My Beauty Best Teacher

For years, the United States has been a leader in the world in economic freedom. Economic freedom is defined as having property rights protected by impartial rule of law, free trade, a sound currency, and a small limited government relative to the size of the economy. My blog supports economic freedom, and the political party that I support also pushes for policies that make economic freedom a reality- no bailouts, no government take-overs, bond holder rights that are respected, low and fair taxes, consistent regulations and rules, a restrained bureaucracy, free trade agreements with Columbia or other nations, no inflating the currency through QE or other Fed schemes, a return to the gold standard, and a limited and small government that does take valuable resources away from the private sector.

Many people oppose these policies- they seek to make the United States less free. The problem with this is that those countries that are less free also are less prosperous. By pushing for stimulus bills, czars, subsidies for green energy, deficit spending, higher taxes, inflating of the currency, or other liberal Democrat policies, our nation becomes less economically free, and the result is higher unemployment, lower income, less happiness, lower life expectancy, less clean environment, and more corruption.

I know, I know- you care about the poor people, you see Bush as a bogeyman, you hate the war in Iraq, you are passionate about the environment- it does not matter why you vote Democrat and why you are a liberal, the result is that you support policies that make our nation less economically free, and thus a lesser nation in so many ways.

This video will help illustrate it for you and you'll see what nations are economically free and which ones aren't- and hopefully this will help you to understand what sort of policies to support in our society and which political party to vote for and which ones not to.

H/T to Orlin for passing this video on to me. Thanks!

Think about this when faced with a political question:

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'

The above quotation came from Ronald Reagan's speech, "A Time For Choosing," which he delivered in October of 1964. This words are still relevant today. Do the policies that you promote take us towards the ant heap of totalitarianism, or advance us up the ladder of liberty? Does withdrawal from Iraq increase individual freedom and order? Does a national healthcare system move us up or down? Is giving federal money for stem-cell research, fuel efficient cars, and windfarms expanding my freedom, or restricting my choices?

Answering these questions in a manner consistent to Reagan's rhetoric about liberty and freedom is the real change that we need in our country.

UPDATE: As I watch the speech, this line blew me away:

There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Today, the soldiers of our nation are fighting a valiant and noble war to bring peace and freedom to new people, and thereby make America more free and safe. And yet, there are those among us who want us to lose that war, to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree- do we still know the gift that was given to us by our Founding Fathers?

UPDATE 2: You have to watch this speech. I'm rather young- I've never seen it. Link to it above. Check out this line:

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

During this last election, it was about a little intellectual elite in Washington telling you how to live your life. Remember that exchange with Joe the Plumber and Barack Obama? In it, he said that he thinks it is best if he takes some of your money and redistributes it to others- and those who voted for him admit that he does know better than them how to run their lives. Have we indeed lost our capacity for self-government, as our tradition and schools fail to educate us? Have we abandoned the American Revolution, and the First Principles on which it was based? Reagan continued:

(Our Founding Fathers) knew that governments doesn't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

Force and coercion- tyranny and oppression. Not to be Mr. Doom and Gloom, but that is what is going to follow this Democratic victory. Reagan understood the nature of the beast. Look at this line:

Well what of this man (Barry Goldwater) that they (the liberals) would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear?

Think about what liberals did to Sarah Palin. They attempted to personally destroy her, so that in doing so, they would destroy everything that she represented- in personally attacking her, their goal was to attack the freedoms and liberties on which our nation was based.

Here is the ending:

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. Thank you very much.

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.

Another year for the books! For this blog, 2010 saw a large jump in readership, and for that, I thank all of you for reading my blog posts, for passing my posts on to your friends to read, and for linking to those posts on your blogs or on your social networks. It is my hope that my messages about freedom, liberty, protection of property rights, and love of life, and the battles to improve and strengthen these things, have inspired and motivated you, and maybe taught you a little something too. There were a lot of great posts in 2010- based on reader feedback (emails and comments and discussions), here are the top ten:

Obama: Didn't Waive the Jones Act, Made Gulf Spill Worse:
Occasionally I break a major story, like this one, which I was on well in advance of the MSM:

In reply to the emails from snarky liberals who ask 'just what do I expect Obama to do about the Gulf oil spill', the reply is 'get the hell out of the way'... Let loose the power of free markets and civil society and restrict government to limited and defined roles, and the world will be a better place. In this particular case, just 'what can Obama do'? Here is one of dozens of examples that are specific and have few drawbacks but Obama isn't doing- Obama can temporarily waive the Jones Act....

McSweeney's Account of His Little Daughter's Randian Objectivism
I'm told by some that the original account may have been a satire, but what makes the satire so interesting is how it could easily be the truth, as I have documented dozens of related experiences on my blog:

...Sometimes I think I'm going a little too far with the raising of my kids, talking to them like that and reading them the Bible weekly and stuff, but then over at Pundit & Pundette I read a similar account from Timothy McSweeney...

Obama Nicknames
Every President has a nickname- Reagan was the Gipper, Bush was W, Clinton was Slick Willy- so here are some of the top Obama nicknames I have seen...

On The Texas Board of Education Decision
This is one that I recently talked about on a radio interview (yes, you can contact me about doing radio if you want a good conservative teacher on your panel)...

Manhattan Community Board 1 Approved Ground Zero Victory Mosque: Details Here!
Another major story that I was on the ground floor on and provided some original research to:

One of the main reasons used by liberals and Democrats in defense of this project is that "the project was approved in a non-political and non-religious and purely objective way." I reject this premise, as man is by nature a political animal, and this particular project was is a political and religious statement and anything but objective. This boards approval of the mosque was not an objective decision based on separation of church and state- no, this was a political statement by a group of radical liberals....

