time for this card to be played.

Moderator- talk about climate change, and how anyone who doesn't agree with the mythology to it is an idiot. Palin- there are cyclical changes, let's not argue with the causes, let's focus on what we can do. Biden- climate change is man-made, without a doubt. Cause is man. Must kill man. Man is destroying polar ice cap. America uses a lot of energy. Must stop Americans from using energy.

Moderator- Biden, you talk about what you support- can you reconcile this with your voting record? Palin- drill, baby, drill. All of the above approach to energy issue. Biden- you can't take my statements at a rally out of context- look at my record. Huh. Obama never said 'look at my record'- I remember Obama pulling random out-of-context quotes out.

Moderator- do you believe in granting same benefits to same-sex couples? Biden- Constitution calls for it. Must have a different version as me. Palin- careful about redefining the age-old definition of marriage. Had to defend herself from 'bigot' charge. Biden didn't- it is okay to be anti-conservative, but not okay to be anti-liberal. Palin is not supportive of gay marriage. Biden says not supportive of gay marriage either. Moderator twists question and asks it of Palin- Palin refuses trap again, and answers same question Biden was asked.

Moderator- missed question, but something about Iraq and funding of troops. Biden said he and Obama agree fully on one thing- that implies that on a lot of other issues, they disagree. Biden wants to 'end the war'- and probably forget it was ever fought. Palin points out that it isn't about 'ending the war'- it is about winning the war. Palin jokes that Biden was very supportive of McCain- I like Palin, and I like Biden. They're good politicians. Biden says that McCain voted against funding for the troops- I think that that's playing games with votes, and not an honest attack. McCain has been wrong on a lot of issues with Iraq. Moderator lets that stand.

Pakistan or Iran- who to fear? Biden- Iraq not part of war on terror. Should be building schools and hospitals in foreign countries. Palin- military and terrorists both consider Iraq central to war on terror. Iran more unstable, needs to be dealt with. Diplomacy is hard work- it isn't just 'let's sit down and talk it out.' Obama's ideas on diplomacy are dangerous. Biden- Iran not even controlled by Achy, need to sit down and talk. Brags about Bush's diplomacy with Iran, saying he'd do the same- don't brag about bad ideas, brag about good ones.

Moderator- Palin, solve Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palin- will work for two-state solution, will back Israel. Biden- Joe Biden friend of Israel. Hezbollah same legitimacy as Israel. Moral relativism. Moderator- do you support Bush? Palin- nope. Positive change coming. Biden- McCain the same as Bush. Moderator let this stand. Palin brought up Obama's reckless comments about our soldiers being bad- we will win in Afghanistan. Moderator- you can talk about whatever you want Biden. Biden- touted Obama's loose-nukes legislation. Disagreement on what McClellen (leader in Afghanistan) actually said. Wonder who is right? If it's Palin, that's stunning- Biden is a 30 year senator, Palin is rather new to this.

Moderator- Biden, you have quite a record of intervention. Biden- Success and winning is important. End result is it worked. It saved lives. Why doesn't he apply the same logic to war in Iraq? Partisan logic- he was against Bush. Good old leftist- wants to intervene all over the world, but doesn't want to use the military. Palin is a good old righty- doesn't want to intervene, but when do wants to win. Palin brings out the old 'for it before I was against it line'- she is getting the better of this debate. She is nicer, nice smile, serious knowledge. Talks to Biden. Gives him credit where it's due. Biden is okay too, smiles as well, good knowledge, talks to Palin. I like him, just don't agree with him. Obama I don't like, he scares me, and I don't agree with him.

Moderator- Heartbeat away. How would Biden be different from Obama? Same in principle, different in practice. Palin different than McCain? She's a maverick, and McCain likes that, so they don't agree on everything. Will make government more relevent to everyday people. Biden- McCain is the same as Bush, and Bush has been unmitigated disaster, overseeing 7 years of recession, war, and disaster. Palin- folksy answer about looking forward and change, transitions well to policy points about education.