President Obama Defends Slavery?
The Republican Party fought to free the slaves. The GOP passed the Civil Rights Act. Conservatives fight for liberty, freedom, property protection, and protection of life. So it does not surprise me when Obama defends slavery:

President Barack Obama said something pretty darn surprising in a speech recently. He said "(?) have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass (?) would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable."... So, do you think that President Obama was arguing in favor of slavery or in favor of illegal immigration?

Oppose Race to the Top: Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose RTTT

Recently, Michigan Senate Majority leader Mike Bishop asked me for my opinion on the President's Race to the Top program. I told him that I didn't support it, and he looked at me in a way that said "I thought you were a conservative" and "I thought you wanted to help education." At the time, I struggled to explain why I didn't like the program- I didn't really know all the details to it, but suspected that I was indeed correct in opposing it from what little I knew. He thought I was just a tool of the teachers unions, who also oppose RTTT, but I knew that for some reason I didn't like this initiative by Obama, and it wasn't just paranoid anti-Obama sentiment.... Today, via theblogprof, via Right Wing News, I came across the an article called "Ten Rules for Anti-Government Republican Radicals in D.C. ." As an anti-government conservative radical, the kind that our founding fathers were, the kind of people that built our nation and made our country a great success, I find these rules to be useful in helping me begin to articulate why I oppose Race to the Top....

A Personal Story: Teaching Global Studies Last Year:

Last summer I decided to earn an extra few bucks by teaching a summer school class called Global Studies. Global Studies class is supposed to be a survey of the countries of the world, and touch on their geography, history, economic systems, and current political issues... I met with the teacher who taught in full time during the year who showed me the way the class was supposed to be taught....

Obama's New NASA Policy- Yet More Broken Promises and Lies
American Exceptionalism is being killed by Obama, in ways big and small. Once America was a great nation that put men on the moon- an exceptional nation capable of spaceflight and exploring new worlds. Once it was... after Obama and the Democrats I wonder:

Out of all of the broken promises of President Obama, this one is probably not the biggest to a lot of people. Out of all of the phony and lying rhetoric about hope and change, this latest policy announcement that kills hope and changes things for the worst is probably not the most backstabbing that he has uttered. But that does not mean that Obama's plans to destroy NASA's budget and redirect its mission away from exploration is not big or important to me....

The NEA Should Support Republicans: The GOP is Better for Education
A rising tide floats all boats, teachers included...

Lastly, I'd like to thank the bloggers from Pundit & Pundette, theblogprof, Vox Popoli, Right Michigan, Doug Ross, and all of the many others who have become regular readers and have taken what I have written over the past year and passed it on to their readers. Great work everyone!

There is something very important happening in Tunisia. On January 14, a spontaneous popular uprising ousted President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali from power and ended his decades of autocratic rule. For the first time, many in this nation have the freedom to speak and the freedom to demand justice for those who have been unjustly killed by Ali's regime. Although the ending to this story is uncertain- exactly how far does this revolution go and what kind of retribution will fall on Ali's party- the story is very much one that is hopeful and to be celebrated by those people who love and support freedom, liberty, and protection of property.

But it isn't being celebrated by many in America. President Barack Obama (Democrat) issued a weak statement praising “the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people”, and then turned around and made a phone call in support of Egypt's autocratic dictator Hosni Mubarak. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (Democrat) commented that the US was not “taking sides” in Tunisia, reinforcing that it is the policy of the (Democratic) administration not to support good in its battle with evil around the world.

It shouldn't come as a surprise though that Obama's (Democratic) administration is not being supportive or even very happy about the overthrow of an autocratic Middle-East dictator. Ali was 'our guy' a neo-liberal who ran a semi-modern nation and seemed to support us in our wars against extremism in the Middle-East, a description that also fits Mubarak and Egypt. Still, although he was 'our guy', his overthrow might lead to a 'better guy', and so the administration should have been able to react quickly and move decisively to support and praise the freedom movement in Tunisia.

But yet, Obama's (Democratic) administration isn't moving fast and quick and reacting to modern-day events in ways that would support the flowering of democracy and freedom and bring more life, liberty, and protection of property to more people of the world. Why?

Obama is stuck in the past- the past of his Harvard college years, the past of his term papers, the past of his Jerimiah Wright church, the past of his own rhetoric- and this uprising in Tunes, much like the uprising last year in Iran, wasn't expected or even smelled by his advisers and they lack the skill and intelligence and competence to change their policies on the fly. So they sit there, letting world events swirl around them, reacting to uprisings in ways that betray their lack of abilities and vision, and for that reason, voters should severely punish Obama and Democrats in Congress who supported him and his stuck-in-the-past policies.

The Middle-East has been opened to a revolution of freedom and liberty by the successful policies of Republicans and Bush, and Obama's administration has had these successes unfold and fall into his lap, where he has done nothing noteworthy to earn the Peace Prize that was awarded to him before his administration took its first steps. We demand more and better from our Presidents and his advisers- not lukewarm statements and bored non-interest, but real action and real policy and real support.

One wonders why Obama and his Democrats in Congress have been so reluctant to speak out against corrupt regimes that build their power by demonizing their enemies, speaking harshly against them, personally attacking them, criminalizing their political activities, transferring citizens wealth to favored constituents, confiscating the wealth of unfavored individuals, having no oversight to its actions, and in other ways acting as a corrupt and autocratic tyrannical regime that attacks the life, liberty, and property rights of its citizens. Perhaps Obama doesn't express his support for revolutions in Tunisia though because he and his cronies identify more with the autocrats and dictators who run them.

UPDATE: So it is now several days later, and Egypt and Yeman have both also broke out in revolutions, demanding an end to autocractic government and more democracy. Obama's response? No clue. As usual, Obama is reacting to events on the international stage rather than driving events, and doing so in a slow manner, demonstrating once again that he is imcompetent- he and his advisors don't know what they are talking about, don't know how to react to situations, don't do their homework, and don't understand what is going on- and that explains why we hear nothing about how the greatest nation in the world reacts to these revolutions around the world.

There is no debate with the left- there is submission or opposition which must be submitted. This fact is not just in evidence when our leftist President speaks- Obama in his infamous health care speech said that there is no debate and that he will not tolerate any discussion on the issues. But it isn't just the President- I think this is an inherent feature of a leftist liberal Democrat- that there is no debate with them, and this reminded me of a recent run in I had with another teacher.

As you are aware, I'm a teacher at a secondary school near Detroit. In my social studies department, which is quite large, we have many teachers, most of them liberals and one or two conservative. Last week I was talking to another teacher, who considers himself to be the guru of history and who's style of teaching is to let students bathe in his brilliance, and we were talking about methods of teaching history.

So I said to this liberal teacher- "So what method of history do you focus on when you teach? Do you subscribe to the regressive model, where the past was a romantic perfect world and we have fallen? Or do you subscribe to the progressive model, where in the past man was less evolved and intelligent but as we progress in the future man gets better? Or are you perhaps a fan of the Great Man Theory, where history is shaped by great individuals?"

To be perfectly honest, I already knew what sort of method Mr. Liberal History Teacher taught in his classroom- he believed that history was a conflict, and out of these conflicts man moves forward. Typically in his class he would present a conflict, talk about the response to the conflict, and then teach about how the tension between the two was resolved. The key conflicts that he focused on was the conflict between classes. He also likes to focus in his classes on how the minority groups dominate or exploit the working class and the importance of revolution. In a nutshell, he is a Marxist. I already knew this, but he answer as to what sort of method he taught in surprised me.

"There are no different methods of teaching history," the liberal teacher said, "There is no politics in history- the only possible way that history can be taught is as the progress of the workers against capitalism. You can not teach about wars. Do not teach about religion. You are not to teach about free market economics. There can be no debate on this if you are to teach history."

This surprised me, so I said "That sounds to me like a method of teaching history, one that is kind of political in nature."

"It is not political in any way- it is the way that history is to be taught. There is to be no debate on this, and no discussion on this. The only way that history can really be taught is this way- if you do teach about wars, religion, economics, freedom, liberty, property rights, or other concepts like that, you are politicizing the issue. Don't make history a political game- teach it like I do," he said- which meant teach it like a Marxist.

It was the way he said this that bothered me. I switched the subject and moved past it, but it took him a while to let go of his belief that there was only one way to teach history, the Marxist way, and that any debate or discussion about methods was wrong and a game that I was playing to score political points. Then when I watched Obama's speech on healthcare and heard him accuse Republicans of playing games and say that there was to be no debate on the issue, and it hit me- for liberals there can be no discussion or debate on issues, only submission to them.

Liberals want you to submit to their authority. Sadly, liberal teachers believe this is their job- to stop debate and discussion and use their classrooms to make you submit to their authority and buy their version of events in the world. In my classroom, there is intelligent discussion, lively debate, questions posed and asked, and different views and methods presented. It is a lively room, where a conservative teacher teaches students how to think, read, write, and do well in life and on tests. In his classroom, there is one view presented, and students are driven to subscribe to that view by a liberal teacher who teaches students to submit and grovel before his brilliance.

This is what is happening in schools today, in little ways and big ways, and although it might scare you, it is important for you to hear stories like this from a teacher like me, who battles every day in the trenches to advance the principles of liberty and freedom.

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.

Over the last two weeks in Libya, important events were occurring. There was an important revolt against a ruling power, a revolt that was inspired by events in nearby nations and that was driven by forces including a desire for more liberty, a desire for better protection of property from takings by the government, and a desire for more protections of life. Of course there are other forces swirling around too in Libya- the whole life, liberty, and property line also needs to have added to it tribal, religious, and other overtones- but the idea is that there is an important revolution occurring in Libya today.

Opposing the revolutionaries are those who like the status quo in Libya, those who are part of the tyrannical government system, those whose livelihoods are based on the looting of their fellow citizens, those who feel that elites and overlords and government agents should control what people do in their lives, and those who abuse human lives with cruel and unjust judicial systems. These people have important skin in the game too- if the tables are turned on them, they die and their way of life dies, and so they are going to fight tooth and nail and to the last bloody body to keep their unearned gains.

And then there is probably the most important group in Libya, that of the middle. Everyone always remembers the American revolutionaries and the British and Loyalist forces, but few ever think about the great percentage of people who sat out the opening rounds of the American Revolution and watched events before deciding which way to commit. There is a large number of people in Libya who are on the sidelines, watching- although they might agree with the revolutionaries, if the revolution is successful, they may not gain personally and they may have less wealth or power, or although they might agree with the established power, but they may live in an area where the revolution is doing well or may think that long term the revolution will be successful. There are a great number of people in Libya sitting on the sidelines- generals, political leaders, business leaders, and teachers- who are trying to figure out which way this whole thing is going to break so that they can be on the winning side.

The United States had the opportunity two weeks ago to put pressure on all three to achieve some sort of an outcome, and because of the incompetence of its primary political figure in charge of international events, the President, it has failed to do so and only now, several weeks later, is it finally making weak policy decisions on this important event.

This is an important event, you see- Libya is a significant oil producer, Libya has over 6 million people in it, Libya is in a strategic area of the world, and Libya has been a thorn in the side of the United States for years as an active supporter of worldwide terrorism. It is a nation that could be better- it could be a more reliable producer of cheaper oil for us, it could be a nation that has fewer human rights abuses and more political freedom and happiness for its own people, it is a nation that could serve as important source of stability and support in the region, or it could be simply removed from being a thorn in our side and stop supporting worldwide terrorism.