Moderator- both candidates dissed VP spot. Palin joked that both made jokes that no one got, so no big deal, don't read too much into it. Biden also knows role to play. The thing is- which joke does the media focus on? Which joke, Biden's or Palin's, does the media say reflect on the candidate? The media talks about Palin's joke, not Biden's. Moderator- do you agree with Cheney's ideas about the VP? Palin- flexible and understands how policy is created. Biden- Cheney is bad man and evil. Although I think that is baseless, I actually agree with Biden on this what role the VP is supposed to play in our system- VP is useless position in our government.

Missed question, but caught Biden talking about what people on the streets want. McCain= Bush. Palin replied that McCain is a maverick, and pointed to record and support from Democrats.

Final question to Biden- can you think of a single policy issue where you have changed your views? Biden- wasn't tough enough on judges early on. Seriously? Same question to Palin- didn't veto some budgets, wanted to work more with other party, but some regrets that had to pass those budgets.

Final question, first to Biden- how do you change the tone in Washington? Learned lesson from Mike Mansfeild- Republican? Democrat? Don't question motives of politicians- just disagree with their policies. That's fair enough. I believe Biden on this- Obama questions motives all the time. Palin- appoint quality people, regardless of their political beliefs, to positions of influence in administration. It's all about policies and proposals, not about meaningless empty rhetoric. Rained solid blows at the end.

Closing statement of Palin- enjoyed debate, doesn't like filter of media. Will have to fight for freedom, have to fight hard to maintain our liberties, will fight so that we don't look back and think about what we've lost as a nation. Closing statement of Biden- again mentions that this is the most important election ever. Says we need fundamental change- and not change towards lower taxes, not change towards less government, but fundamental change towards higher taxes and more government- a government that controls education and healthcare.

Good debate. Thought moderator stayed out of the way. I thought Biden did a good job, but Palin did even better- more personal, likable, and made policies more real.

After debate coverage- CNN- Palin did good for a women, but she dodged questions. MSNBC- someone spewing Democratic talking points I heard last week, word-for-word. FOX- balanced, thoughtful- most thoughtful comment- journalists are too baised and can't make this call.

Listening to President Barack Hussein Obama talk on Memorial Day, I was moved.

"Why in an age when so many have acted only in pursuit of narrowest self-interest have the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of this generation volunteered all that they have on behalf of others?" he said. "Why have they been willing to bear the heaviest burden?"

"Whatever it is, they felt some tug. They answered a call. They said, 'I'll go.' That is why they are the best of America," Obama said. "That is what separates them from those who have not served in uniform, their extraordinary willingness to risk their lives for people they never met."

Of course, some of the power of the message is lost because Obama never served in the military, fought his hardest to resist any call to bear heavy burdens, and (before becoming President and acting this part) he generally spoke ill of the military and those who serve. Oh, and not to quibble, but many in the military I know are not fighting for someone they never met, but are fighting to keep our country of American values free for their parents, friends, and other people they have met- frequently soldiers talk about how it's more of a family value thing than a lawyer-lobbyist thing. And I also wonder why is 'this age' so different than those in the past- maybe Obama is once again showing that he feels he is the Messiah, the ender of ages and the beginning of a new age for man?

Even so, I was moved. Why do some choose to bear burdens? Why do some people feel a call to serve, to hold fast to unpopular ideas, and to make the hard and tough decisions in life? Why do some continue to bear the burden of holding to morals and values, when this world and the Democratic Party push for a nihilistic approach of doing whatever you feel like is okay? Why do some feel the need to talk about our Founding values, to hold firm to life, liberty, and freedom, and to push for good responsible government?