It isn't guaranteed, of course, that these positive events can and will happen- one must always weigh the possible positives of the future with the current situation- but as Libya was a 'bad' nation who wasn't our ally, it can't get much worse (this contrasts to my position on Egypt which was that it was a 'not totally bad nation who was our ally and could get worse').

When this revolution started up several weeks ago, there was every possibility for the United States to put pressure on all three factions working in Libya. Now, of course that pressure needed to be subtle and applied in the right manner by the right people, but I think my case has been laid out strongly that some action should have been taken in some way as soon as possible in this revolution in Libya.

All three factions- the revolutionaries, those in power, and the significant middle in between- could all have been acted on. The revolutionaries could have been provided with support- moral, international, actual arms and weapons, etc. Those in power could have been pressured through sanctions, embargoes, stern words, seizure of assets, or threats of more by moving military assets into the area, and this may have moderated its response and taken off of the table such actions as bombing civilians or hiring foreign mercenaries. And the moderates and those who hadn't decided which faction to support would have observed these reactions and made the call that the winning side and stronger horse to bet on in this revolution was the revolutionaries, thus swelling their ranks and leading them to quicker and less bloody victory.

But Democratic President Barack Obama did not act quickly, surely, or strongly. Other nations did- the British seized assets, the Chinese moved warships into the region, the French acted diplomatically- but not the world's greatest superpower and the one with the most capacity to act in a positive manner. Instead, Obama did nothing, he dithered, he went to basketball games and concerts, and he did not exercise the leadership that was so critical during this timer period.

His failures resulted in a longer, more drawn out, less sure conflict, one in which the moderates saw the President of the United States doing nothing and so decided to support the established powers, one in which the revolutionaries saw their morale drop due to lack of support, one in which the established powers in Libya believed that is was okay to use deadly force and hire international mercenaries to keep control.

The fact that Obama is acting now to issue weak international language condemning Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi does not improve my regard for him or his actions; it instead makes me regard him worse. If Obama was going to oppose Qaddafi, he should have opposed him- if Obama was going to support Qaddafi, he should have supported him- but instead it appears that the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the greatest military force ever was a confused, unprincipled, weak, inept, and incompetent moderate who is simply waiting on the sidelines trying to look good in the end rather than being a strong, principled, competent leader who takes action, even if that action is a strong no-action.

President Barack Obama must be removed from office sooner rather than later because he is not a good leader and is incompetent and his failures are leading to a world that is less free, less secure, and more dangerous to the living. He may be a fine father and a good person and a great community organizer, but it was and continues to be a mistake to have him as President of the United States.

UPDATE: Something about this subject must inspire deeper thoughts about the President and what sort of person should occupy that office, because Richard Fernandez over at Belmont Club has also penned a great editorial on this very subject titled The Root of All Evil- check it out!

Throughout the year, students often ask me which candidates I support, where I stand on issues, and what political party I support. My response to students is "I'm not telling you." Not only do I not tell students where I stand on issues and what political party I support, I consciously work throughout the year to keep them guessing on this by being a critical thinker and modeling critical thought, ripping into all parties and voicing arguments from all sides. Oh, I'm not perfect- my smart and astute students notice that my liberal and Democrat arguments are a tad sarcastic and that my ripping on Obama is harsher than my ripping on Bush was, but at the end of the year I always ask students what they thought I was, who they think I support, and what political party I am active in, and the results are encouraging to me- the students don't really know, even to the end.

There are a couple of reasons I refuse to tell my students where I stand on issues and what party I support. One is time- I have a very well-defined curriculum that must be taught, and there isn't any free time in my teaching for anything personal. Another important reason is that I want the students receptive to my methods and teaching, and if they pigeonhole me into a political position, they might become less receptive. I want them listening to me and learning, not dismissing me just because I'm a conservative. Too many students tune out of social studies classes and ignore everything teachers say because they reject the teacher's personal views on things, and that's not good either because they are rejecting real knowledge too.

But most importantly is that my students look up to me and respect me, and I value that, and if I told them my values and beliefs, they would be encouraged to adopt them, and that's not my job or role in the classroom. My job or role is to teach my students about economics, government, history, psychology, and geography, not push my views on them. If I said "man made global warming is a load of poop", half of my students would reject my views, and the other half would nod and agree with whatever I said- but no one would be the smarter for it. But if I point to facts and bring up research and ideas, all without saying my view, then everyone is thinking, evaluating, and learning- and that is what education is supposed to be.

Via Protein Wisdom, I came across a blog entry by a professor named Douglas Campbell. The blog entry was called "The Classroom Without Reason", and has a lot of good stories in it. He documents what he sees is the liberal bias in education, the liberal slant to university teaching, and this fits very well with what I also have personally observed. I'm now going to relate to you one of the stories on this post:

I offer yet another true story. Just before the last presidential election, at the beginning of a course on business planning, a student asked me in front of the entire class why I had not told the students which candidate I supported. I responded, “Politics is not the subject of this class. We have enough material to cover to fill our class time. Besides, on principle, I will not use class time to impose my political opinions on you. If outside of class any of you seek my opinion of the candidates, then I will be happy to share my thoughts.”

The reaction of the class surprised me. A few students were nodding their head, others were smiling humorously at me, and a few were laughing and gossiping about my response. Somewhat peeved, I asked, “What is so funny?”

One student said, “You might as well tell us who you think we should vote for, because all the other professors already have.” Other students chimed in to support that student’s claim and mentioned specific faculty members who had turned their classes into campaigns for their presidential candidate. Undaunted, I proceeded with the subject of the class.

Let me also point out that Douglas may very well have just told his students who he was voting for, because it was quite obvious to me. Our education system is dividing, along with the rest of our country, into two different and separate camps- those who use education to push their liberal-communist-leftist-Democratic-anti-Christian views, and those who refuse to push any views on students. Douglas, by refusing to use his classroom to indoctrinate youth and brainwash them into believing in the church of global warming or the worship of Obama, was displaying his views none-the-less.

By Douglas pushing thinking, by encouraging thought and reflection, by pushing the liberty of ones mind and the freedom to choose ones own beliefs, by suggesting responsibility for ones own education and learning, by not violating students trust and faith- he was telling any student that he rejects the views of those who mean to do our nation harm. And the astute students in my classes, no matter how hard I try to not push my own views, also recognize this, and that is why at the end of the year, many indeed guess my views, but when they do, they just smile and accept and respect them, because of the way I went about my teaching.

And that's how you change the world, one student at a time.

Over the last several years, I have been fighting my own brand of war against those people who are the enemies of freedom and liberty. My style of fighting is to write about freedom and liberty; to discuss and expand on the ideas found in our founding documents; and attempt to apply to modern day policies the principles of protection of life, support of liberty, and protection of property. And those who oppose me have also been fighting me.

But unlike my style of warfare, the thugs who oppose me rely on intimidation, threats, attempts to damage my property, and efforts to silence me. And I am just the sort of target that these thugs like- although elected officials and big-time bloggers are good targets too, they are able to fight back and could become martyrs to the cause, but me and those who support the elected officials and bigger bloggers and private citizens who are attacked are one removed from the dispute and smaller so make much better targets for the thugs and cowards out there who disagree with our views and policy positions.

Although there is no way to compare what I have faced to the attacks on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and others, being a secondary target does not mean that I haven't been attacked too.

In recent years, the worst attacks that I have suffered have come after I have supported and defended those who were attacked by liberal thugs. My defense of the Koch brothers from the President Barack Obama's orchestrated attacks on them caused left-wing fascists to respond by attempting to shut down my blog. The vile creeps even went so far to write a letter to the employer of one of my loyal readers- they thought they were targeting me- as they attempted to respond to differences in views by causing the loss of employment and income. They didn't like the fact that I defended private citizens from slanderous attacks by the President of our nation, and responded to it by engaging in slanderous and personal attacks on me.

Another round of attacks came on me after I defended the tea party on several blogs and forums, responding with reasoning and calls for a more adult discussion to those who called those who supported tea party views and ideas various names. Those who disagreed with my views- those on the left who call themselves progressives or liberals but in reality are simply fascists- responded by filling up the comment sections of all of my posts with their various rants and foul language, and because I didn't want my blog to be a forum for their hate I was forced to disable the comment section on my blog.

One of the most clever attacks on me came after I defended in blogs and in forums and on social media Rocky Raczkowski, who was tea-party favorite and GOP nominee in 2010 for Michigan's 9th District. Someone emailed me pretending to agree with my comments and asked questions about the advertisers on my blog, and the next day my advertisers dropped me and confiscated my money due to what they said was fraud. I'm not going to say exactly what happened (I don't want to give the thugs ammunition), but the result was a loss of income for me and the loss of a good sum of money (Google never responded to my inquiries or pleas for reconsideration).

These attacks on me are not isolated to just me. Over at Legal Insurrection, Will has a story up that rings very close to my own experiences, called Welcome to total political war:

...I’m not talking about the attempt to get advertisers to stop advertising on Rush Limbaugh’s show, or Fox News, although that would be bad enough. I’m talking about the second-tier of the warfare, the attempt to intimidate those removed by one or more degrees of separation from the dispute, and to use them as tools against the target.

We have seen it a number of times in the past couple of years.

When King & Spalding agreed to represent the U.S. House of Representative after Obama changed positions and announced that the Justice Department no longer would defend DOMA in court, there were not only protests against King & Spalding, but threats to picket and protest clients of the firm who had nothing to do with the dispute. The threat that clients of the firm who were completely unconnected to the dispute would be harrasseed was enough to cause the firm to withdraw the representation.

Similarly, when the new Rhode Island Attorney General announced that he would cooperate with the federal goverment in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, protesters not only invaded the lobby of his offices, they picketed his house and confronted neighbors about the issue. Dragging his neighbors into a dispute which had nothing to do with them did not cause the RI AG to back down, although not for lack of trying.

Which brings me to the present dispute with Rush Limbaugh, and radio show host Kim Komando, who has a very well-known computer talk show. What did or does Komando have to do with the dispute? Nothing, except that one or more of the advertisers targeted by the anti-Limbaugh groups also advertises on Komando’s show. Komando received a flood of e-mails demanding that she drop the advertisers....

...What is happening goes beyond Obama’s call for people to argue with their neighbors and get in their faces. It goes far beyond Bill Clinton’s politics of personal destruction directed at accusers, and beyond name-calling by right wing pundits.

This total war, in which no one is allowed to be non-political and neighbors and clients become mere pressure points, is a dangerous development.

This is indeed total war, and that realization has only slowly dawned on me over the years that I have been writing on this blog. It is scary, but not surprising- most of humanity today lives in a state of fear and oppression from tyrants, and for most of human history humanity has lived in fear and oppression from tyrants.

It is in the worst nature of people to attempt to oppress others and use them as slaves- use their labor and intelligence and skills and drive to provide them with things they did not earn- food, clothing, shelter, medicine, drugs, influence, power, money, loans, etc. The worst nature of people is to react to arguments and reasoning with intimidation, threats, and personal attacks. And the worst nature of people is to take that which they did not earn, suppress and lessen the freedom and liberty of others, and if possible choke the very life out of those who oppose them.

It's a total war and it's getting worse as our opponents grow more bold and get closer to winning the war. I can only hope that in 2012, you and your friends and family recognize that we're at war and take the proper steps, because the last time the American people pretended that they weren't at war, we saw the error of that thinking on September 11.

UPDATE: Thank you for linking to this post Conservatives on Fire and Fuzzy Logic!