It is a lot easier to just throw money at our problems, especially when that money is was earned by someone else. It is a lot easier to preach 'compassion' for criminals, especially when it isn't your son or daughter that was raped or murdered. It is a lot easier to 'relate' than it is to make a tough decision and say 'someone broke the law and needs to be punished.' It is a lot easier to say 'give up your values and agree with us and be a moderate' than it is to stick to your values or to say abortion is wrong and gay marriage is wrong and gun ownership is good. Is is easy to get on a soapbox and say 'don't label people all you mean conservatives and evil Republicans', but much harder to say 'don't label people.' It is a hard burden that some choose to bear, and I too wonder why some feel the calling to do so.

Case in point. When asked "Would Jennifer Granholm make a good Supreme Court justice?", according to a Detroit News/WXYZ poll most Michigan residents say "yes!". Why would they say that? She has zero qualifications, and compared with Supreme Court judges now (both liberal and conservative) and in the past, her qualifications to be judge are severely lacking. Why would anyone even think she would qualified for judge, much less 'make a good one'?

Poll participant Sue Barber, an unemployed non-taxpayer sucking down social security, gives us some insight into how easy it is to say 'sure, whoever wants to be Supreme Court judge can if they want.' "She's very bright, well-educated, and an attorney" she said- why not make her a judge- it's really tough to tell a child 'no', and a lot easier to just go with the flow. Sue went on to add that she is impressed by the fact that Granholm pretends to be an impartial decision-maker ("a genuine capacity to look at all sides of an issue") but likes the fact that after all this charade, she always goes with a pure liberal philosophy ("evaluate fairly"). "She's not just a doctrinaire like some of the other justices on the court"- as if having no moral and ethical base were something to admire- and it's not true anyways, because she is liberal to the core (although perhaps liberal is the same as no moral or ethical base).

Another case in point. Look at the lack of discipline in this newspaper editorial written by a Democratic hack pretending to be a news story:

The Grand Old Party is on wobbly legs these days in Michigan as voters drift away and those left behind are locked in an ideological debate about the path to reverse its sagging fortunes. Increasingly, the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is pitting social and religious conservatives who unflinchingly tout an anti-abortion, anti-gay, family platform at the expense of most everything else, against the traditional fiscal conservatives and moderates who would rather focus on a smaller, less intrusive government that takes less from taxpayer wallets and finds ways to create jobs.

This author likes the fact that 'voters drift away'- drifting in the currents of liberalism is a freeing experience- you can be a child again and indulge in your every want and desire. Sadly, those voters that 'drift away' and vote Democrat are now seeing the results of that- a country and society that is getting less and less every day. It is much harder to stand up in the water and say 'I am not going to drown, I am going to fight, I am going to bear whatever burden to make this nation better.'

It is really tough to be unflinching in the face of evil. History has shown this to be the case- most of times, when faced with difficult decisions and a hostile and aggressive foe, the natural impulse of man is to run. That is what the Democrats do- they run and hide and pretend that it is okay to poke a hole in a 8 month old baby's brain and call it 'choice.' They flinch back from making a tough decision and saying 'get a job and work.' Rather than saying 'you committed a crime and must go to jail,' they jerk back, fearful and afraid, and cower to the criminal and say 'compassion'.

This author tries to pretend the battle is within the Republican party- but reveals that what the battle really is is between the Republican party and the Democratic party- the author says moderates want a "less intrusive government that takes less from taxpayer wallets and finds ways to create jobs"- in other words, according to him moderate Republicans are willing to pay 40% in taxes, give up most of their freedoms, and support a government that spends taxpayer money on government boondoggles. Those aren't moderate Republicans- those are Democrats.

Don't give in to this garbage. Don't drift away. Be strong. Get a backbone. Stand up. Bear the burden. Our Founding Fathers were not the most popular bunch, especially with the established interests and the international community. Take heart in that. Others out there show us the way- show us that burdens can be born, that courage can fight down the impulse to flinch back from evil, and that if you truly want to change the world and have hope for the future, you need to unflinchingly vote conservative Republican in every election.