From the Freedom to Create website:

A controversial playwright from Zimbabwe who has risked his life challenging the Mugabe dictatorship for over 25 years has been awarded the inaugural Orient Global Freedom to Create Prize.
Cont Mhlanga, whose political satire has been banned by the state, took out the award created to highlight a forgotten frontline of artists defending their freedom of expression at great personal sacrifice.

 

Click here to buy from Amazon

Let's not complicate things- the election in 2012 is about choosing the vision for the future of our nation. For all of the talk on the right about Clinton being too progressive and all of the talk on the left about Bush being too conservative, the truth of the matter is that both of our last two former Presidents have been pretty moderate in reality. But in the coming election of 2012, we will have a real choice of visions this time around.

The vision of these Presidents was to add a modest amount of debt every year, grow the size of government at a steady pace by implementing programs that were called for, cut an occasional budget and talk tough about turning some government functions back to the states, keep taxes fairly the same by lowering but broadening them, keep spending the same amount on the military, invade a couple states, and not question the basic soft welfare state that our nation found itself in.

But in 2012, our nation will face a decision on which sort of vision to embrace. David Warren of the The Ottawa Citizen says this:

If what we want is a functioning, even flourishing economy, and therefore jobs, jobs, jobs, then the policies of Texas make sense. They are, as Rick Perry says, low taxes, minimal regulation, the avoidance of debt, and business-friendly attitudes. It is a political culture which at least tries to focus on the political questions (law, order, and so forth), and leave economic questions to the free market (with its inevitable bulls and bears).

If what we want instead is a dysfunctional and stagnant or shrinking economy, and therefore spreading unemployment, then California's policies are just the ticket. They are: high taxes, maximal regulation, and excruciating debt. Also, a political culture that belittles and despises business, almost as much as it belittles and despises law and order; one not merely addicted to "fine tuning" things utterly beyond anyone's comprehension, but earnestly trying to replace the free market with a "political market" for goods and services - whenever opportunity calls. ("Never waste a crisis.")

I'm not saying the generation of wealth should be the sole purpose of human existence. I am saying it is one of the purposes, and further, that by politicizing economic activity we actually mire ourselves much deeper in materialism than we would ever do by just going out and earning a living.

The Texas model works, and the California model fails. Quite apart from whether anyone in the States should vote for Rick Perry, they must choose between these models.

He's right, and it doesn't even have to be just limited to the 'Texas model', since Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman both are preaching the same kinds of policies as Rick Perry, and even a moderate Romney is talking a strong conservative game and will be pushed to the right by a Tea-Party strong Congress in 2012, much like a moderate-talking Obama was pushed to the left by a progressive-dominated Congress in 2008.

We are facing a real choice in visions in 2012- freedom or tyranny. It's not a new choice, but one that every generation must make.

Eric Grover writes:

The symptoms and underlying causes of Africa’s malaise are widely understood. Nevertheless for almost half a century, in addressing the African malaise the West has stubbornly indulged in counter productive feel-goodism. Now, acknowledging the worsening human tragedy Western leaders, myopically, and a bit piously, call for more of the same. This is deceptive feel-good fodder for the casually concerned. For political, media, religious and business leaders paying attention, this is a cynical hamster-wheel prescription. This Western folly consigns hundreds of millions of Africans to generations more of shortened, impoverished and less free lives, and unrealized dreams.
Africa needs tough love from the West, not more charity. Corrupt despotic regimes must be changed and the institutional plumbing of economic and political freedom installed, forcibly in at least a few of the worst cases. Does the West have the confidence, will and interest in pursuing such a course? Probably not.

via Blacklooks

Okay, so to be honest, I didn't watch the infomercial last night. But I read all about it and heard about it, and my post is actually going to not even be about what was said in it- I want to talk about how much it cost to put this thing together, and if any campaign finance laws were broken.

There are estimates that he spent somewhere around 4 million dollars for this infomercial... but how is that number arrived at? At NBC, he will pay $891,250 for the privilege, and at CBS he will spend $961,000. His program also aired on FOX, BET, Univision, MSNBC and TV One. I'm guessing he charged similar prices for those venues. That's the 4 million "cost."

But like any good liberal production, that's not the end of the story. First off, does it really only cost 4 million to get 30 minutes of prime-time coverage on TV? Consider this- NBC will charge advertisers $3 million per 30 seconds during the Super Bowl next year. Obama will only bring in 1/3 the audience of the Super Bowl, to be fair, so let's say it only costs him $1 million for 30 seconds of ad time. Feel free to double check my math, but that is about $60 million dollars (30 minutes X 60 second / 30 seconds). Let's say there is a discount for bulk ad buys like this- we'll give him 1/3 discount. That's $20 million dollars for NBC alone, not $900K. Huh. Must be something going on here.

Turns out there is. Under federal law, television networks charge political campaigns a different rate called "lowest unit cost"- which I'm honestly struggling to find information on. What I could come up with though is that I think there are two components to the "lowest unit cost" deal. The first is that they are not charging for 30 minutes as if it were 60 30 second commercials, but rather as if it were however many 30 second commercials normally are allotted for 30 minutes of prime time (16 per 30 minute show?) The second component is the commercial time which is being billed has to be at the lowest unit cost: what the highest volume year-round advertisers would be charged. Or, put a different way by this site "The lowest unit charge is the rate the station charges its most favored commercial advertiser for the same class and amount of time during the same time period or program."

Interestingly enough on this website is this blurb:

Political File.
Stations must keep a file containing records of all requests for broadcast time made by or for a candidate for public office. The file must identify how the station responded to such requests and (if the request was granted) the charges made, a schedule of the time purchased, the times the spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased. The file must also reflect any free time provided to a candidate. The station must keep the political records for two years after the spot airs. You can find the political broadcasting rules elsewhere in this manual.

If you're a lawyer reading this blog right now, please email me on how we can do a freedom of information request on these ad buys, and find out the details on all of them, and then evaluate whether they complied with campaign finance laws.

Another important point to make- the "cost" of the ad is the cost of the spot buy on these networks, and does not include the cost to produce the film, which apparently was very slick. How much did that cost?

It apparently was filmed by Davis Guggenheim. As a renowned filmmaker, how much did he charge for his services? Or were they donated? Is that covered under campaign finance laws? Guggenheim has done a lot of work for Democrats over the years- His credits as a producer and director include Training Day, ER, Deadwood, and Party of Five. He directed and produced An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. He also directed Obama's biographical film, which aired during the Democratic Convention.

How much did the set cost? Apparently there was a copy of the Oval Office, and other fancy sets- what was the price tag for those?

I don't have a lot of these answers, but that "$4 million" price tag probably underestimates considerably the cost of this infomercial.

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

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

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

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

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

There are certain ideas, certain beliefs, that should be the basis of every political conversation that you have, that mark your every political speech. These ideas came to us from our ancestors, who fought the most powerful nation in the world and through the grace of God won, winning more land, richer land, than any nation has ever won before or since. And it was the generations before us who toiled on this land, expanding it, enriching it, all while following the ideas of our founders.

We must never forget that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God with rights which can not be taken away, and that some of these rights- the most important ones perhaps- are the right to live, the right to live in freedom, and the right to keep and own property.

These rights existed before government, and government has no moral claim on them- only a tyrannical government can ask you to kill your unborn baby or not seek medical care when you are old, only a despotic government will take away your personal responsibility and ability to make choices, and only a bad government will pretend that it is entitled to your property.

It is very important that we remember these things, because if we stray from our founding beliefs, than our prosperity and safety will disappear. As our nation does stray into these bitter times, many our once again remembering how bold, how controversial, how radical our founding fathers were, believing those ideals so enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. It is in our hearts and souls that we know these words were correct when spoken, and we know that government is put among men only to protect life, liberty, and property, and not to provide homes, healthcare, education, welfare, or consumer goods.

Our ancestors established America and gave it to us, so that their descendants could enjoy the dream that they had won. They did not really want us adding or subtracting to the meaning and intent of their dreams- they wanted us to stick closely to the dream, the freedom, the liberty, the protection that they had won with the grace of God.

This is still a great nation, and we can keep in great, but only if we keep the Declaration of Independence in our hearts and speak it often. When in public meetings or when making a public comment, try to work in the words "all men are created equal," or "right to life, liberty, and property," or "government's purpose is to secure these rights". There is no need to re-invent the wheel- there is only the need to re-remember our Founding.

These comments were inspired by The Bible, Deuteronomy 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama messed this policy decision up. Hold him responsible.

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

As Admiral Ackbar once famously said "It's a trap!"

2012 isn't that far away, and it is becoming one of the most important elections in American history. In one direction America will continue to travel down the road to the gray mass of the rest of the world, losing its exceptionalism and becoming a Europe of favored ruling classes and slaves working for them. In the other direction, regardless of the nominee the Republicans choose, will be tough choices and grown-up decisions that are sure to anger and upset a lot of people but years from now grandchildren of an exceptional America of freedom and liberty will look back on and thank. Until recently, I could not imagine any way that Obama could be re-elected to the Presidency, but via memeorandum, I read this on Powerlineblog:

Obama's game is transparent, isn't it? He is playing a game of chicken. He puts forward a series of proposals that he knows are more or less insane; but he also believes that Republicans will come to his rescue. They, not being wholly irresponsible, will come up with plans to reform entitlements--like, for example, the Ryan Roadmap. Ultimately, some combination of those plans will be implemented because the alternative is the collapse, not just of the government of the United States, but of the country itself. But Obama thinks the GOP's reforms will be unpopular, and he will be able to demagogue them, thus having his cake and eating it too. Is that leadership? Of course not. But it is the very essence of Barack Obama.

This game is getting more transparent each day- the Republicans cut a measly $100 million from the budget for the coming year and Democrats are making noise about some sort of government shut down, Obama sends his minions and allies to Wisconsin to trash the capital and wave disgusting signs, all while the Middle East collapses and Obama is left steps behind admiring pictures of him shaking hands with these former dictators whose regimes are collapsing. Obama has got a game though- more elaboration on his game over at Chicago Boyz (please read the full thing- this is only part of the analysis):

Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Obama is setting up a confrontation and he plans to win.

Obama is betting that he can force the GOP to make their proposed cuts, which he can blame them for, which he can truthfully say he does not support. Then he can attack the Republicans for making the cuts. He will appeal to the people who are suffering from the cuts, and strip away GOP support. They will be angry and mobilized. Obama then plans to force the GOP into a funding crisis just as Clinton did. Obama plans to destroy the GOP reform wave of 2011 just as Clinton destroyed the GOP reform effort in 1995.

Obama’s team attempted to use the Tucson massacre in the same fashion that Clinton used the Oklahoma City bombings, to discredit the GOP. Obama is acutely aware of the Clinton playbook. This is another re-run.

If Obama wins, then the GOP / Tea Party effort is over and the Democrats have won the whole ball game. Obama gets reelected, the GOP is finished as a political party, and we have a mess for some number of years while a new party forms. But odds are it will be too late by then. A majority of people will be dependent on the Government.

It is that serious.

This is the game, people. It is a serious game with serious consequences. Recent polling in Wisconsin shows that 48% of the people of that state support liberty and freedom and private property rights and 38% support the rights of the privileged few to demand more benefits from taxpayers. Although the good guys are winning in that poll, it is not a majority- the day is fast approaching when democracy will rule and those who have political power will outnumber those who do not and will use the power of the state to steal from others and bring tyranny and injustice to America, as it is in every other nation in the world. This is a serious game- you all better be up for it. Obama is, and he won 2 years ago, and now our nation is trillions more in debt and weaker internationally, politically, and culturally because of it. Can we afford another 4 more years? I doubt it.

Let's not forget the big picture during this primary season- defeating President Obama's attempt to hold on to political power. This is not a partisan issue- I don't suggest that Obama needs to be defeated merely because he is a Democrat or a liberal or a progressive or whatever- but rather this is an issue about putting someone in the White House who is better at getting out of my way.

I'm great a working hard, creating wealth, making my own decisions in my life, living with my own mistakes, and producing goods and services for our great nation- and so are you. All you require to be prosperous, happy, and free is a government which protects your life through national defense and police services and the like, a government which protects your liberty and freedom by making sure that enemies without and within do not gain the ability to order you around, and a government which protects your happiness by making sure that the property you do earn you keep. You are all great Americans.

And yet, President Obama does not think that you are great Americans- he thinks that you make bad decisions, that you don't understand how a baby could ruin your life, and that you are not creating the right sort of property or spending your property in the right way. And this dangerous man with these dangerous attitudes has become President of the United States of America and is now using the power of that executive office to take away your liberty and freedom and property and make your life a little less full.

You've felt it, just like I have, over the years and getting worse over the last three- that feeling like people don't matter any more, like peoples lives are inconsequential, and that feeling that our world is a little less alive. It is not surprising that you've felt this way- as government has gotten bigger and more powerful and more in control with more aspects of your lives this impersonal and vast institution has dehumanized us and treated us as numbers and taken away from our life, liberty, and property.

President Barack Obama supports this dehumanizing and confiscating and controlling philosophy because he does not think that you are all great Americans.

Jay Cost on Saturday touched on these ideas in his blog post, where he spoke about just exactly what sort of person Obama was, what his vision of the world was, and why opposing him rises beyond simply a partisan or jobs or improving economy thing- it is a real battle of vision for the future for America- one in which the individual is great and free and prosperous, or another one in which the individual is a slave to the state and controlled by the state and prosperous only as much as the state lets them be.

Here is part of Jay Cost's blog post, from the Weekly Standard, called What's So Bad About Obama?

...Obama is not “radical,” at least not in the way we usually define the concept. But that actually points to the big the problem with this president and his worldview. The progressive ideology dating back to the turn of the last century, and in which Obama is comfortably situated, was never really about overturning the established order, but rather in co-opting it...

... the hallmarks of the First New Deal – were all about grand bargains between government, labor, farmers, and capital owners. The point was to draw all classes to the bargaining table, with the meeting chaired by the progressives, naturally. So it goes for modern-day progressivism. Both Clintoncare and Obamacare did not try to implement “socialized medicine,” but rather strike a grand bargain that would encompass all of the “stakeholders” to manage the nation’s health care...

...Obama has not set out to destroy capitalism. He is no socialist in the traditional sense of the word. He is not interested in controlling the means of production, as Marx put it. He’s happy to let commerce and industry remain in private hands, but that does not mean he's a free market advocate in any politically relevant sense of the phrase. He wants the free market to do its thing, so long as the government can socialize an ever-greater amount of the profit, and also take an intimate role in managing the private sector to “socially beneficial” ends....

...The principal reason for this opposition is that there has always been more than a whiff of anti-republicanism to the progressive agenda. Just consider the name "progressive," which implies a social, epistemological, or moral vanguard -- hardly the hallmark of true republicanism. And what one person views as “socially beneficial," another may rightfully call political patronage. For instance, the New Deal was full of payoffs – small and large – to Democratic constituencies....

...And so, the Democrats’ grand dreams of a “Fair Deal” always stink of unfairness to conservatives in the republican tradition... And Barack Obama, the president who promised to bring change to Washington, has been a very diligent patron to his party's extensive list of clients. On item after item, the topline claim to benefit the national interest is regularly belied by the particularism of the fine print. Klein mentions three items in particular in his column – the auto bailout, the financial reform bill, and the health care bill – that were all justified on purely nationalistic grounds, but peel off the top layer and the stench of clientelism will overwhelm you. To this list I would add the stimulus bill, the jobs bill that Obama proposed in the fall, and the cap-and-trade bill. Liberals look upon them all as fulfilling a great national purpose, but republicans (small "r") see massive payoffs to core Democratic groups.

If you want to understand the seething anger on the conservative side of the aisle, this is what you need to appreciate: It’s not just that Obama is a big government guy in the progressive tradition, which conservatives have opposed for more than a century. It’s also that he’s a client guy, meaning that his idea of big government inevitably has special payoffs hidden in it somewhere. And more than even this, he's a boundless client guy in what should be an age of restraint. Payoffs to party clients are one thing when the economy is growing at a four percent rate per year; that is a situation where the times are so prosperous that government patrons are really just drawing upon the national surplus to satisfy their partisans. But when the economy is growing at less than two percent per year, barely enough to keep up with population growth, paying off party clients is actually like robbing from Peter to pay Paul. And while Obama and congressional Democrats have put off that bill -- in the form of our trillion-plus deficit -- conservatives are not fools. They know they'll be asked to pay up sooner or later, and with a stagnant economy that means less money in their pockets, in part because the president wants to hold together his voting coalition.

That's what's so bad about Obama.

Let's get past all of our past labels- Republicans and Democrats, Romney vs Newt, establishment vs anti-establishment, Tea Party vs Occupier, right vs left, conservative vs liberal- and realize just exactly what the battle is about today: republicanism vs dictatorship. This 2012 is about returning power back to the people of our nation by empowering them as individuals to make lives, be free, and earn property. Obama opposes that desire, and that is what is so bad about him and why he must be defeated in 2012 and his vision of government rejected with extreme manliness.

Jay Cost is the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic.