Conservative Hideout 2.0 Rotating Header Image

Are you Personally (but Inadvertently) raising a Liberal?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

In a recent article on RealClearPolitics called The University Utopia, Robert Tracinski, former securities analyst for Morningstar and now the publisher of The Tracinski Letter, tackled a very important question- Why do the young vote for dependency—when the essence of youth is a quest for independence?

…So take a look at the college experience, particularly for a liberal arts major, from this perspective. You study topics in which the answers are subjective, no one is too concerned about whether it has any practical application or economic value, and everyone is pretty much expected to repeat the conventional wisdom. You express abstract concern for the poor and for the starving masses of the Third World, while never actually mixing with anyone from outside the prosperous First World middle class. Someone else, off at a distance, provides for your material needs, paying for your housing, food, clothing, and condoms. But at the same time, no one pokes into your personal life or asks too many questions about who you’re sleeping with, what you’re smoking, or what you do with your free time. Finally, this whole lifestyle is paid for with huge amounts of debt, and it is considered bad form to ask too many questions about how big the debt is or how you’re ever going to pay it all back.

Does any of this sound familiar? Put it all together, and college life is the contemporary left’s ideal. The universities are liberal utopias…

From my own experiences in education (teaching in several school districts around Detroit and Flint and their suburbs), I would also suggest that this same dynamic also applies to students in high school and middle school as well.

High school students, and to a lesser extent middle school students, are cared for and financially supported by their parents, who never talk about how much money it is costing them- the majority of students in my classes can’t even venture a guess at how much their parents make or where the money goes in their family, and asking these questions appears to be discouraged by parents today.

Separated from the reality of money and discouraged from discovering how everything is paid for in their family, they live in an uncomfortable bubble- aware that they are freeloading on the system and guilty because of that, but unable to help out or even know how much of a freeloader they are. Four to seven years of their formative life they are raised in this environment, not having to contribute anything financially to their family and yet eating and sleeping and watching TV and talking on the phone and driving a car paid for by the family. This sort of communism only exists in the family because parents love and care for their children, yet this point is never even made to the children because to voice this sort of reality is apparently not good form anymore in our society.

And after leaving school, students go home, where they can turn on the television or go on the internet or hang out at friends houses and learn about and observe and live in a world where social choices apparently have no consequences. Sleeping around before marriage, smoking pot and doing drugs, engaging in socially deviant behavior, bullying others via facebook or email, and getting caught up in fake drama about fake controversies is the sort of unsupervised freedom that students will continue in college.

I’m not blaming the parents for this- many parents in today’s economy are working longer and longer hours just to make ends meet and even when they get home they have to work on side jobs or freelance contracts or worry about money, and that is time that they can’t supervise and raise their children. And parents are competing for time and attention with a range of competitors. The media is chief of these competitors- with slick marketing and high production values- but teachers are also to blame for the increasingly amount of schoolwork that inefficient and poor teachers send home with children to compensate for their lack of teaching ability. It’s tough for both parents and students today, and in this tough environment students are given increasingly personal freedom without knowing about or anyone ever talking to them about the responsibility that goes along with this freedom.

Children therefore have an utter lack of financial and economic liberty buy yet extensive social and personal liberty. And when you combine these two, you produce a liberal. This is exactly what a liberal is- someone who wants someone else to provide for their economic needs while wanting total freedom to engage in their own personal desires.

To create a conservative child you would need to reverse this dynamic- you would need to teach your child about economic issues and the cost of goods and services and what sort of fiscal challenges your family faces and even how much the parents earn and what the family budget is, while putting limits on and teaching about the consequences of and showing the downsides of total personal freedom and how wrong it is to embrace hedonism.

Robert Tracinski says:

…A person’s view of life isn’t just influenced from the top down, from the ideas they are taught. It is also learned from the bottom up, from their actual experiences of life. The most powerful combination is when ideas and life experience coincide, and that is what happens in college. Young people learn the same lessons from their professors’ lectures as they do from the lifestyle of the dorm room. This also explains why college graduates tend to move to the right as they get older. They move to the right as they get out into the world, start businesses, start families, and take on the task of becoming truly independent and self-supporting….

…One way we can change the youth culture is to hasten the ed-tech revolution, breaking down the role of the traditional universities in favor of an alternative that, in addition to being a lot less expensive, gets students out of the dorm room and out into the economy sooner. I suspect that this would also hasten the decoupling of scientific and technological education from the humanities, depriving the leftist indoctrinators of the captive audience handed over to them in a traditional university system. It would also help break down the cultural class division between the college-educated and the non-college-educated, and perhaps most important of all, it has the potential to change the educational experience of young people so that education becomes associated, not with a four-year holiday and puttering around in the subjective humanities, but with a young person’s first steps toward real independence in the world of work. It would change the message young people hear from higher education, while also changing the kind of life experience they get….

In order for our nation to become more conservative- and by this I mean productive and creating wealth and understanding the importance of money in shaping choices and values, while at the same time recognizing the important role that society and culture and values and morals play- then we need to start creating more conservative children. And to aid in this, I suggest you read the whole article and start looking after your own children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews and begin to go to work on them teaching them economic liberty and social responsibility.

UPDATE: Another idea that I have on how you can help create a more conservative future is by purchasing the board game The Game of Life. This board game will help teach your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren important values. Buy it and play it with them at some time and start making a difference.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

 

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Is it Your Fault that our Nation is increasingly raising Liberals?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

 

indoctrination centerIn a recent article on RealClearPolitics called The University Utopia, Robert Tracinski, former securities analyst for Morningstar and now the publisher of The Tracinski Letter, tackled a very important question- Why do the young vote for dependency—when the essence of youth is a quest for independence?

…So take a look at the college experience, particularly for a liberal arts major, from this perspective. You study topics in which the answers are subjective, no one is too concerned about whether it has any practical application or economic value, and everyone is pretty much expected to repeat the conventional wisdom. You express abstract concern for the poor and for the starving masses of the Third World, while never actually mixing with anyone from outside the prosperous First World middle class. Someone else, off at a distance, provides for your material needs, paying for your housing, food, clothing, and condoms. But at the same time, no one pokes into your personal life or asks too many questions about who you’re sleeping with, what you’re smoking, or what you do with your free time. Finally, this whole lifestyle is paid for with huge amounts of debt, and it is considered bad form to ask too many questions about how big the debt is or how you’re ever going to pay it all back.

Does any of this sound familiar? Put it all together, and college life is the contemporary left’s ideal. The universities are liberal utopias…

From my own experiences in education (teaching in several school districts around Detroit and Flint and their suburbs), I would also suggest that this same dynamic also applies to students in high school and middle school as well.

High school students, and to a lesser extent middle school students, are cared for and financially supported by their parents, who never talk about how much money it is costing them- the majority of students in my classes can’t even venture a guess at how much their parents make or where the money goes in their family, and asking these questions appears to be discouraged by parents today.

Separated from the reality of money and discouraged from discovering how everything is paid for in their family, they live in an uncomfortable bubble- aware that they are freeloading on the system and guilty because of that, but unable to help out or even know how much of a freeloader they are. Four to seven years of their formative life they are raised in this environment, not having to contribute anything financially to their family and yet eating and sleeping and watching TV and talking on the phone and driving a car paid for by the family. This sort of communism only exists in the family because parents love and care for their children, yet this point is never even made to the children because to voice this sort of reality is apparently not good form anymore in our society.

And after leaving school, students go home, where they can turn on the television or go on the internet or hang out at friends houses and learn about and observe and live in a world where social choices apparently have no consequences. Sleeping around before marriage, smoking pot and doing drugs, engaging in socially deviant behavior, bullying others via facebook or email, and getting caught up in fake drama about fake controversies is the sort of unsupervised freedom that students will continue in college.

I’m not blaming the parents for this- many parents in today’s economy are working longer and longer hours just to make ends meet and even when they get home they have to work on side jobs or freelance contracts or worry about money, and that is time that they can’t supervise and raise their children. And parents are competing for time and attention with a range of competitors. The media is chief of these competitors- with slick marketing and high production values- but teachers are also to blame for the increasingly amount of schoolwork that inefficient and poor teachers send home with children to compensate for their lack of teaching ability. It’s tough for both parents and students today, and in this tough environment students are given increasingly personal freedom without knowing about or anyone ever talking to them about the responsibility that goes along with this freedom.

Children therefore have an utter lack of financial and economic liberty buy yet extensive social and personal liberty. And when you combine these two, you produce a liberal. This is exactly what a liberal is- someone who wants someone else to provide for their economic needs while wanting total freedom to engage in their own personal desires.

To create a conservative child you would need to reverse this dynamic- you would need to teach your child about economic issues and the cost of goods and services and what sort of fiscal challenges your family faces and even how much the parents earn and what the family budget is, while putting limits on and teaching about the consequences of and showing the downsides of total personal freedom and how wrong it is to embrace hedonism.

Robert Tracinski says:

…A person’s view of life isn’t just influenced from the top down, from the ideas they are taught. It is also learned from the bottom up, from their actual experiences of life. The most powerful combination is when ideas and life experience coincide, and that is what happens in college. Young people learn the same lessons from their professors’ lectures as they do from the lifestyle of the dorm room. This also explains why college graduates tend to move to the right as they get older. They move to the right as they get out into the world, start businesses, start families, and take on the task of becoming truly independent and self-supporting….

…One way we can change the youth culture is to hasten the ed-tech revolution, breaking down the role of the traditional universities in favor of an alternative that, in addition to being a lot less expensive, gets students out of the dorm room and out into the economy sooner. I suspect that this would also hasten the decoupling of scientific and technological education from the humanities, depriving the leftist indoctrinators of the captive audience handed over to them in a traditional university system. It would also help break down the cultural class division between the college-educated and the non-college-educated, and perhaps most important of all, it has the potential to change the educational experience of young people so that education becomes associated, not with a four-year holiday and puttering around in the subjective humanities, but with a young person’s first steps toward real independence in the world of work. It would change the message young people hear from higher education, while also changing the kind of life experience they get….

In order for our nation to become more conservative- and by this I mean productive and creating wealth and understanding the importance of money in shaping choices and values, while at the same time recognizing the important role that society and culture and values and morals play- then we need to start creating more conservative children. And to aid in this, I suggest you read the whole article and start looking after your own children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews and begin to go to work on them teaching them economic liberty and social responsibility.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher


Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Startling Story on Disability in America… Stunning and Sad

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

From a very well researched NPR story Unfit for Work: The Startling Rise in Disability in America (excerpts only from a much longer story, with emphasis added by me):

…In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government.

The federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled former workers than it spends on food stamps and welfare combined. Yet people relying on disability payments are often overlooked in discussions of the social safety net. The vast majority of people on federal disability do not work.[1] Yet because they are not technically part of the labor force, they are not counted among the unemployed.

In other words, people on disability don’t show up in any of the places we usually look to see how the economy is doing. But the story of these programs — who goes on them, and why, and what happens after that — is, to a large extent, the story of the U.S. economy. It’s the story not only of an aging workforce, but also of a hidden, increasingly expensive safety net….

…People don’t seem to be faking this pain, but it gets confusing. I have back pain. My editor has a herniated disc, and he works harder than anyone I know. There must be millions of people with asthma and diabetes who go to work every day. Who gets to decide whether, say, back pain makes someone disabled?

As far as the federal government is concerned, you’re disabled if you have a medical condition that makes it impossible to work. In practice, it’s a judgment call made in doctors’ offices and courtrooms around the country. The health problems where there is most latitude for judgment — back pain, mental illness — are among the fastest growing causes of disability….

…Part of the rise in the number of people on disability is simply driven by the fact that the workforce is getting older, and older people tend to have more health problems.

But disability has also become a de facto welfare program for people without a lot of education or job skills. But it wasn’t supposed to serve this purpose; it’s not a retraining program designed to get people back onto their feet. Once people go onto disability, they almost never go back to work. Fewer than 1 percent of those who were on the federal program for disabled workers at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce since then, one economist told me.

People who leave the workforce and go on disability qualify for Medicare, the government health care program that also covers the elderly. They also get disability payments from the government of about $13,000 a year. This isn’t great. But if your alternative is a minimum wage job that will pay you at most $15,000 a year, and probably does not include health insurance, disability may be a better option.

But, in most cases, going on disability means you will not work, you will not get a raise, you will not get whatever meaning people get from work.[2] Going on disability means, assuming you rely only on those disability payments, you will be poor for the rest of your life. That’s the deal. And it’s a deal 14 million Americans have signed up for….

…A person on welfare costs a state money. That same resident on disability doesn’t cost the state a cent, because the federal government covers the entire bill for people on disability. So states can save money by shifting people from welfare to disability. And the Public Consulting Group is glad to help. PCG is a private company that states pay to comb their welfare rolls and move as many people as possible onto disability….

…n the past few decades, an entire disability-industrial complex has emerged. It has just one goal: Push more people onto disability. And, sometimes, it seems like the government is outmatched. This is especially true in the legal system….

….”You might imagine a courtroom where on one side there’s the claimant and on the other side there’s a government attorney who is saying, ‘We need to protect the public interest and your client is not sufficiently deserving,’” the economist David Autor says. “Actually, it doesn’t work like that. There is no government lawyer on the other side of the room.”…

…Politicians pay lip service to this problem during election cycles, but American leaders have not sat down and come up with a comprehensive plan.

In the meantime, federal disability programs became our extremely expensive default plan. The two big disability programs, including health care for disabled workers, cost some $260 billion a year.

People at the Social Security Administration, which runs the federal disability programs, say we cannot afford this. The reserves in the disability insurance program are on track to run out in 2016, Steve Goss, the chief actuary at Social Security, told me.

Goss is confident that Congress will act to keep disability payments flowing, probably by taking money from the Social Security retirement fund. Of course, the retirement fund itself is on track to run out of money by 2035

This is a stunning report. Whomever wrote this poorly designed legislation should pay for chaining millions of people in soul-dragging poverty, whomever runs these poorly run programs should pay for degrading the condition of free people by sticking them in these programs, and whomever is judging on the proper use of taxpayer money in such a way should be impeached. They’re all criminal in their duty.

This is a very sad story, but one which we must all hear before we vote again for politicians who promise to put more people on government programs to ‘help’ more people, and instead simply enslave these poor people into a degrading government program that keeps them fed but in permanent poverty.

There are real systematic problems in our nation right now, and policy makers are robbing left and right from various funds to shore up these problems and will continue to shift and borrow and print money as long as possible, but in about 10 years the whole thing is going to come crashing down in an epic collapse. You have been warned.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher


Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Tamerlan Tsarnaev- 9/11 Denier, Against War on Terror, Ignorant- Product of the Intellectual Left?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

From the Detroit News article For Boston bombing suspects, question may be who led whom:

…(Alyssa Kilzer) said the mother (of the terrorists) also expressed some rather strident views about the U.S. government. “(When my mother went to their house to get a facial treatment) (the mother of the terrorists) started quoting a conspiracy theory, telling me that she thought 9-11 was purposefully created by the American government to make America hate Muslims. ‘It’s real,’ (the mother of the terrorists) said, ‘My son knows all about it. You can read on the internet.’”…

…Tsarni (who is the uncle) told The Associated Press from his home in Maryland that a deep rift opened between him and his sister-in-law, but that he tried to maintain a relationship with the boys. However, that effort began to fall apart several years ago, he said, when Tamerlan “started carrying all this nonsense associated with religion, with Islamic religion.”

Tamerlan would throw out foreign words like “jihad” and “Inshallah” — Arabic for “God willing” — without really understanding their meaning, he said…

…One of the brothers’ neighbors, Albrecht Ammon, said he had a bizarre encounter with Tamerlan in a pizza shop about three months ago. The older brother argued with him about U.S. foreign policy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and religion. He said Tamerlan referred to the Bible as a “cheap copy” of the Quran, and that many of this country’s wars “are based upon the Bible — how it’s an excuse to invade other countries.”

“He had nothing against the American people,” Ammon said. “He had something against the American government.”…

There are those who are going to try to spin some sort of alternative narrative about these terrorists- that they were just an innocent family that didn’t integrate to American culture because American culture is wrong or something, that these people were poor and desperate and so we need to increase welfare programs, that this event has nothing at all to do with Muslim or the Muslim religion, that this is a conspiracy theory involving the FBI, that somehow these terrorists were lone-wolves whose actions say nothing further about society or the environment that they’ve lived in, or that somehow it was Bush’s fault.

But the above quotes paint a different picture. We can see here two young individuals who accepted left-wing indoctrination regarding two major events that took place over the last several years- 9/11 and the War on Terror. The left- liberals, communists, progressives, socialists, fascists- have been for years attempting to spin conspiracy theories about 9/11 that put the blame for these events on America. And these groups have also for years been agitating against the War on Terror- in fact these groups united behind the Democrats and Barack Obama and helped to elect them on the argument that the War on Terror was wrong and just an excuse to invade other countries. And the older brother was ignorant- using language and words for which he didn’t really understand and which really didn’t even apply- the sort of misuse and abuse of language that is more characteristic of the left than it is with the right.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are not to blame for these events- the actions of evil people are- but the political environment, rhetoric, intellectual thought, and systems of support that the left has been at work building contributed to and aided these evil people in their efforts.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother were not students of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers, they did not quote John Locke and talk about a new American Revolution, they were not supportive of our efforts overseas to degrade terror networks and remove regimes from power who supported and cheered on the 9/11 attacks, they did not curse the terrorists who committed 9/11, they were not supportive of the free market, they were not raised believing in human freedom and personal liberty and the responsibilities and consequences of their actions for the larger society, they were not interested in business and producing goods and services, they didn’t discuss any Ron Paul conspiracy theories about the gold standard or the government taken over by communists, they did not love human life, they did not believe in the protection of private property, and they did not believe that wordsmithing and image and fancy rhetoric are just crap. They are not associated in their actions, thoughts, beliefs, or values with the ‘right’- conservatives, tea partiers, libertarians, constitutionalists, republicans, Republicans, independents, etc.

It is to the left of the political spectrum that we must look to see who intellectually gave these terrorists purpose and direction to commit their evil acts. This might not be the politically correct thing to say- but let it be said here regardless.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Earth Day 2013: Is it Just One Big Communist Plot?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

EarthDayLenin

In honor of Earth Day 2013 Lenin’s Birthday, here is a classic post from A Conservative Teacher.

Happy Lenin’s Birthday
Is it a coincidence that I’m wishing you this today? I don’t think so. Earth Day arrives on the exact same day as Lenin’s Birthday. One of the very first Earth day celebrations took place exactly on the 100 year anniversary of Comrade Lenin’s birthday. Many former communists saw Earth Day, with its goals and interests, as being very similar to the goals and interests of the great communist Lenin. Does this coincidence convince you that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Friends of the Earth
The group that founded “Earth Day” was a group called Friends of the Earth. This group also promotes socialism- just as strongly as it does environmentalism. It advocates economic redistribution, government regulation of nearly all aspects of people’s lives, communal land ownership, control of production in the hands of the masses, etc. Its main bogeymen are: “evil” corporations (especially the Fortune 500 companies,) Big Oil, Wall Street, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and (naturally) George Bush. Oh yeah- it also founded Earth Day too. It is not far-fetched to think that by promoting and celebrating Earth Day, perhaps some of the other aims of Friends of the Earth will be advanced. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Symbol of Earth Day
The symbol of the first Earth Day is a circle with a broken cross, with the bars pointing downward. It is a New Age symbol meaning the rejection of Christianity. The goal was to replace the worship of the Christian religion with the worship of Mother Earth. Communist ideology demand you worship the state and not a Christian god, and so communists frequently also attack the church. Earth Day then fits very nicely with the goals of communists. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Motives of Earth Day activists
According to wikipedia, the goal of Earth Day is to push for: Total state control of society, especially businesses and industry (to help the environment, I guess). Recognition of the sacred nature of Mother Earth, including an almost reverent worship of anything ‘green’ (to help the environment, I guess). Using force to change people’s behavior (to help the environment, I guess). Stopping or slowing ‘development’ or ‘progress’, to return to a Utopian world of equality (to help the environment, I guess). These goals are the goals of communists, are they not? Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

More Evidence: Earthday.net
Here are some of the goals, issues, and beliefs on www.earthday.net, one of the official websites promoting Earth Day: “Join the Revolution”! Pass laws that give more power to the government, in order to ‘stop global warming’. Stop building any new energy producing plants. “Protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of climate crisis” by increasing taxes on the rich and redistributing that money to the poor and middle class. Unite all religions in the name of global warming. Teach children in schools less about rights and more about the environment, and their responsibility to fight poverty. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

More Evidence: The Wilderness Society
For teachers, The Wilderness Society (an environmental group) has resources on how to teach about Earth Day. Here are some of them: A coloring book for 3rd graders with the theme of “Stop drilling in ANWR”. A timeline that 7th graders can construct of all the laws that government passed, to see the “progress” of government. Stories to read about ‘environmental heroes’- also (coincidentally) all good revolutionary communists

Bush’s Version of Earth Day
Under Republican President George Bush, the official government version of Earth Day was a bit different. According to the EPA website then, as declared by President Bush, Earth Day was more about: Celebrating the gains we have made in protecting the environment. Achieving meaningful results in protecting the environment. Encouraging volunteer efforts to save energy, reduce or recycle, and educate yourself to be more friendly to the environment. Taking pride in America by maintaining our public lands

Obama’s Version of Earth Day
Under Democrat President Barack Obama, the official government version of Earth Day though looks very much like Lenin’s birthday. According to the EPA website now, according to President Obama, Earth Day is about: Learning about environmental justice, which is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Earth Day is about lobbying your local school to spend less time teaching reading and math and more time teaching environmental protection. Most importantly, Earth Day is about engaging in celebrations and festivals of worship on this most holy of days.

Earth Day: A Communist Plot
So, today when the news runs story after story about Earth Day, when teachers encourage you to ‘celebrate’ Earth Day, when google and yahoo ‘go green’, you can now respond back by saying-

“Happy Earth Day too, comrade”.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

A Rebellious Nation

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

A Rebellious Nation

Isaiah 1 New International Version (NIV)

Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth!
For the Lord has spoken:
“I reared children and brought them up,
but they have rebelled against me.
The ox knows its master,
the donkey its owner’s manger,
but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand.”
Woe to the sinful nation,
a people whose guilt is great,
a brood of evildoers,
children given to corruption!
They have forsaken the Lord;
they have spurned the Holy One of Israel
and turned their backs on him.
Why should you be beaten anymore?
Why do you persist in rebellion?
Your whole head is injured,
your whole heart afflicted.
From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
there is no soundness—
only wounds and welts
and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged
or soothed with olive oil.
Your country is desolate,
your cities burned with fire;
your fields are being stripped by foreigners
right before you,
laid waste as when overthrown by strangers.
Daughter Zion is left
like a shelter in a vineyard,
like a hut in a cucumber field,
like a city under siege.
Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us some survivors,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.
10 Hear the word of the Lord,
you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the instruction of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!
11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
21 See how the faithful city
has become a prostitute!
She once was full of justice;
righteousness used to dwell in her—
but now murderers!
22 Your silver has become dross,
your choice wine is diluted with water.
23 Your rulers are rebels,
partners with thieves;
they all love bribes
and chase after gifts.
They do not defend the cause of the fatherless;
the widow’s case does not come before them.
24 Therefore the Lord, the Lord Almighty,
the Mighty One of Israel, declares:
“Ah! I will vent my wrath on my foes
and avenge myself on my enemies.
25 I will turn my hand against you;[b]
I will thoroughly purge away your dross
and remove all your impurities.
26 I will restore your leaders as in days of old,
your rulers as at the beginning.
Afterward you will be called
the City of Righteousness,
the Faithful City.”
27 Zion will be delivered with justice,
her penitent ones with righteousness.
28 But rebels and sinners will both be broken,
and those who forsake the Lord will perish.

29 “You will be ashamed because of the sacred oaks
in which you have delighted;
you will be disgraced because of the gardens
that you have chosen.
30 You will be like an oak with fading leaves,
like a garden without water.
31 The mighty man will become tinder
and his work a spark;
both will burn together,
with no one to quench the fire.”

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

BRIC and MIST Economies vs the PIIGGS and the US

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Rhetoric, good intentions, philosophies, ideologies, speeches- they don’t mean as much to me as good policies. Purity of candidates, good communication skills, and hard work only mean anything if they are in pursuit of public policies which work to better protect human life, liberty, and property. Recently on RealClearPolitics Alan Reynolds wrote an excellent article The Truth About Taxes and Spending in Europe comparing the results of the public policies of two different sets of nations:

…Several European countries, including Cyprus, have been mired in economic stagnation or decline for five years or more. Yet other countries in Asia and Latin America have flourished. What are the weakest economies doing wrong? What are the strongest doing right?

Economist Jim O’Neill coined the acronym BRIC in 2001 to refer to four economies which showed great potential then and now — Brazil, Russia, India and China. More recently, he added four more promising  economies — Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey.

In mid-2008, The Economist magazine drew a sharp contrast between the booming BRIC economies and four feeble PIGS — Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. By 2010, after Ireland and Great Britain bailed out their banks, that unkind acronym was stretched to PIIGGS.

All PIIGGS have two things in common. First of all, government spending grew dramatically — from an average of 43.2% of GDP in 2007 to 52.6% by 2010. Spending was modestly trimmed by 2012 in a few cases, yet the ratio of spending to GDP still remained 3 to 6 percentage points higher than it had been in 2007.

Government spending on bailouts, subsidies, grants, salaries and entitlements commands a much larger share of these economies than it did just a few years ago. European austerity has been focused on the private sector — namely, taxpayers with high incomes.

That is the second thing the PIIGGS have in common. The highest income tax rate was recently increased in every one of the troubled PIIGGS except Italy (where it was already too high at 43%). The top tax rate was hiked from 40 to 46.5% in Portugal, from 41 to 48% in Ireland, from 40 to 45% in Greece, from 40 to 50% in Great Britain, and from 48 to 52% in Spain….

…It is enlightening to compare the depressing performance of these tax-and-spend countries to the rapidly-expanding BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and MIST economies (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey).

Government spending is frugal in these countries, averaging 32.1% of GDP in the BRICs and 27.4% for the MIST group.

Rather than raising top tax rates, all but one of the BRIC and MIST countries slashed their highest individual income tax rates in half; sometimes lower. Brazil cut the top tax rate from 55 to 27.5%. Russia replaced income tax rates up to 60% with a 13% flat tax. India cut the top tax rate to 30% from 60%. Similarly, the top tax rate was cut from 55 to 30% in Mexico, from 50 to 30% in Indonesia, from 89 to 38% in South Korea, and from 75 to 35% in Turkey.

In China, statutory income tax rates can still reach 45% on paper, but that is only for high salaries and is widely evaded. Investment income is subject to a flat tax of 20%, the corporate tax is 15-25%, and China’s extremely low payroll tax adds almost nothing to labor costs.

Lower tax rates and faster economic growth in these countries didn’t mean bigger budget deficits. On the contrary, only one of of the eight MIST and BRIC countries (India) has a significant budget deficit.

In short, the world economy has become divided into two groups: (1) sickly PIIGGS with chronic fiscal crises and (2) booming BRIC and MIST economies with modest government spending, lower tax rates and vigorous growth of both the economy and tax receipts….

So there are two different groups of nations, one group successful and creating wealth and expanding opportunities for their citizens and leaving their people better off than they were previously (BRIC and MIST), and another group unsuccessful and destroying wealth through amassing debt and taking out loans and robbing from pensions and future entitlement programs and debasing their currency and leaving their people worse off than they were previously (PIIGGS).

Which of these two groups is the United States moving towards? Clearly the answer is the PIIGGS group. And that’s bad public policy.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Obama Encouraging Banks to Make Easy Loans to People With Poor Credit to Destroy America?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

We all agree that the Great Recession of 2008 that is turning into the Obama Depression was caused by poor lending practices by the government run corporations Fannie May and Freddie Mac. There easy loan programs to people with poor credit histories predictability led to problems when these people with a history of not paying back their loans did not in fact pay back their loans and the banks were left holding more and more toxic debt. These losses, caused by government policies and encouraged by government bureaucrats, led to a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their houses, and the only good thing that emerged from this disaster of public policy was that hopefully our nation learned its lesson to never engage in this sort of behavior ever again. Or so we thought.

The news of the day is that President Obama is now purposefully encouraging the same sort of policies that led to our nation’s economic collapse only a few short years ago. From the Washington Post story Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit:

…The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars…

If it weren’t true, it would be unbelievable. Sadly the foolish decisions of voters last year to vote for this guy will lead to all of us- you and me and all of our families- being poorer, less free, and less happy.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher


You can support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon purchases!

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Savers vs Spenders

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

…”full blown escalation in the status quo’s war against savers everywhere…”

This line from a recent story by Zero Hedge stuck out at me as perhaps a shifting the paradigm of how we should be looking at what is happening in our world. Perhaps rather than our nation being in a battle between those who desire liberty and rights and those who desire control and tyranny, instead the battle is being fought between those who save and increase the wealth of society and those who spend and decrease the wealth of society. It’s a battle between those who make a positive difference in the world and those who make a negative difference in the world- a battle between those who when they leave have left the world richer and better and those who when they leave leave the world poorer and worse. In short, savers vs spenders.

The story that leads to this possible paradigm shift of how to look at the current political battles taking place is the story of the recent bailout of the nation of Cyprus:

…Late last night, after markets closed for the weekend, following an extended discussion the European finance ministers announced their “bailout” solution for Russian oligarch depositor-haven Cyprus: a €13 billion bailout (Europe’s fifth) with a huge twist: the implementation of what has been the biggest taboo in European bailouts to date – the impairment of depositors, and a fresh, full blown escalation in the status quo’s war against savers everywhere.

Specifically, Cyprus will impose a levy of 6.75% on deposits of less than €100,000 – the ceiling for European Union account insurance, which is now effectively gone following this case study – and 9.9% above that. The measures will raise €5.8 billion, Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who leads the group of euro-area ministers, said…

Of course the levying of a tax- the confiscation of wealth- on those people who have saved their money in the banks has led to a predictable run on the banks in Cyprus as those who have saved their money frantically attempt to take that money out of the banks before it is confiscated by authorities, who will then use that money to pay back German bankers, who will then use that money to lend to other collapsing European states now from Greece to Portugal to Iceland to Ireland, and probably soon France now that they have elected a wealth destroying and liberty violating progressive as their President. These nations will then repay Germany, until the day that they don’t and go under completely, in which case the house of cards will collapse and we’ll see who is left holding real money and who isn’t (probably it’ll be the Germans). This process will not be clean and neat, but rather filled with conflict, with the possibility of military conflict present.

And where is the United States in all of this? As chaos continues to erupt on a continent responsible for two of the worst wars in history, the United States is nowhere to be found as it is led by perhaps one of its worst Presidents in its history.

But even if the United States were to jump into the fray, one wonders which side of the conflict between savers and debtors that they would side with. The United States government is by far and away the largest debtor in the history of the world, and most of that debt stems from payments that the government makes to those who are no longer adding anything to the wealth and prosperity of the world. I’m not blaming them though- they didn’t make the deal and many didn’t vote for the deal, but nonetheless the deal that has been set up is that the US government increasingly takes more and more wealth from those who are making it and gives that wealth more and more to those who are not making any wealth, due to advanced age (Social Security and Medicare), laziness and a sense of entitlement (various welfare programs), or political connections (green energy programs and other government sponsored ‘research’).

In my humble opinion, you don’t need to make a run on your bank right now, although in the long term it would probably be advisable to invest in a strong safe and begin to store assets in it like gold and silver (if you put them in the bank they may be confiscated at some point). You probably don’t need to make a run on the bank any time soon, either- the United States is a far cry from Cyprus and for all of our problems and debt and deficits, the United States remains a productive and wealthy nation that just needs to fix things politically.

But if the United States doesn’t fix things politically and people get elected who push policies that take wealth from one group and give it to another group that produces no wealth, and the war on savers and producers accelerates, then maybe some day runs on banks will happen. It is my great hope though that before it comes to this the American people wake up and grow up and toughen up and moral up and start voting for people who believe that the only legitimate role of government is to better protect your life, liberty, and property, and not to engage in a war against you simply because you grow your life, liberty, and property.

A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Are Those Who Believe in Traditional or Christian Beliefs Now to be Contemned?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Although I know that I risk the wrath of the Detroit News and others who would judge me for posting my personal feelings on this issue, I nonetheless have felt compelled to weigh in with some further thoughts about gay marriage that supplement my earlier posting about the Supreme Court having to be very careful with issuing a ruling on this matter that is legitimate.

David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network News Chief Political Correspondent, noted in his post Are Evangelicals Now More Scorned than Homosexuals? that:

…Direct from the school of, “Counter-Intuitive Thinking,” I bring you this question: When it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage, are Evangelical Christians actually the ones more ridiculed than homosexuals? In the media’s narrative, you would think that homosexuals are the poor souls who have been banished by society like ugly stepchildren and are now rising to overcome incredible odds.

But what about today? Let’s be honest: If you are a conservative evangelical who believes in the biblical definition of traditional marriage then guess what? You are one of the following: An outcast, a bigot, narrow-minded, a “hater” or all of the above. It’s a different type of ridicule but it’s still ridicule.

The tables have been turned. Evangelicals are now the ugly stepchild. In our American culture today, you can easily make the argument that it is harder to stand for biblical truth than it is to be a supporter of gay marriage in today’s society.

Don’t believe me? Ask Kirk Cameron or Tim Tebow who both have been endlessly ridiculed for stating mainstream biblical positions on marriage and other topics. How about the comments by Chick-fil-A Founder Dan Cathy? Remember his comments in strong support for traditional marriage? He nearly had his head ripped apart by the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, politicians like former Sen. Rick Santorum have been labeled part of a “Jesus-eating cult” (Whatever that means). The list goes on. It happens all the time. Why? Just because evangelicals believe in the biblical definition of marriage? American society and culture may change but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not.

Evangelicals shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. The Bible clearly states that becoming a born-again believer and walking with Jesus will cost you something and you will be treated like an outcast. Luke 21:7 says, “Everyone will hate you because of me.” Matthew 10:22 exclaims, “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” And Luke 6:22 proclaims, “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.”

Let me be clear: The Brody File believes hate crimes and incendiary talk and bullying against ALL people (gay or straight) is a sin against God Almighty. And Evangelical Christians have fallen short in this area as well, hence the need for a Savior who forgives us and washes our sins away. Still, the level of vitriol by media commentators and others who support the homosexual lifestyle is just going to continue to increase and get more aggressive against Bible-believing evangelicals….

As a public school teacher, I would concur strongly with this- nothing makes students and fellow staff and administration reject you and judge you like expressing mainstream Christian beliefs consistent with the Bible, and nothing makes those same people accept and praise you and reward you like implementing policies and lesson plans and actively promoting beliefs that are rejected by mainstream and traditional Christian teachings.

In our school system, we have clubs and organizations and ‘days’ set aside for promoting and teaching about: homosexuality, not bullying or teasing those who promote homosexuality, environmentalism, eastern religions, Harry Potter and anime, diversity (and by diversity I mean exclusively those who believe in homosexuality and promote it), black history, Muslim tolerance, evolution, anti-creationism, and separation of church and state (which is interpreted as anti-Bible teaching). To teach or promote or even talk about mainstream Christian values and beliefs is not allowed in public schools- or in the media or in the newspapers or increasingly in politics. Wrong is now right, and right has now become wrong.

This is not to say that we should not have these days- rather it is to note that we no longer also have days for lessons and promoting: traditional marriage, not bullying or teasing those who promote traditional marriage, growth and productivity and building, western religions, prayer and the Bible, diversity (and by diversity I mean debates and conversation about theological and moral issues from every perspective), history of other sorts, Jewish tolerance, creationism, and the proper role of religion and government in society. To teach or promote or even talk about these values and beliefs above should be part and parcel to public education, journalism discourse, and politics today- and yet these are the very beliefs and teachings that apparently will make you and outcast and hated in today’s society. And this is wrong.

Let’s work towards and promote a society that is loving and caring and supportive of God’s word and traditional Christian beliefs- and tolerant of and knowledgeable of and accepting of other beliefs and religions as well. This culture of hate- from one side or another- and promotion of values and beliefs- from one side or another- surely can’t be consistent with the desires of a loving and caring God.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

How the State Standards are Indoctrinating our Youth with Marxist Views on the Great Depression

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

For many long years conservatives have failed badly in teaching the lessons of the Great Depression, instead deferring to the liberals and accepting their ‘lessons’ as the reality of the situation. The damage from years and years of learning the wrong lessons from the Great Depression is that today our nation is replicating the same sorts of policies that led to and lengthened the Depression and it is questionable whether or not there are enough around still educated in different lessons to implement different policies that will lead our nation to greater success and liberty and prosperity.

In 2004, the State of Michigan adopted a revised set of social studies standards- the high school’s standards are called the High School Content Expectations. These HSCE’s are intended to establish what every high school student that graduates from Michigan should know by the time they graduate and the Michigan Merit Exam and other tests created by the state are designed to test whether or not students are indeed learning what is expected. Although language is included that says that teachers can teach other content, the reality is that the amount of material that must be taught effectively precludes this, and so these standards really are a good basis for judging what what is being taught in our classrooms in Michigan and what students therefore are learning. These standards remain in place today, and have so far have not been replaced by the far worse Common Core standards.

United States History and Geography Standard 7.1 covers the time period of the 1920′s and 1930′s, and has been titled “Growing Crisis of Industrial Capitalism and Responses,” and let us first look at this suggested way of viewing the 1920′s and 1930′s as some sort of ‘crisis of’ ‘industrial capitalism’. Wikipedia defines industrial capitalism as a variety of capitalism marked the development of the factory system of manufacturing and characterized by a complex division of labor between and within work process and the routine of work tasks, but most of the literature and google hits on the term ‘industrial capitalism’ were various Marxist sites and discussions of Karl Marx. Framing what happened in the 1920′s and 1930′s therefore in this sort of Marxist vision of the world and using a term that is virtually unknown in our nation like ‘industrial capitalism’ to describe this time period therefore are causes of concern for how this time period will be taught to our impressionable youth.

The standard 7 includes three subsections- 7.1.1, 7.1.2, and 7.1.3. Let us take a moment to consider each in turn.

  • 7.1.1 covers “The Twenties,” and according to the state guidelines which all teachers follow which all students learn, students are to take away from the 1920′s two major lessons- first, they are to learn about cultural movements, such as the Harlem Renaissance and the “lost generation”, and second , they are to learn about the so-called struggle between “traditional” and “modern” America (e.g., Scopes Trial, immigration restrictions, Prohibition, role of women, mass consumption). These both include meaningful and important information from the 1920′s, but the focus on cultural and on judging traditional values both are designed to reinforce liberal ideology. Not taught but probably more important from the 1920′s are the Roaring Twenties- the great explosion on wealth generated by Harding and Coolidge’s laissez-faire capitalism, drastically cut tax rates, drastically cut government spending, and lessened regulation of businesses. Every student should know how about the inventors and great businessmen from this age- and yet this is not included in the state standards and so not taught to our children. Any sort of lead-in to the Great Depression should focus on what came before, for without this context the policy responses that follow are delivered in a vacuum of ignorance… although perhaps this is exactly what those who wrote these standards wished.
  • 7.1.2 covers “Causes and Consequences of the Great Depression,” and according to state guidelines which all teachers follow which all students learn, students are to take away as the causes of the Great Depression the following- “fiscal policy, overproduction, under consumption, and speculation, the 1929 crash, and the Dust Bowl”. Based on the books and conversations with other teachers, fiscal policy as a cause of the Great Depression is intended to mean that the very policies that created the wealth of the 1920′s- limited government, limited spending, lowered taxes- caused the Great Depression, even though the reality is that this wasn’t the case. ‘Overproduction‘ is a another Marxist term, and has been frequently debunked by economists, as has ‘under consumption’. ‘Speculation’ stemmed from the manipulation of the money supply by the new Federal Reserve, and thus government caused this problem and not ‘greedy bankers’ like the books portray. Not mentioned as causes of the Great Depression were Hoover’s big government policies, increased taxes, and treaties that cut off international trade, or FDR’s policies which caused a severe recession caused by government to turn into a long depression caused by government. Missing in the standards are the very real consequences of meddlesome monetary policy, restrictive trade policies, punishing tax rates, wild and unpredictable regulations of businesses, and the corrosive effect of crony capitalism that stemmed from massive government spending. It is as if a liberal wrote the standards- which is okay and brings balance and critical thinking- but no conservative values or beliefs were included on purpose- which is wrong and as a whole should lead to the rejection of the standard and the education which follows from it.
  • 7.1.3 covers “The New Deal,” and according to the state guidelines which all teachers follow which all students learn, students are to take away from this time period several lessons. First, students are supposed to learn that the federal government has a responsibility to protect the environment and should do so by violating the Constitution (TVA) and taking control over formally private business activities- yet this is a judgement and not a history lesson and should not be pushed in public schools. Second, students are supposed to learn that the national government is supposed to be meeting challenges of unemployment by creating jobs, as if a political system designed to protect people’s liberty and property can exist in a nation where the government takes wealth from one group and redistributes it to another and creates businesses in competition to private companies. Students are supposed to learn how the Supreme Court then was wrong in striking down these unconstitutional attempts to twist our nation from a republic into a fascist dictatorship, and that opponents of the New Deal were just heartless and evil businessman who wanted to continue making a buck like the Marxists teach. Finally, students are to learn the consequences of the New Deal, which are listed as “promoting workers’ rights, development of Social Security program, and banking and financial regulation, conservation practices, crop subsidies”- all good consequences and not a single bad consequence listed. Nowhere is it mentioned that the Great Depression was in reality several recessions, all caused by these policies, and that our nation didn’t recover from the Depression until FDR died and many of his policies were rejected and repealed in the 1950′s.

The one sided liberal education through a Marxist viewpoint that are the standards of Michigan education is designed to produce students who are liberal and Marxist and who will be ignorant of the successes of Coolidge or the failures of FDR while learning and embracing Marxist theories regarding the economy and the proper role of government.

And Common Core, when it does turn its corrupting influence on Social Studies, will be even worse and will be a national curriculum designed to even more strongly push these values and beliefs on your youth. See my earlier post Oppose the Common Core Standards Initiative: Reasons for Opposition Both Republicans and Democrats Should Agree On.

By comparison, the prosperous and happy years of the 1980′s are covered under the standard 9.1.2, and focus on the “intensification of partisanship” and “partisan conflict over the role of government in American life”- whereas students were taught about the liberal view of what the role of government should be, the conservative view of what role government should play in society should only be covered due to the role it played in increasingly conflict in our society. And not included in the standards are any sort of mention of the successes of Reagan’s policies in international or domestic affairs, because it doesn’t fit with the false narrative pushed by the left and so students are to remain ignorant to this important and valuable information.

There are important efforts underway to take these sorts of standards and make them even more communist and make them cover the whole nation and make teachers not deviate at all from them- be aware of this and be mindful of fighting these efforts and pushing for policies at the national and state levels which lessen the role of government in education, because only be doing this can we further the life, liberty, and prosperity of our children.

UPDATE: As I thought more on this today, it occurred to me that missing from standard 7.1.1 was any sort of discussion on the Recession of 1920-1921 and the lessons that our nation learned from this economic recession. There is an entire standard devoted to the recession that occurred under FDR, so obviously ‘recessions’ are something that students should know about- but nothing on the Recession of 1920-1921. My theory- the lessons that our nation learned in that recession don’t fit in the liberal narrative that our children are supposed to be learning. For more about this recession and the lessons we learned in it, see my posts Lessons from Economic Recessions II- The Forgotten Recession of 1920 or Obama’s University of Vermont Speech Analyzed by Logic and History Reveals Dangerously Incompetent Fascist?.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Explaining the Opposition to Drilling and Fracking: A Michigan Teacher’s Perspective

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare
 Michigan apparently is sitting on valuable oil and gas reserves and is quickly becoming a battleground between those people who want to environmentally extract these valuable resources to power America and those who worship the Green God.

Those who worship the Green God believe that no drilling should occur in their backyard, although they will repeatedly state that they have no problem with it being done in a much more environmentally destructive manner in other areas and then being shipped at great damage to the environment to them to power their cars and homes. These people believe that those who do want to drill are all part of some hidden conspiracy that includes the regulators, the regulated, elected officials, and any citizen who supports drilling in an environmentally friendly manner, but they through their superior morality and intelligence have seen through this conspiracy and know the real TRUTH. They don’t really want to protect the environment, you see- in many cases these groups actually oppose drilling even if it is done in an environmentally safe way that bans controversial methods like hydraulic fracturing (better known as “fracking”)- these people are not so much environmentalists who care about the environment and doing things in a manner that protects it, but rather they are worshipers of an old religion and shout their beliefs from a wellspring of faith.

These worshipers of the Green God believe in an elaborate cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. They will frequently make derogatory comments about the material world, sneering at money and budgets and putting food on the table and powering their cars, instead speaking lovingly of some sort of greater spiritual world that is being damaged by these things. They view what is happening with fracking and drilling as some sort of ongoing process in which they are battling a historic battle to keep the light of the environment protected from those who are gradually processing and drilling it and moving it into the world of matter. Of course they know the real knowledge of the world, having watched some sort of movie or youtube clip or read it on the internet. They gather in their societies and have meetings where they talk about these ideas until everyone is faithfully preaching the same message. And then they go forth to battle those who would harm the light of the world by drilling it and using it, screaming ‘shame on you’ on those who they oppose as the pass judgement on them, which they see as only natural since they have achieved mystic enlightenment, or gnosis, whereby others have not.

At local meetings around Michigan that are discussing proposals to drill or engage in hydraulic fracturing, logical arguments are advanced and sensible safeguards are proposed, but in meeting after meeting- Barry County, West Bloomfield, Waterford, Rochester, Ionia, etc- the meetings inevitably break down in order as those who worship the Green God are not interested in logic or reasoning or really even protecting the environment- to them it is instead a matter of questioning their faith.

For example, Independence Township Board is currently considering a proposal from Jordan Exploration, an oil and gas company from Traverse City. Jordan Exploration has offered to enter into a nondevelopmental lease with the township board, which wouldn’t allow a wellhead on township property. Instead, wellheads would be located on nearby properties owned by private landowners. In other communities they have also promised (and signed a legally bind document that stated this) that they would not engage in fracking on township land- or any other land in the community that they legally could do so- if the lease was signed. And they would pay generous royalties to the community that would help them to pay police, fire, library staff, and build parks and sidewalks. And America would become more energy secure and prosperous. And the whole process would be supervised by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), with environmental groups ready to sue if any sort of infractions occurred. It’s a good deal that only someone who was motivated by something other than logic and reasoning could oppose.

Water Resources Commissioner Jim Nash is obviously this sort of person- at that meeting he said- “you can put on all the safeguards you want, but human nature is we’re not perfect and things happen.” This sort of idea that human beings are imperfect yet the environment is fits with the Manichaeism ideology that is the older form of the worship of the Green God.

At the Independence Township Board meeting and others, experts and geologists and those in the industry and even lawyers came forward to testify that the environmentally friendly route to go that would also provide revenue to the township would be to sign the lease- and yet the worshipers of the Green God kept calling out for a “real expert” to testify on their behalf. But in all honesty, they were not looking for an expert to speak on the issue- they wanted a priest of their religion to testify and call down the wrath of their God on the unbelievers. The wild look in their eyes betrayed their agenda- go to these meetings yourself and you will see, as I did at recent meetings in Genesee County over this issue.

And the saddest part of this whole debate is that those who oppose fracking ‘in the name of protecting the environment’ really are producing more damage to the environment. Their opposition to fracking is lessening the use of natural gas, which offers significant public health and climate benefits over coal and was once seen as the bridge fuel to a clean energy future. But better public health, protecting the climate, and a cleaner energy future aren’t really the goals of those who oppose fracking- instead, it is a worthy tithe to the Green God that demonstrates their superior morality over the other fallen beings of the material world.

Celebrities such as Yoko Ono, Sean Lennon, Robert Redford, Mark Ruffalo, Mario Batali, Scarlett Johansson, Alec Baldwin, and Matt Damon have spoken out against the expansion of natural gas drilling, producing movies like Gasland and speaking at fancy events on the issue- even though natural gas provides a very substantial health benefit in reducing air pollution and leads to tremendous health gains (source). These are simply false prophets leading followers of a false god to a worse world.

Be prepared- followers of the Green God or some sort of other Gnostic god will increase as our schools churn out more children filled with dubious scientific knowledge, rejecting Christianity, and filled with a willingness to assert their opinions vociferously even though they are unable to put together a coherent argument. We must teach these people and work to move our nation back to a more moral, logical, spiritual, and prosperous path that includes more environmentally safe drilling and oil exploration.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Reject the Ideas of Madmen in Authority Who Serve Defunct Economists

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.

-John Maynard Keynes, from The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1935)

Keynes was right about this- President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress distilled the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes and adopted his economic ideas, and the madness and recession and stagnation that resulted are all of their faults. In 2009 at the heart of the recession these fools passed a trillion dollar stimulus bill that was sold to the American people as a way to shorten the recession and return our nation back to prosperity quicker than if we did nothing. Those increased spending levels were afterwards locked in because Obama and the Democrats in Congress who supported him believed that taking away this spending would cause the fragile economy to suffer and lead to more joblessness. And they were wrong about all of their economic ideas and wrong to have voted so and voters were wrong to re-elect them.

The results of the data- the reality of the situation- is that the actions of these madmen in authority made the situation worse and increased joblessness and through their political actions have damaged the life, liberty, and property of millions of Americans. The results- the reality- of the stimulus bill and this Keynesian economic spending is that joblessness went higher and has stayed higher longer than if we would have done nothing at all, according to President Obama and the Democrat’s own analysis. Although President Obama would have you believe that his own analysis was so wrong because he was so incredibly incompetent, most economists at the time were very confident in those numbers and I would trust them over the later argument that Obama was so incredibly incompetent that the numbers were wrong.

The results of the data- and the reality of the situation- is that ideas and theories and beliefs upon which the new modern day Democratic Party are built are wrong, false, untrue, and madness. They are to be rejected and those who believe in them are to be rejected and those who teach them are to be rejected, and in their stead new ideas and theories and beliefs based on experience, history, science, data, reasoning, and faith are to be discussed, taught, and supported.

Graphically, the argument that I am making looks like this, adapted from a graph produced by the American Enterprise Institute in an article called To praise the February jobs report is to embrace the New Normal economy:

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher
Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Obamacare and National Debt Screw Over Obama’s Biggest Supporters

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Even though I am a teacher and daily spend my time around youth, I simply don’t understand their voting choices. Last election, according to exit poll samples of people 29 and under voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 60% to 36%. And youth voters made up 19 percent of all those who voted, according to the early National Exit Poll conducted by Edison Research, which is higher than normal. This sort of large and decisive turnout of the youth for President Obama is surprising to me because his policies are destroying their future. As evidence, let’s look at two of Obama’s signature achievements- Obamacare and the national debt.

From BuzzFeed story Obama Prepares To Screw His Base:

…The provisions required to make any kind of health insurance plan work — not just ObamaCare, but really any plan of its sort — require healthy young people to pay more in health insurance than they consume in services, while the elderly (saved by Sarah “Death Panels” Palin from any serious attempt to ration expensive and often futile end-of-life care) consume far more than they pay in. There is always a push and pull, however, and this year will be spent laying plans to shift the burden further toward the young.

State and federal officials and the health-care industry are currently preparing to implement two specific ObamaCare provisions taking effect on Jan. 1, 2014, acting on this politically perverse principle of shifting resources from your supporters to your opponents. The first is the individual mandate, which aims to force the young, childless, and healthy — “Young Invincibles,” as they are said to think of themselves — to buy health insurance, even if they think (and even perhaps make a rational, if risky, bet) that they don’t need it.

The second is a lesser-known policy to limit the practices of charging different premiums to different ages, known as age-rating. Many states currently set a limit on this difference, often mandating that an old person shouldn’t pay a premium more than five times a younger person’s, even if she’s expected to use more than five times as much health care. The ObamaCare provision kicking in next Jan. 1 would reduce that ratio to three-to-one, essentially limiting what the elderly pay in part by forcing young people to carry a larger share of the total cost of national health care…

I don’t understand why youth would support someone who would make them buy health insurance whether they want it or not- whether they think they need it or not- so that their money is transferred to an older generation. And I don’t understand why the youth would support someone who pushed for a policy that increases the amount of money that these youth have to pay in health insurance. The youth didn’t used to be this ignorant and foolish- in past elections they voted Democrat, but never this decisively and never turning out so enthusiastically to re-elect someone who attacks their personal health choices and uses government policy to transfer wealth from them to those who are older.

And then there is the debt. “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt,” President Obama said last year, and he’s right- mounting national debt, especially owed to foreign governments, is going to increasingly harm the youth that voted for Obama, more so than the older generation.

The national debt crisis will not be faced by the older generation- likely for the next decade any tough choices on spending and the mounting national debt will be pushed off. The amount of interest owed on the national debt will steadily increase, taking an ever larger share of the federal budget to pay. For a while, this sort of problem will be overcome by simply borrowing more, but that sort of solution only makes the problem worse. And the amount of debt being owed to foreign governments will mean that the youth will have a nation that is less sovereign- a nation that doesn’t control its own foreign policy but instead takes orders from other countries like China or even Russia. For a while, I’m sure that our overwhelming military will be a solution to this problem, but eventually the cuts to our military and gains in the military power of foreign nations will overcome this and our kids will be be living in a country where our foreign policy is set by foreign powers.

President Obama’s professed concern for our nation’s children is belied by his actual record on debt. He has increased the national debt by nearly $6 trillion since taking office, has offered no serious solutions to our entitlement crisis, and has even ignored most of the recommendations of his own fiscal commission. The youth, who overwhelmingly voted for him and turned out in large numbers, voted for someone who is pushing for policies that damage their future.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Congressional Testimony Reveals Obama Lazy, Dishonest, Incompetent

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

It is important to not forget that when our nation faced a crisis on September 11, 2012, that the President of the United States did not discharge his duties to his greatest abilities and as a direct result of that several Americans died, including an Ambassador who was murdered on American territory. Of course I am referring to the attack on our country in Benghazi last year, where more details are coming to light after the Presidential election.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony was fairly useless- she used the opportunity to testify in front of our elected officials about what happened to instead cry and rage and dodge and in the end provide very little information into what happened on that day. But outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey were a little more honest and actually answered questions from our elected officials about the conduct of the executive branch as they are required by law, and in their testimony we get a very damning account of President Obama’s conduct.

I’ve written about this previously- see my earlier post What Did President Obama do from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM on September 11, 2012: An Analysis of the Timeline and Administration Responses for my thoughts about this, where I concluded that

…President Obama has some answers to give the American people about his specific conduct between 4:00 pm and 9:00 pm- a 5 hour window when a real leader could have saved three American lives but instead it appears we got a shirking coward who was not up to the challenge…

This new testimony does not considerably change my analysis or conclusion about the President’s behavior.

From the Wall Street Journal article The Absentee Commander in Chief:

…We’ve seen presidents, vice presidents, chiefs of staff and national security advisers during moments of international crisis. We know that in these moments human beings make mistakes. There are failures of communication and errors of judgment. Perfection certainly isn’t the standard to which policy makers should be held.

But there are standards. If Americans are under attack, presidential attention must be paid. Due diligence must be demonstrated. A president must take care that his administration does everything it can do. On Sept. 11, 2012, as Americans were under attack in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama failed in his basic responsibility as president and commander in chief. In a crisis, the president went AWOL.

hanks to the congressional testimony of outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey late last week, we know they met with President Obama on Sept. 11 at 5 p.m. in a pre-scheduled meeting, when they informed the president about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The meeting lasted about a half-hour. Mr. Panetta said they spent roughly 20 minutes of the session briefing the president on the chaos at the American Embassy in Cairo and the attack in Benghazi, which eventually cost the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and information officer Sean Smith.

Secretary Panetta said the president left operational details, including determination of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, “up to us.” We also learned that President Obama did not communicate in any way with Mr. Panetta or Gen. Dempsey the rest of that evening or that night. Indeed, Mr. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey testified they had no further contact at all with anyone in the White House that evening—or, for that matter, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That’s not all we discovered. We now know that despite Gen. Dempsey having been informed of Ambassador Stevens’s repeated warnings about the rise of terrorist elements in Benghazi, no forces were put in place or made ready nearby to respond to possible trouble. It also seems that during the actual attacks in Benghazi, which the administration followed in real time and which lasted for some eight hours, not a single major military asset was deployed to help rescue Americans under assault.

And we learned one other thing: Messrs. Panetta and Dempsey both knew on the night of the assault that it was a terrorist attack. This didn’t prevent President Obama, Secretary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice from peddling a false version of events in the days and even weeks that followed, as the administration called the incident spontaneous, said there was no evidence of a coordinated terrorist attack and blamed the violence on an anti-Muslim video. So the White House, having failed to ensure that anything was done during the attack, went on to mislead the nation afterward….

Several phrases above are quite damning- I’ve emphasized them for your benefit- especially since they are pulled from Congressional testimony given by people who work for Obama and who were attempting to portray Obama’s actions in the best possible light.

President Obama’s actions on the night of September 11, 2012 are quite well explained, because he is a…

  1. Bad executive. Obama had no experience managing people, assets, finances, money, military forces, or anything else prior to becoming elected President. And as President, he has clearly not grown on the job, as demonstrated by the mismanagement, scandals, and constant crisis that have continued through the past several years. Hookers to parties to assassinated Americans, President Obama does not know how to run anything, perhaps even his own home.
  2. Lazy man. Leaving major decisions up to others, failing to stay up all night working problems, hanging up on and refusing to meet with Congressman during discussions regarding key issues, frequent vacations, the golfing, being able to discuss the strengths of all the college basketball teams, etc- all of these point to a man that is quite lazy. He is intellectually lazy, that we know from his sloppy arguments, stunned looks when he is rarely asked tough questions, from his utter lack of referencing any books or articles that he’s ever read, from his own accounts of his formative years, and from what I gathered reading his syllabus for his college classes. Oh, he’s curious and interested- but fails to put in the hard work necessary to be successful. And he appears to be physically lazy too- he has never weight lifted, boxed, played hockey, wrestled, played pick up football, or really physically challenged himself. He apparently likes to golf- riding around on a cart and rumored to not even look for lost balls- and likes to kind of play basketball- sort of lazy shoot-around type games. His news conferences begin late, his day ends early, and he clearly is not the same sort of hard worker that even Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter were. He is a lazy man.
  3. Dishonest person. Over and over again during his administration, the American people are lied to, fooled, given half-truths, or lied to again. There are lots of websites out there tracking his lies, whether they be during his constant campaigning, during his rare press conferences, during his partisan speeches, or from statements that his administration releases- he is a liar. The truth is out there and the truth does exist, but he is a confused and scared little man and runs from the truth. Waking up on September 13 last year, the truth was that he blew it and that his personal actions resulted in several good Americans dying, and so he lied, and when caught lied some more, and when confronted lied or had others lie for him. Being a good weasel lawyer he usually said something that could be tortured to give him plausibly deniability or cover, but that’s not the same thing as telling the truth. President Obama is a liar.
Conspiracy theorists will attempt to claim something more is here, but I think the fact that he is an incompetent, lazy liar sufficiently explains his actions. The sad thing is that the American people failed to hold him to account for his behavior, rewarding him with another four years, thereby encouraging him further and encouraging others in our society to emulate him and his ‘success.’ This is how societies are destroyed- by rewarding those who do wrong and punishing those people whose actions are right.
In the past, parents might have taught their children to be honest, hard-working, competent individuals because that was the way to success in life, but President Obama and his policies are now proving that fact wrong- anyone can now be President of the United States, no matter how incompetent, lazy, and dishonest they are. As evidence, refer to President Obama’s behavior regarding Benghazi on September 11, 2012, as evidenced by recent Congressional testimony.
Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Let’s Cut Our Way to Prosperity- Again

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Obama said in his weekly address to the nation that

“We all agree that it’s critical to cut unnecessary spending,” Obama said. “But we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in the past, and it won’t work today.”

President Obama is wrong, and this incorrect logic and ignorance of history is leading him to make wrong policy decisions today. We can cut our way to prosperity and it has worked in the past- in fact, it has worked a lot better than efforts in the past to spend our way to prosperity as Obama is suggesting we do. To demonstrate this, let’s compare the economic recessions of 1920 and 1929.

In 1929, our economy went into a severe recession. President Hoover responded to this recession by implementing a very active policy response, which included vastly increased spending by the national government, increased taxes especially on the evil rich, increased regulation of businesses, bailouts for banks and for ‘too big to fail’ companies, increased support for labor unions, and the creation of dozens of more government agencies and boards to organize and improve our existing economic system. The results of these policies were a longer and deeper recession.

In 1932, President Roosevelt campaigned to end these policies but when he became President he took Hoover’s policies and made them even bigger, more expensive, more spending, and wider reaching. And the results of those policy decisions were a double-dip recession in 1937.

In 2009, President Obama and a Democratic Congress enacted these very same policies- attempting to spend, regulate, control, tax, and spend their way out of the 2009 recession, and the results of these policies have been to lead to a slower and shallower recovery and now as seen in the latest economic numbers are leading to the coming double-dip recession in 2013 or 2014.

President Obama is not really committed to cutting unnecessary spending, is not trying to cut our way to prosperity, and is attempting policies that have not worked in the past and won’t work today.

In 1920, our economy was hammered as it had never been hammered before- a GDP decreased maybe 7%, the US dollar deflated up to 18%, unemployment jumped 6% in one year, productivity plummeted 29.4%, stocks fell dramatically, and the recession was so bad that many in society began to question the stability and future of the American system of capitalism. President Harding ignored the advice given to him by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover and responded to the recession by drastically cutting government spending, quickly cutting regulations, cutting various bureaucratic boards and agencies, and slashed taxes on all incomes. His aggressive implementation of the very policies that President Obama rejects and says “haven’t worked” resulted in our economy quickly emerging from the recession and roaring throughout the 1920′s.

The policy response of limited government, balanced budget, low taxes, low regulation, and unleashing of human freedom led to the Roaring Twenties, which was an amazing period in American history of social, artistic, and economic dynamism. These results are markedly different from the results of an active government, increased taxes, massive government spending, and more regulation that were implemented by progressive Hoover and liberal Roosevelt which led to stagnation and human misery of the Great Depression.

President Obama, ignorant of the history of America and failing in his use of logic, is wrong- President Harding demonstrated that so to marked effect in 1920 and President Hoover demonstrated it so again in 1929. Economic recessions are worsened and lengthened by a government that takes away human liberty, treats people as numbers to manage, takes wealth and property from those who have earned it, and that in every other way violates the Founding Principles of our nation which included limited government, federalism, and separation of power.

Let us educate him and others on the history of economic policy in our nation- whether it be the Panic of 1907 which was ignited by antitrust actions and increased regulation of the railroads, or the Long Depression of 1873–79 which was caused by the failure of government supported railroads and the manipulation of the money supply by the government, or any other recession that has struck the United States before or since. We need to be educated and then in turn educate our politicians like President Obama, because driven by their ignorance and poor logic they are busy implementing the very policies which will lessen your life, liberty, and your prosperity.

This post drew on earlier posts of mine, including Lessons from Economic Recessions II- The Forgotten Recession of 1920 and Lessons from Economic Recessions- Introduction and Great Depression.

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Man is Born Free, and Everywhere He is in Chains… Let’s Break the Chains and Be Great Again

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

As I sat at a local government meeting recently, I was struck by how amazing people are and therefore why it is so wrong for other people to make decisions for them regarding their lives or property. Man (and woman) are amazing creatures- when free.

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” or so said Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but I think I might modify this statement to say “Man is born free and is amazing, but everywhere he has been chained by government.”

Too many people believe that the goal of government is to make people better- but I reject this because I believe that people are already made by their Creator as great as they are ever going to be. When born, we all are free individuals, making free choices, respecting the lives of others, and understanding basic ideas about ownership of property (ever heard a kid say ‘that’s mine!’). When left alone, free to make choices about what to do and what to do with their labor and what to do with their own property, people make amazing decisions and become amazing people.

At my local government meeting- the sort of meeting that is held in every city and every county and every state capital every month- we have honored businessmen, journalists, charitable people, sports champions, and many others who do great things with their lives, liberty, and property. This, I believe, is not unique to my experience alone- there are lots of great and amazing people out there, everywhere in every nation, because God has made us great.

But what happens is that other people begin to gain power and control over their fellow man, believing that in their infinite greatness and amazingness that they are better than other people and better and more empowered to make decisions over these lesser people’s lives and property. Whether because of their history, their skin color, their connections to money or force- these people have deluded themselves into thinking that they are better at making decisions about someones life and property than the other person.

The purpose of government is not to make me better, to make decisions for me, to control my labor, or to take the fruits of my labor and distribute them to others- the purpose of the government is only to get out of my way and protect my own innate God-given abilities to keep and earn property, to make decisions, and to live.

Government- get out of the way of greatness! People- stop putting chains on your fellow man and holding them back! Republicans and Democrats- stop using the force of the state to restrict my personal decisions regarding my own life and property!

This is not just rhetoric- these are the principles which lead to proper policy decisions. Tax rates should be lower and equal for everyone, whether that is a flat income tax at the national level or a sales tax at the state level. Charity should be provided by private institutions and private individuals, instead of having the government inefficiently run food stamp programs and other charity programs that are rife with fraud and corruption. Guns should be free to be bought- or not bought- by free people making free decisions, and those who use guns to take property or life or liberty should face harsh judgement. Those who violate the life, liberty, or property of others should be removed from society (sent to jail) until they learn and believe in these concepts, and not just released after an arbitrary amount of time (usually early). People should be able to build a building or expand their business free from government interference. Automakers should not be told what sort of cars they must build and individuals should not be told what sort of cars they must buy- rather free people making free decisions should be empowered in the process and the government should work to protect that freedom and liberty and property from danger from others within (criminals) or without (foreign invasion).

Real policy decisions- good policy decisions- flow from knowing and understanding and believing in the greatness of people. We need to unleash the greatness of people once more, and stop putting them in chains of laws and regulations and slavery (making someone work against their will for others). Let’s make man free again and throw off the chains to which Obama and the Democrats and Republicans would bind us! Let us here and now tell our enemies that they may take our lives and they make take our property but they’ll never take OUR FREEDOM!

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

School Shootings Will Increase as Schools Increase Assault on the Spirit of Man?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. In the light of the latest school shootings, I think that it is important to reflect on a portion of his testimony:

…The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies!…

…Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual influences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation?

We have refused to honor God, and in doing so, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs-politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key…

There is a lot of important information in here, but I want to focus mostly on this idea that men and women are three party beings, or the Tripartite Man as I’ve seen it called from time to time. We can find in Genesis 2:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and Hebrews 4:12 this idea, that man (and woman) are the body, the soul, and the spirit- or the body, mind, and spirit as I see it.

In our schools we are supposed to be training the body and mind- through gym classes and math and science classes, two of the three natures of man are being addressed. And in our educational systems the third part of man is also being addressed, but not in a manner that is consistent with any sort of religion from any culture. In education, children are being taught to be hostile to God and his Word, to deny the existence of God, to ignore any sort of rules or teachings from any religion at all whether it be Christian or other, and to mock those who are religious. We can see this in textbooks, in classrooms, in standardized testing, in national and local standards- all of which impress on students that religion has no place in education (separation of church and state) and that faith and spirit are nowhere to be found in any sort of book or lesson or standard.

School shootings will happen, as will murder with blunt instruments or with knives or with hands, because there will be evil men out there who will desire to do evil things. Yes, implementing suggestions such as I have made on this blog will help to limit the damage that these evil men are able to do, mostly by unleashing the forces of good and liberty and property rights. But evil men will commit evil acts, and I don’t think that the answer to this is to simply say “there is no evil” or that “it all depends on who is judging to figure out what is evil” or to say “we can do nothing in our society to suppress evil in the hearts of the young.” I don’t think the solution is powerlessness, but rather empowerment.

At some point, our nation will need to move away from this nationalized one-size-fits-all secular hostile-to-God educational system, and move to something different. Local control, more values, religious education welcome, individualized and personalized instruction- all of these need to be brought into the educational system, and maybe after several generations of this sort of education the good in men can be encouraged and the bad in man discouraged. America can be a shining city on a hill, a beacon of light to all not just in a secular sense but in a spiritual sense, if only we return back to our founding values in education.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

5th Grade Math Worksheets Published by Scholastic Corporation Push Communist Views?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

The following was spotted over at the blog The Bold Pursuit:

…No, this isn’t a rightwing nutjob nightmare – it’s reality…

This worksheet is sold by Scholastic Corporation to teach 5th graders math. Scholastic Corporation is one of the worlds largest book publishing companies and is a major supplier of educational materials for schools, and is deeply involved with the nationalization of education effort called the Common Core Standards.

In this worksheet we can clearly see students practicing something called the Distributive Property, which makes numbers easier to work with by separating or breaking equations into parts (I think- I’m not a math guy).

It DOES NOT mean to ‘distribute the wealth’. In fact, the example on the worksheet of the girl distributing the wealth does not really seem to in any way at all apply to a mathematical concept in which you multiply a sum by multiplying each addend separately and then add the products. The girl is not multiplying anything, is not separating anything, and is not adding anything. All we see in the picture is a girl who is passing out money out of a bag, and the caption ‘distribute the wealth’ implies that the money that she is handing out to other people was taken from someone else who earned it. This DOES NOT demonstrate the Distributive Property.

So why is a major educational company who is designing curriculum for the entire nation putting irrelevant pictures such as these on worksheets in math? One can only speculate, of course, behind the motivations of this company, but from my own experience I would suggest it is to make young children more comfortable with tyranny and dictatorship and teach them to become intellectually comfortable with violating liberty and property rights in the name of some sort of arbitrary moral standard.

Check your kids math books and English books and let me know if any of you can find similar indoctrination attempts by the fascist left in our nation hidden in unrelated and important educational materials. I bet you can find some!

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

No more playing nice in the defense of liberty and freedom

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Unlike most conservatives and tea party patriots, I liked the tax deal- because I thought it was a good first step. Now that tax rates for some of us have been permanently frozen at the lower rate, our elected leaders can go about working to get the tax rates for the rest back to the lower level that they were at for a decade, and lower them for the everyone else. Now is the time to keep fighting to lower taxes and push for everyone- poor and rich, liberal and conservative, black and white, man and women- to have lower taxes, and that’s a winning message that will also be good policy. But this means that the Republicans are going to have to stop being so darned ‘nice’ in fighting to protect our life, liberty, and property from those who would limit them or take them from us.

The problem though is that the Republicans apparently think that if they are nice to liberals than the liberals will meet them halfway on issues and that voters will reward them for being nice by electing them back to office. But over the last few years the evidence overwhelmingly points against this.

Republicans, conservatives, tea party patriots, progressive fascists, liberals, and Democrats all win elected office and win passage of their policies when they DO NOT PLAY NICE, and the historical record bears this out.

The only reason why the Democrats and progressive fascists came to the table and agreed to the tax deal was because the Republicans and conservatives were threatening not to play nice- the revolts in the House and noise coming from the Senate all made it clear that we were prepared to fight mean and dirty, and that forced the deal. When the GOP signalled its intentions to not play nice, then liberals came to the negotiating table, and crafted their proposals based on just exactly how much niceness they thought they could take advantage of.

The GOP and conservatives began to fight firmly and strongly against the unserious nomination that Obama was preparing to make of Susan Rice for Secretary of State, in spite of attacks that opposing her were racist and that the GOP should just roll over and let the President nominate who he wants. Playing nice and going along to get along do not result in Obama nominating more qualified and moderate candidates or voters rewarding the GOP with support- only fighting strong and hard for conservative values will do those things.

After the Presidential election, Thomas Sowell blamed Romney’s loss on being nice:

Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment– nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have….

…Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another Ronald Reagan (“Read my lips, no new taxes”), but then lost when he ran for reelection as himself– “kinder and gentler,” disdainful of “the vision thing” and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been counter-attacking against the foolish things being said.

This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics– such as ending “tax cuts for the rich” who should pay “their fair share,” government “investing” in “the industries of the future” and the like. He had a coherent vision, however warped…

…In this year’s first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should have buried him in a landslide…

Sowell was right- Romney lost because he was just too nice. I was one of the few bloggers to say immediately after the third debate that Romney had lost the election, and he lost it because he was just too nice and Obama was not. Being nice in politics is not rewarded- and this is as it should be, because most people are not looking for someone to go along to get along but rather for someone who fights hard and dirty to advance a certain agenda.

Liberals love Obama because he isn’t nice- they like the fact that he is a lying, back-stabbing, cheating, dirty, personal-attack launching SOB. And maybe they should love him for this, because this means that Obama is willing to do whatever it takes to advance the values and views of fascists, communists, progressives, and liberals, and doesn’t care who it pisses off. He is going to encourage abortion, control your choices on a range of subjects, lock you into the lower class, take your property from you, and he isn’t going to worry about being nice when doing it.

Because at the heart of it, President Obama is a bully and you don’t fight back against a bully by being nice. And modern day liberalism, just like any sort of tyrannical spirit throughout history, is an ideology which bullies people and removes choice and property from them instead of empowering them with more choices and the ability to earn more property.

Ben Shapiro, editor for Breitbart who is promoting his latest book, wrote:

…the American left has become the greatest purveyor of bullying during the last half-century. That’s the dirty little secret: buried beneath all of the left’s supposed hatred for bullying is a passionate love for bullying—the use of power to force those who disagree to shut up, back down, or face crushing consequences up to and including loss of reputation, career destruction, and even death…

…The left’s goal is to shut down the political debate by decrying their opponents as victimizers. They label their opponents racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, benighted, backwards bitter clingers. They liken them to Nazis, KKK members, terrorists. Then they cast them out like lepers from the political debate. Because who would bother debating a Nazi, or a KKK member, or a terrorist?
This is how the left wins arguments. They polarize Americans from each other. They separate us by groups. They divide us, and they conquer us. They convince us that we’re either victims who deserve recompense or oppressors who must bow to the yoke….

…This is not only how the left wins arguments. It’s how they win elections. They don’t win by offering more convincing policy proposals based on evidence. They win by impugning the motives of their political opposition…

Ben Shapiro, like Thomas Sowell and myself, knows that the modern day left is not nice- and maybe we shouldn’t be so nice either. I’m not saying that tea party patriots and conservatives should sink to their level, but neither should we be happy with compromises or expect good faith in negotiations or take the personal attacks without fighting back hard.

In the second debate during the last President election, when Obama lied, Romney rightly called him out, but then he just sat there and when the moderator lied, letting the lie stand because he wanted to be nice and not confront the biased moderator. It was a lie that she uttered, it was a lie that she was a ‘moderator’, and Romney should not have been nice in pointing out the truth in those matters. In that moment of niceness he lost the election.

No more playing nice in the defense of liberty and freedom.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Warning: ObamaCare Tax Hikes Strike in 2013

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

My opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)  was based on the fact that it used the state to seize property from citizens and use that property to abort babies and encourage old people to die already all while lessening an individuals choices in their own healthcare. Because of its attack on life, liberty, and property rights, I opposed it, in addition to believing that it was unconstitutional and unaffordable. It remains all of these and more, and in addition billions of very real tax hikes hit a range of Americans starting in 2013, which are going to cost my family several thousand dollars.

From Forbes article In 2013, Millions Of Americans Face Obamacare Tax Hikes:

…On January 1, 2013, a 2.3-percent excise tax on the total revenues of medical-device companies — regardless of whether they turn a profit or suffer a loss — will take effect. The tax will hit everything they sell, from x-ray machines and pacemakers to surgical tools and artificial hips. The levy could extract as much as $29 billion over the next 10 years.

That money will have to come from somewhere; device firms won’t simply swallow the tab. So they’ll likely raise prices for patients and slash their workforces. In fact, economists at the Manhattan Institute project that the tax could eliminate as many as 43,000 jobs — and over $3.5 billion in employee compensation….

…Because of the tax, medical-device firms will also have less money to invest in research and development. My colleague Benjamin Zycher estimates that the industry will scale back investment in new products by 10 percent through 2020. That translates to a $2-billion decrease per year…

…Individuals with annual incomes higher than $200,000 and couples who make more than $250,000 a year will face two new taxes — a 0.9-percent increase in the 1.45-percent Medicare levy on earnings above those income thresholds and a new 3.8-percent tax on investment income. Together, these two taxes are expected to raise about $318 billion over the next decade — roughly half of the law’s new tax revenue.

The structure of these taxes penalizes married couples in particular. According to the New York Times, two unmarried singles who made $200,000 each would not owe any additional Medicare tax. But if they were married, they’d owe $1,350.

Meanwhile, the 3.8-percent tax on unearned income, like capital gains, dividends, and interest, will discourage saving and investment

…The law raises the floor for the deduction of medical expenses, from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent. So only expenses beyond 10 percent of a person’s income will be deductible. This change could add hundreds of dollars to the tax bills of those struggling with major medical bills.

Obamacare also halves the maximum contribution to flexible spending accounts (FSAs), from $5,000 to $2,500. Many consumers use FSAs to cover routine medical expenses, like vision care, orthodontia, and prescription drugs….

…By neutering FSAs, Obamacare deprives patients of control over their own health care — and puts insurers and government in the driver’s seat. Instead of paying for routine care with pre-tax dollars, individuals will have to purchase expensive insurance that covers routine care. In the end, patients may end up paying more

My family uses our FSA to cover costs of sending our children to school so that we can go to work. We won’t have nearly as much money to work with in 2013- personally this will cost my family between $500-$1000 that will be cut from investments or savings for college for our children- thank you Obarfo.

Although it is possible that Obamacare may result in some good for our nation, we know for a fact that it will result in our nation going farther in debt, will result in jobs being lost, will result in less saving and investment, will result in increased fees and taxes on rich and poor alike, and will result in health care being more expensive for everyone in America.

Possibility of small gain for America, certainty of massive losses for America = Obamacare.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

RIP Three Champions of Liberty: Vaclav Havel, Daniel Inouye, Robert Bork

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Being a champion of liberty means fighting for human freedom and pushing for policies and laws that lessen the oppressive control of the state on individuals. These people didn’t just talk the talk- they walked the walk. Each was faced with a moment in their lives when they could have just backed down from their beliefs and knuckled under to those who demanded that they sacrifice their liberty and freedom to the state- but in each case they resisted and fought back. In their lives we as conservatives can gain inspiration to continue to fight for life, liberty, and the protection of individual property rights from a greedy and tyrannical state, and yet with their passing our world loses three more brave warriors of freedom.

Vaclav Havel, the former dissident playwright who led Czechoslovakia’s 1989 “Velvet Revolution” against communism and then served as his country’s president, died Sunday at the age of 75. Unlike many who after the fall of communism replaced those tyrants with themselves as a tyrant, Havel was a committed patriot and lover of liberty in the mold of a George Washington.

From the LA Times obituary:

…”The [Communist] past has left us spiritually impoverished,” he declared in pledging as president to focus on “the ethical, moral aspects of society, on creating space for dialogue, agreement and tolerance.”

As a dissident leader, Havel promoted the slogan, “May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred.” During his years in office he stressed the importance of “civil society,” or citizens’ organizations free of government control, as the underpinning for democracy. “None of us—as an individual—can save the world as a whole, but . . . each of us must behave as though it were in his power to do so,” Havel wrote in his 1997 book, “The Art of the Impossible: Politics as Morality in Practice.”

As president, Havel sought to guide his country away from its Communist past while avoiding witch hunts against former rulers. “The transformation of the totalitarian system into a democratic one is not only a matter of several parties replacing one ruling party and the introduction of some democratic mechanisms,” Havel said in a 1994 interview with The Times. “It is also a matter of a great transformation of thinking because people must learn again to be citizens, to rediscover the civic responsibility which the totalitarian regime did not demand from them because it required mere obedience.”…

His emphasis on the morality of the individual, the search for truth, and focusing on thinking like a free person mark him as a true patriot. As a true democrat and classical liberal, he was initially loved by the world for his efforts, but in his later years modern day liberals, progressives, communists, and fascists went after him politically and personally and his star faded somewhat. As a great freedom fighter, his death should have been noted around the world and should have been acknowledged by world leaders, but it wasn’t really, and it falls to us to note it and mourn it.

Also passing on this last week was Senator Daniel K. Inouye (Democrat, Hawaii), who died of respiratory complications at the age of 88. He was currently the President pro tempore of the United States Senate, which capped his long career in that body. Although I disagree with his votes on many issues during his time in the Senate, his service in World War Two fighting the enemies of freedom- fascists in Germany and Italy- proved that he was indeed a champion for liberty. Here is the account of how Inouye won his Medal of Honor in 1945 (via wikipedia):

…On April 21, 1945, Inouye was grievously wounded while leading an assault on a heavily-defended ridge near San Terenzo in Tuscany, Italy called Colle Musatello. The ridge served as a strongpoint along the strip of German fortifications known as the Gothic Line, which represented the last and most dogged line of German defensive works in Italy. As he led his platoon in a flanking maneuver, three German machine guns opened fire from covered positions just 40 yards away, pinning his men to the ground. Inouye stood up to attack and was shot in the stomach; ignoring his wound, he proceeded to attack and destroy the first machine gun nest with hand grenades and fire from his Thompson submachine gun. After being informed of the severity of his wound by his platoon sergeant, he refused treatment and rallied his men for an attack on the second machine gun position, which he also successfully destroyed before collapsing from blood loss.

As his squad distracted the third machine gunner, Inouye crawled toward the final bunker, eventually drawing within 10 yards. As he raised himself up and cocked his arm to throw his last grenade into the fighting position, a German inside fired a rifle grenade that struck him on the right elbow, severing most of his arm and leaving his own primed grenade reflexively “clenched in a fist that suddenly didn’t belong to me anymore”. Inouye’s horrified soldiers moved to his aid, but he shouted for them to keep back out of fear his severed fist would involuntarily relax and drop the grenade. As the German inside the bunker reloaded his rifle, Inouye pried the live grenade from his useless right hand and transferred it to his left. As the German aimed his rifle to finish him off, Inouye tossed the grenade off-hand into the bunker and destroyed it. He stumbled to his feet and continued forward, silencing the last German resistance with a one-handed burst from his Thompson before being wounded in the leg and tumbling unconscious to the bottom of the ridge. When he awoke to see the concerned men of his platoon hovering over him, his only comment before being carried away was to gruffly order them to return to their positions, since, as he pointed out, “nobody called off the war!”

The remainder of Inouye’s mutilated right arm was later amputated at a field hospital without proper anesthesia, as he had been given too much morphine at an aid station and it was feared any more would lower his blood pressure enough to kill him. Although Inouye had lost his right arm, he remained in the military until 1947 and was honorably discharged with the rank of captain…

Without his service- and others like him- the fascists might have won the war and millions of free people would be oppressed under their liberty-crushing policies. His later votes may have been incorrect in my opinion, but he was a true patriot and our nation is built on a diversity of votes and values and so both conservatives and liberals should recognize his great service to our nation.

The last patriot who I would like to recognize who died this week is Robert Bork. Judge Bork was an American legal scholar who advocated the judicial philosophy of originalism, served as a Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, Acting Attorney General, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but is likely most famous for being rejected in 1987 when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan.

Once upon a time in our nation, Justices who were great legal scholars and superstars of litigation and noted authors were nominated to the Supreme Court to serve in that august body. Once upon a time, being the top of your profession was important to being put in the top court in our nation, and Judge Bork was at the top of his profession and a well-qualified judge. But those times are past us, and now- as a result of what happened during Judge Bork’s nomination hearings in the Senate- nominees to the Supreme Court are picked because they are NOT noted authors and superstars of litigation or top legal scholars- in fact, any sort of paper trail that shouts greatness is also shouts political risk and opinions that people likely will disagree with, so both Republicans and Democrat Presidents pick nobodys who are a great mystery and whose judgements one hopes will live up to what we once knew in this nation.

Senator Kennedy and his allies in the Senate turned a process of confirming that a Judge was indeed qualified to the bench into a witch-hunt, where the politics of personal destruction are the way to defeat political enemies, and where the personal views and values of a person- especially if firmly held and believed- are not marks of greatness but instead a target to attack. The attacks on Judge Bork in his confirmation hearings foreshadowed the modern day politicians who are simply empty rhetoric sprouting fools who lack any sort of views or beliefs other than power and who continually engaged in negative and personal attacks to advance their own power.

Kennedy and the left were coldly intelligent in attacking Bork, because he did indeed represent a grave threat to their political views and values. As Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on The New Criterion:

…Bork’s jurisprudence—derivatively, his conviction that, in a democracy, it is for judges to interpret and apply existing law, not invent and impose “organic” law—stands as a mortal threat to the so-called progressive project. Being intolerable to a free people, that project must be proclaimed by politically insulated judges if it is to advance at all….

…There seems no end to subjects now perceived as fit for resolution by judges: presidential elections, economic policy, the requirements of national security, the identity of wartime enemies, the rules of professional golf, the definition of marriage, the artistic pretensions of smut, the availability of capital punishment, the unavailability of restrictions on abortion, infanticide, suicide, and euthanasia—today’s courts grapple with all these matters and so much more.

Yet, since becoming a fixture on the national stage in the early 1970s, Bork has toiled in a lonely swim against this relentless tide. His simple, eloquent message, voiced as insistently at the would-be legal activists of the right as at the left’s meliorist legions, is this: The political seduction of the law is killing American democracy…

Bork fought against the destruction of rule of law his whole life, even when this fight became more about him personally and his personal views, distorted by demagogues and abandoned by his supporters. For his service to our nation and for fighting a very important fight on the very nature of what a democracy is, we mourn his passing and hope to find inspiration and learning from the path that he trod forward.

We will miss the good President from the Czech Republic, the Democratic Senator from Hawaii, and the conservative Judge from Pennsylvania. They are gone, but not forgotten.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

6 Ways to Help Prevent School Shootings

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Perhaps it is the policy advisor in me, or the fact that I get really upset thinking that my five children may not be properly protected while in school, or I all the calls to ‘do something’, have gotten to me- so here are six ways to help prevent school shootings, as suggested by a conservative teacher with a degree in public policy from a top east-coast school:

  1. Allow more guns in schools. Lost in the school shooting tragedy has been the news from the other tragedy, the shooting at the mall. There only two people were tragically murdered by an evil person, because as the coward attempted to reload his gun he was confronted with an armed citizen who pulled out his own gun. The shooter’s next move was to take his own life, rather than continue his rampage and kill more innocent people. But at the school shooting, much like other school shootings that have taken place over the last several years, the scum was able to wander the school killing innocent people without any fear of being gunned down himself, because in both his fantasy world and in the real world he had no one would could oppose him. If there were more guns in schools- not less- than school shootings would not have the death tolls that we are seeing today.
  2. Armed administration. Law-abiding citizens who go through extensive training programs and considerable background checks should be able to legally carry and defend school children from evil people who would do them harm, and this should be part of an administrator’s job description. The man who runs the gas station up the street carries a piece; the manager at many job sits carries or is legally able to carry; and so administration in our schools should be allowed and trained to carry firearms. I’m not suggesting that we just pass out guns to teachers- they should go through teacher specific training, spend considerable amount of time in the range, have the proper background checks, and then have continual updates and training programs. Put guns in the hand of administrators- or at least make sicko’s think that they do- and there will be less school shootings purely because of the deterrence factor. See this article for more.
  3. Push for every high school to have a police school liaison officer. A Police School Liaison Officer is a law enforcement officer assigned to the school. The purpose of having a PSLO at school is to assist the school in maintaining a safe environment for students, staff, and visitors. The PSLO interacts positively with students to gain confidence and trust. Students who choose illegal behaviors are held accountable by the PSLO through referrals to Social Service or citations. The PSLO actively supports the schools policy to discipline student behavior that threatens the health or safety of others. Funding for this program should be secured and and every school district should have one of these people in every high school, and perhaps another one split between the middle schools as well. I know that for elementary schools this sort of cost could not be justified- but at least high schools and maybe middle schools should be part of this program.
  4. Better lock-down drills. At my school district, our principal sends out an email to the whole staff letting us know when a lock-down drill will occur, that information is passed on to students, we run the drill and most teachers continue their teaching without change, and afterwards we receive no feedback. We practice the lock-down procedure in our school as if it is a joke- and when we really need to lock-down in reality I can only hope that the results will not be a joke. Lock down drills are important, and I hope that after the last several school shootings that principals around the nation will take them seriously and run them properly- unannounced, as if for real, calling in the SWAT teams, and providing feedback to teachers after the drill. Even the drills themselves need some work- there should be multiple locations to call for lock-down not one exposed PA system, for example. Better lock down drills might save lives.
  5. Building improvements. The MEA President was right about one thing- buildings need to be improved to protect students better. First change that needs to occur is that efforts must be made to limit access to buildings. Perhaps this will cost some money, but access to school children should be more tightly controlled than current ‘open door’ policy in schools, so school should redesign their main entrance ways to control the flow of visitors better. Second change that needs to occur is that doors need to be strengthened and locks need to be able to withstand some real blows from a psycho who may be trying to enter the door. Administration has keys and the fire and police have real ways of entering doors, but the little lock I have on my door into a hole in the door frame isn’t going to stop someone from busting in and gunning us all down. Simple and effective improvements to school buildings, although costing a little bit of money, can improve student safety in our schools.
  6. Training for staff. Professional development days for staff and administration should include time and training for self-defense, disarming attackers, how to hide effectively, where to run, locating safe areas in the school, and other measures to address staff and student safety. We are not trained or required to be trained, and these sorts of skills are as important to our professional development and safety as some of the other training that we have received over the skills. I’m not suggesting that we all learn how to be ninjas or anything- just once a year we get an hour or so to maybe get up and practice some techniques or take a tour of the school or get some other needed training that could save our lives and possibly the lives of the children in our schools.

Above I have laid out six constructive policies that can be implemented at the state level to address school shootings- I only hope that our nation goes beyond mere ‘discussions’ on taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and begins to seriously take real steps to protect staff and students.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

MEA President Politicize Shootings, Uses Tragedy to Push Personal Agenda Using Union Resources

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Hours after the tragic school shooting, I received an email from the Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook. The entire statement can be found on the MEA website, paid for by unionized school employees, but here is the bulk of it:

Regardless of what the details and facts are of today’s events in Connecticut, this nation must have a real conversation about guns and the safety of our students and those who care for them.

“I am a gun owner and avid outdoorsman, but something must be done to protect our children from such acts of violence. Entire school communities — boards, administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students — need to be partners in discussions to ensure our school buildings are safe and protected from these kinds of crimes, using the latest in technology and building design to secure buildings and classrooms from those who would bring harm to students, whether armed or not.

But we need REAL solutions. Just yesterday, the Michigan Legislature passed SB 59, which allows for concealed firearms in our schools. Those who think that students and teachers will be safer with MORE guns in our schools are just plain wrong. Thinking that teachers should carry weapons and fire on threats is a recipe for even more death — not safety. I hope Governor Snyder understands this and vetoes SB 59, not only for the safety of our children but out of respect for those who died today in Connecticut. To sign this bill in light of this tragedy would be unfathomable.”

The details and facts of this tragedy, much like the other mass killing sprees that have struck the United States, are that they occur in areas that are supposedly “gun-free” zones in which gun carrying isn’t allowed. Today, a worker or a young student is most vulnerable to being murdered without any sort of chance of help in areas where the government creates a wall that prevents those who would stop such murderous rampages from occurring from doing so. Schools, universities, airplanes (prior to air marshal’s), or private property posted with a no-guns signs (like a movie theatre) are now the scenes of the most deadly gun-related rampages- and that should fact should not be overlooked.

Evil cowards know that they can go on to school property, or visit Steve Cook’s house (assuming that he isn’t a hypocrite), and know that there will be no armed resistance to anything that they intend to do. These zones are ‘gun free’, so anyone who brings a firearm into these areas is superior and does not have to fear being stopped in any way from any sort of agenda that they engage in.

And then when they begin their rampage of death, it is assured to be much more deadly than if someone or several someones had firearms to deal with the evil turd. Professor Eugene Volokh provides several cases where a deadly shooter was stopped after only murdering several people by a brave citizen armed with a firearm and his second amendment rights.

Steve Cook is the usual sort of leftist thug who believes that we should have ‘a conversation’, but really just wants ‘his solution’, which is for the state to have all the firearms and weapons and for people to be left defenseless and helpless, much as they were at this school today. When I read the story of today’s tragedy I was struck at how utterly HELPLESS the people were as death stalked the halls of the school- left with no weapons of any sort, they simply waited to die or prayed for mercy or luck.

This is no way to live, and no way to work, and I am pissed that my union President, who is paid with dues money taken from me without my choice, is using this tragedy to try to take weapons and defences from law-abiding citizens so that more tragedies like this one can occur. Schools, universities, airplanes, and military barracks should be heavily armed and defended, as they protect us at our most vulnerable, and instead union hacks like Steve Cook are preaching the opposite- to take freedom and liberty out of people’s hands and leave us all cowering at the mercy of thugs and evil-doers.

Next I imagine that Cook is going to push to remove all knives from schools after a knife attack at a Chinese school wounded 22 children and 1 adult. In spite of a Chinese law requiring those who buy knives to register, it looks like this attack was stopped through armed security guards and not government laws depriving people of their own ability to defend their property, liberty, and lives.

MEA President Steve Cook is right about one thing- entire school communities including school boards, administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students need to be partners in discussions to ensure our school buildings are safe and protected from these kinds of crimes, and in these discussions need to push for more funding for armed security guards, police officer liaisons, training for staff in weapons and firearms, and more training and support for concealed weapons in schools. A professional, liberty-loving, and well-armed workforce is the best defense against future school shootings, not weak, disarmed, and helpless serfs at the mercy of lawless thugs and evildoers. Look to our founding principles and we shall find guidance on this issue, and disabuse Mr. Steve Cook of his backward notions and faulty logic.

For more coverage of this issue, go to memeorandum and read some of the stories  andhere and here.

UPDATE: The Detroit News chimed on this very same subject, taking a more balanced approach but highlighting the very same statement from Cook- read the Detroit News version at Shootings energize debate about expanding CCW laws in Michigan.

Here in Michigan we don’t just dicuss things- we get them done. Let’s not talk and discuss anymore- here in Michigan we need your help. The Governor might be tempted to veto the legislation that our legislature passed that will let law-abiding and trained patriotic Americans carry concealed weapons in schools and thereby deter acts such as the latest school shooting. Call our Governor’s office at (517) 373-3400 or fax at (517) 335-6863 and do more than just talk about making a difference- help make a difference by encouraging him to pass the bill.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Unions Brought Right-to-Work on Themselves and Now Should Reap What They Have Sown?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

While on the executive board of my local union, as the lone conservative voice I recommended from the very start against supporting Proposal 2, but no one listened to me and now the unions are reaping what they have sown.

On several occasions I argued in my local union executive meetings and in our representation council meetings and I distinctly remember a heated discussion that I had with the Michigan Education Association President at a picnic, and in each case I strongly recommended that pushing for Proposal 2 was a bad idea for several reasons.

  1. One, that if the effort failed than those who were anti-union would counter-attack and push for right-to-work.
  2. Two, that if the proposal failed than the support for unions would be evident for everyone to see, and if it was below 50% it would reveal our weakness politically whereas we might disguise this fact further if that was the case.
  3. Three, that the money, time, effort, and energy that we would have to pour into Proposal 2 to hope to get it past would be money, time, effort, and energy that we would need if we were to defeat an attempt to make our state go right to work. This is not to say that I am against right-to-work, but rather to say that if the unions really viewed right-to-work as the worst threat to its existence than they should have saved everything to defend against that attack.

But my advice was ignored, just like every conservative or Republican or moderate voice is ignored in the MEA and the other labor unions in our state and around the nation, and now the MEA and the other unions are going to get what they deserve- nay, what they asked for- and Michigan is going to become a right-to-work state.

The Detroit News write up about this story hits on my first two points:

…While campaigning for governor, Snyder said he would sign a right-to-work bill, but he had repeatedly said the issue was not part of his agenda to reform Michigan’s traditionally labor-friendly business climate.

But during the campaign to defeat Proposition 2, the data-driven governor began noticing polling that showed Michiganians favored the right-to-work concept of making it illegal to require workers in unionized workplaces to financially support the union or face termination.

“When his top agenda items were completed and that intersected with the revelation that Michiganders really wanted this, it was an easy transition for him to say, ‘OK, the time’s right,’” said state Rep. Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, the leading proponent of the legislation. “The polling data and the exclamation point of the actual election I think had a big effect on his viewpoint.”…

Right to work is going to hit union officials very hard, as they will no longer be able to justify their salaries and positions and unwavering political support for the most progressive of Democrats in the face of workers demanding to see results and competition from other unions that may deliver results.

Right now, if I want to work and be a teacher in a public school in Michigan I am forced to join a union. Maybe I still will after right-to-work passes here in Michigan- but at least I will make that choice on my own and not as a condition of employment. Right-to-work does nothing more than give workers a right to work in a job without union representation and the right to choose whether or not they join a union- it does nothing else.

The unions are terrified because they know that if workers can choose not to join their union or can choose to join no union than they will lose dues and money and be out of a job. All those hundreds of people that my hard work goes to employ who work hard every day to advance political interests contrary to my personal beliefs will no longer be able to use my labor to provide them wealth and property- I will be a free man now. No longer will I be a slave to the interests of a few elite men and women in far-away capitals who live the high life and go to fancy conferences and wear expensive suits on my dime and as a result of my hard work- now they will need to justify the voluntary transfer of my property to them by producing results for me in the form of higher pay and better benefits.

Over the last several years I have watched as the MEA has churned millions into an effort to recall a Republican that they believed was hostile to unions, resulting in another Republican being elected for that seat and the new Republican being even more hostile to unions. I’ve watched the MEA support through all their many ways the effort to meddle in another state’s political process- the Wisconsin recall of their Governor- and have that end in an utter failure. I’ve read over the past year political emails sent almost daily from a range of MEA officials- from my own local union President to communications directors for several shell organizations that the MEA controls- who have spent a lot of time and effort on these emails but which have more to do with helping progressives and Democrats get elected and less to do with providing me with better pay and support. Labor unions- especially the leadership- such as the MEA are wasting money, resources, and efforts in an attempt to push their own pet agenda’s and control the lives of their workers- and right-to-work is an attack on that sort of imposition of values and beliefs and conditions of employment on free people.

While I typed this blog post I received yet another email from my local union boss, ordering all of us to wear red tomorrow in support of commun(ist) bonds and workers rights. I urge you all to reject that and wear blue and green in support of workers and individuals and freedom and liberty.

Have no sympathy for what is happening to the labor unions here in Michigan- they brought their own ruin on themselves through their own actions. These reforms are needed, necessary, and called on down by union actions, and right-to-work appears to further the advancement of life, the promotion of liberty, and the protection of property, so support it here and fight back against any sort of thuggery or corruption that union officials are sure to unleash today and the rest of this week.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

The 7 Pieces of Advice by Trotsky for Obama, found in the 1934 Chicago Tribune Cartoon ‘Planned Economy or Planned Destruction’

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

This image is taken from the 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon ‘Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?’. It focuses on the character of Leon Trotsky, who is laying out a series of policy goals for the United States. The Chicago Tribute suggested in its latest reprint of this cartoon that we take a look at this cartoon and see if it rings true in today’s political and economic climate.

Whereas others have focused on simply analyzing the larger cartoon to identify all the characters in it (for the best analysis see this post), today I am going to attempt to see if this cartoon sheds some understanding on the economic and political challenges facing today and whether it gives us as voters of a free nation any sort of guidance on how to vote in upcoming elections or which way to pressure our public officials:

  1. Motivations.

    Leon Trotsky was the founder of an ideology called Trotskyism, which is an extreme left-wing political ideology that believed that although the ‘working class’ had seized power in Russia, true socialism could not be established unless there was a global and permanent revolution led by vanguard parties of the smartest and best workers who would take control of society and achieve real change that would transform society. His vision of progress forward was defeated because even the communists saw that his economic and political theories were flawed and ignored the realities of of the world and did not lead to positive results as determined objectively. It is stunning how closely his ideas and thoughts mirror those of Obama.

    Although in specific there are differences that will arise from current US President Barack Obama’s general lack of referencing specifics and although Obama is by no means is a committed follower of Trotsky (I’ve suggested previously that Obama may in fact be a fascist), in the general Obama appears to echo the same ideas and beliefs of Trotsky. During his campaign he talked often about fundamentally transforming society by giving more power to bureaucratic elites, and one of the reasons why he was initially so popular overseas is that he translated his message of change and hope for workers and the working class to make it a call for an international and permanent struggle.

    Both Obama and Trotsky appear to be motivated by a sincere belief that their economic and political policies will indeed make the world a better place- but sadly, Obama is facing the same realities and objective results that Trotsky faced. One can only hope that he doesn’t end up some day with an ice pick in his back put there by a more committed Stalinist who works in his Politiburico.

  2. Spend Spend Spend.

    Soviet economic policy, as pushed by the most progressive and idealistic of the communists, advocated for higher and higher government spending. From a low of 8784 million rubles in 1928, Soviet government spending skyrocketed 106238 million rubles by 1937 (spending)- and the Soviet economy crashed, millions of people starved to death, the ruble fell heavily in value, and the standard of living fell. Even though the government spent more and more money, things got worse, which might be shocking to those who think that more government spending is good, but is perfectly understandable to those who see unelected and accountable bureaucrats taking money and property from those who earn it and blowing it on politically connected businesses in an inefficient manner.

    President Obama also has attempted to increase the wealth of society and make people more free by increasing government spending, and the United States has seen similar results to those experienced by FDR and the Soviet Union in the 1930′s- economic depression. And the worse is yet to come- unlike past spending programs which were structured in the immediate time frame, President Obama’s spending programs are paid for through debt, promises, and IOU’s, a ticking time bomb which is going to destroy the prosperity of future generations. It simply does not work to take property from others, either via taxes or fees or through borrowing money paid for with interest or future payments, and then have it spent by politically connected bureaucrats. It destroys wealth and property because this property and wealth is spent inefficiently and in a manner that violates the unseen supply-and-demand hand of God.

    Both the rulers of the Soviet Union and President Obama may sincerely believe that their economic policies of spending more money will indeed stimulate the economy and lead to a more prosperous people. President Obama has completely unhinged from reality on this, and his reply to mounting staggering debts and deficits is to borrow more money from foreign nations and spend that as well. Sadly, these policies have led to a long and lingering recession, matched only by the Great Depression that occurred the last time these ‘spend spend spend’ economic policies were employed.

  3. Under the Guise of Recovery.

    The main reason that the people of Russia went along with the economic plans put forth by Lenin and later Stalin were that they were desperate to recover from the effects of various calamities. World War One destroyed the Russian economy and so the people desperately empowered Lenin to implement his communist policies. The results of these early communist policies proved to be devastating economically, and so everyone looked forward to Lenin’s New Economic Policies. These more-capitalistic policies proved to be successful, but took power away from the elites and politically-connected, and so as soon as Lenin was dead, the tyrant Stalin proclaimed them failures and implemented his own economic policies, which turned into even worse failures. It was by disguising these various policies as responses to some sort of crisis that made the people willing to go along with them, willing to sacrifice seeing objective positive results, willing to sacrifice their property, liberty, and eventually their lives.

    In the United States, our nation has also gone along with the ‘under the guise of recovery’ swindle, giving up freedoms and property in a desperate attempt to recover from the Bush years, which we are all told were awful but are increasingly looking good in comparison to the lingering Obama recession. In response to various crisis’, many of them provoked by Obama’s very policies or policies which he supported during his short time in elected office, our nation is embarking on a historic redirection towards more government control over industries, more government control over our lives, and more divisive class warfare and bitter partisanship. It’s a crisis, we are told, and the only response is more cowbell, and so our nation continues to empower the very man who is pushing the very policies that are making the crisis worse.

    Same excuses used in both communist Soviet Union in the 1920′s and 1930′s and those used by President Obama and the Democratic Party today. And sadly, both groups appear to be supported or intimidated or fooled by the public that they are making poorer and less free.

  4. Bust the Government.

    A little history lesson for you- with the death of Lenin in 1924, the Russian political system was in flux. Before 1924, the Politburo and other communist institutions had run the nation, which Lenin having a great amount of power but Stalin and Trotsky also having big roles to play. Lenin’s death led to a power struggle won by Stalin, who eventually excited Trotsky. Later problems in the Soviet Union were blamed on Stalin’s political enemies, who were killed off in the Great Purges of the late 1930′s. The key to understanding what was happening this time is that the government and political structures were continually being broken by the very men who were promising to fix them- Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin.

    And today, President Obama is stunning in his disregard for the historical political system that is established by the Constitution. In many instances he has violated passages of the Constitution, if not legally according to the letter of the law than in dozens of instances realistically according to the spirit of the law, from recess appointments to ignoring the War Powers Act to governing without budgets to drone attacks to appointed czars. At perhaps no point in the last century has our political system been as broken and busted as it is today, with the nation increasingly sharply divided and bitter and partisan attacks commonplace. The Democrats in the US Senate, Obama’s allies, are even going so far as to seriously contemplate removing the filibuster so that they can jam legislation past the minority because they allege that the old historic political ways of doing things in our nation need to be broken.

    Breaking government and busting society, whether you call it permanent revolution by the proletariat or the forward march of progressives, destroys property, makes people less secure in their rights, and eventually causes death. It happened in the past- and it is happening today.

  5. Blame the Capitalists for Failure.

    Trotsky blamed capitalists for both the political and economic problems facing humanity, arguing that the economic boom and bust cycle that led to the destruction of so much wealth was caused by capitalists and that the lack of political power held by workers was also their fault. He believed that private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit was at the root of the problems facing society, and that the solution to this was a genuine workers’ state where the working class controlled all the political power and the state owned and controlled the means of production. His desire was for the workers to really rule and the government to run industries for their good. But in reality what Soviet Russia ended up with was a nation ruled by a bureaucratic caste, where decisions were made by special interest groups and labor unions that controlled these various bureaucracies and made economic and political decisions to reward their supporters and not benefit the nation as a whole (or even ‘the workers’).

    The modern day Democratic Party, led by Barack Obama, has apparently subscribed to these very same ideas, and is reaping the very same results of the implementation of these ideas. Running in 2008 President Obama promised to be able to smooth out the boom and bust cycle of capitalism- especially the banking industry and investment of capital- by empowering government agencies to have stronger oversight over them. In another example, he argued that government ownership of healthcare, a major industry in the United States, would prevent healthcare costs from rising. And it was his belief that by having the government take over major automobile companies and then turn over that ownership to ‘the workers’ that both the automobile industries and the workers would benefit. And everywhere that his Trotsky-like ideas have been implemented, the results have been economic and political failure. Industries have failed to prosper- even General Motors is only profitable right now because it was bailed out by billions of dollars and given billions more in government support- and politically power has shifted farther away from the workers and increasingly towards the bureaucrats. The gulf between the rich and poor has widened, not narrowed, as as result of Obama’s Marxist policies, and this has been bad for America.

    And through all the failures of Trotsky and Obama, even as their own policies resulted in more failures, they have blamed ‘the capitalists’, ‘the rich’, ‘the bourgeoisie’, or ‘the 1%’. Deficits skyrocketed, currencies collapsed in values, the world became more unstable, civil unrest became more common, individual liberties were less protected, unemployment went up, and GDP stagnated- and yet still Trotsky and Obama blame capitalists.

  6. Junk the Constitution.

    A constitution is a body of fundamental laws that set up the principles, structures, and processes of government- and although I’ve been reading about the Soviet system of government over the last couple days, honestly I can’t really figure out how it works, especially during the 1920′s and 1930′s that are addressed in the cartoon. The principles of government appear to be ‘junked’ by the 1930′s- no longer holding to idealistic communism but instead succumbing to the reality of human nature. The structures of governing appear to be junked as well- the various political structures that Lenin may have used like the Politburo appear to have become merely tools for the people in power instead of actual structures of governing. And the process of creating laws to govern the actions of men appear to have been junked so much that in the Soviet system it really became all about decrees and directives from the ruler, whether it was Lenin or Stalin.

    And in America over the last couple of years under President Obama and his allies in Congress, we are seeing the same junking of our governmental principles, structures, and processes. The process on how the Affordable Care Act became law still confuses me- my students always ask me “just how did it get through the filibuster in the Senate” and my explanation, even though I explain it correctly, still rings hollow and untrue. In discussing how our nation is going to put in place laws to avoid the fiscal cliff or sequestration, I’m forced to spend a lot of time talking about ‘secret negotiations’ and backroom discussion between government elites, wondering the whole time where the time-honored processes involved in creating legislation through Congress and committees went. During President Obama’s run for the President, one can’t help but notice that his campaign was devoid of governing principles and that Democrats who ran for Congress also seemed to lack governing principles as well- they didn’t talk about their economic philosophies, or the politicians that they would emulate in office, or the latest political philosophies that they were students of, preferring instead discussions about power and demonetization of their opponents. And the czars and other bureaucrats who appear to be gaining more in power outside of the traditional structures of government are clearly similar to the bureaucrats and czars who ruled Soviet Russia.

    Principles, structures, and processes- look at how these are increasingly becoming junked in our nation as our nation moves away from the founding principles, the structures established in the written Constitution, and the processes of making laws and executing those laws that governed our nation for the first several hundred years. Just like the Soviets junked their Constitution as Trotsky recommended, Obama and the Democrats are junking ours today.

  7. Declare a Dictatorship.

    The last piece of advice that Trotsky wrote to Obama all those many years ago was to declare a dictatorship. This is the last step on the path to tyranny and injustice and the final attack on property and those people who create property, and is the end goal of all tyrants. Although Trotsky might have been suggesting that the dictatorship should be some sort of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ where the political and economic power was controlled by the worker class within a democratic system, the reality is that his allies and friends and supporters and fellow Marxists eventually established a classical ‘dictatura’ where a small group of undemocratic elites control the economic and political power in the nation.

    And although President Obama sees himself as some sort of transformative community activist who is going to empower the workers or middle class or whatever he calls them, the reality that we are seeing is where an smaller group of appointed individuals are increasingly gaining in economic and political power. Trotsky saw himself as a fighter for the community too, but much like his experience, the reality that the Tea Party on the right and the Occupy Wall Street on the left can both plainly see is that political and economic power is moving father away from the common man, the middle class, or the worker and increasingly being concentrated in the hands of those who have the right political connections, who are the union bosses, those who have control over the bureaucracy, and those who have families and inherited wealth. The political classes enrich themselves while the workers become poorer, all due to President Obama and the Democratic Marxist policies which are supposed to due the opposite.

    President Obama is not declaring a dictatorship in the sense that he is going to announce that he is some sort of dictator for life- rather he is going to declare that the America and the world should embrace a new arrangement of economic and political power which empowers a smaller elite to make decisions for everyone based on some sort of notion of fairness or social justice. It’s a sneaky sort of declaration of dictatorship, but is one none-the-less, and the results will be that you personally will have less power over your own property, less power over decisions regarding your own healthcare, less choice in your own actions, and less protection of your life. It’ll be a dictatorship different than the sort that Trotsky advised, softly declared by a smooth-sounding teleprompter reading tyrant.

President Obama is not an evil person or a conspiracy theory or a giant plant or someone who is secretly planning on the destruction of the United States. He is just a guy who spews rhetoric that some people believe in, and he does it so well and campaigns so effectively that he has become the President of the strongest and most influential nation in the world. From this position, he is in place to implement his economic and political theories, which are proven failures that have driven nations into depression and war in the past, but which he is ignorant of because of his overall ignorance of economic and political history combined with his stunning conceit and confidence.

The advice and truths that Trotsky is writing in this cartoon are advice and truths on how to establish a tyranny and destroy life, liberty, and property, and it appears from an objective standpoint over the last several years that President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress (and some Republicans too) are following this advice and believing these truths. They are rejecting other truths on which our nation was built- that all men are equal, that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that the purpose of government is limited to protecting these rights from men who would take them away, that these rights are the right to live and live in freedom and earn and keep property, and that governments that abuse any of these rights are tyrannical and deserve to be abolished so that men may put in place better governments to protect these rights.

America is playing out some sort of Greek play, where our main character in his hubris thinks that he can achieve positive results by implementing the same policies in the past that only achieved negative results. Opposition to him and his agenda should be motivated by knowing that history, morality, and truth are on our side and not with him, and that where he is taking our nation and the world is to a place where life is less secure, liberties and freedoms are broken, and property and wealth are not protected.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Election 2012: What Went Wrong?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

So President Barack Obama won Election 2012. What went wrong? Some people will go small and point towards factors such as the Chris Christie and Colin Powell’s backstabbing, a chance hurricane, a weak third debate from Romney, Romney’s unforced Jeep mistake, or the power of the ground game. But I think the what went wrong is something much bigger than this.

In my post Has America Passed the Point of No Return (ie, 50.1%+ Dependency on Government)? I quotes an article by John Hinderaker over at Powerline blog calledWhy Is This Election Close?:

…On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come….

…I am afraid the problem in this year’s race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority…

I sensed that this was the case last week.

In my ’endorsement of Romney post’, I tried to address this issue because I recognized that this might be the case- but notice that at no point did I ever realistically predict on this blog that President Romney would win the election because I have had too many conversations over the past week with people who voted for Obama because they perceived that Obama transferred wealth to them that they did not earn.

Teachers, auto workers, those who refinanced home loans, green companies, union workers, farmers, road workers, government workers, those on social security, those on food stamps, those on unemployment, those on government assistance- these people now make up over 50% of the population and realize that they only get by by using the power of the state to take wealth from those who produce and earn it and transfer it to them. The takers now outnumber the givers, and slowly but surely will ever more thoroughly plunder them.

The problem with passing this point is that there is no turning back- the process actually accelerates, as those who produce wealth realize that it is much easier to take than it is to work hard and produce, and as those producers of wealth drop out of the system it becomes necessary to plunder those who remain even more.

The rich- those millionaires who President Obama has been demanding more from and those businesses who remain productive and successful- are going to be either faced with one of two options- pay an ever increasing share of the wealth that the ever increasing share of takers demands, or join the ruling elite and use the power of the state to protect themselves from the predatory state and as a thank you reward the ruling powers with greater political contributions and support.

So where does this take us? Here is my prediction, from my earlier post Three Possible Futures for America:

…(Second Scenario): America is at a crossroads and that it if President Obama and his Democratic allies (also including any Republican that supports government attack on life, liberty, and protection of property) remain in power it is likely that the damage that they will do- together with the damage they have already done- will be too great to recover from and never again will children live the same prosperous, happy, and secure lives that their parents did before them. An Obama win here will be the end of America- another four years of him remaining in power will solidify the damage already done and he will do further damage- he will ignore Congress and implement his policies of steering wealth and power to his friends, regardless of the wishes of the American people…

The America that we all know and love and grew up with is gone. You now have two options. Option one- work the same amount and steadily become more poor, less free, and have your life be less secure. Or mole your way into the political elite, bow and scrape to your political masters, buy off politicians and corrupt the system as never before to protect yourself, and realize that America is on the path towards being a despotic nation just like every other nation in the world throughout the history of the world.

Personally, this means that at some point, I will need to shut down this blog and go into hiding- a fate that I have been barely avoiding for the past year as my enemies sniff ever closer and grow ever bolder. It’s time to get real small and avoid the coming storm. Or perhaps I will fight, like my patriot forefathers have done before me, putting my family and fortunes at risk of retribution in the vain hope of fighting a futile rearguard action in the name of liberty and freedom. I guess you’ll see which it is over the next several months.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Make the Right Choice This Tuesday: My Closing Arguments

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

In this election you have a choice- to vote to loot your fellow man in the hopes that some of that wealth may find its way to you, or to vote to elect moderate and responsible individuals who will limit the power of government so that you may live your life as the free and prosperous individual that God intended you to be.

You see, God created you all free and equal, and then we all agreed to create a government that would protect our basic rights to life and liberty and  protect our property rights. Moderate and responsible men and women are then elected into office to manage this limited government and manage the institutions of government that protect our rights and liberties.

But some people feel that the purpose of government is something different- that some men are superior to others because of their birth or so-called ‘intelligence’ and that their superiority puts them in a position to take wealth from others and give it to who they want or deny you freedoms and liberties or control important decisions regarding your own life. These people do not believe that we are all equal and equally free to make decisions, and so they vote for those who promise them unequal results for their own decisions.

There are those out there who say that you should vote for love of country- what they are saying is that in this election you should vote for those who love what America was traditionally about- it’s values, beliefs, traditions, and institutions. These people want to trust to civil society and private charities, loosen regulations and taxes on businesses so that an individuals can make choices, to let people take responsibility for their own actions by not getting the government involved, and not get government involved in determining traditional values that govern our society. They want to get people off of government help and working- working hard and working long hours and working for whatever wages they earn- so that they can make their own way in the world, whatever way that is.

But these people are opposed by others who are running for office who want you to vote for revenge- they want to use the power of the state- to use its ability to use force to make others follow its directions- to get revenge on all those who are perceived by you as having done you some sort of wrong. Your decisions and choices, freely made over your lifetime, may not have resulted in a perfect world, and there are some politicians out there who are promising you that if you simply give them more power over others than they can make your world more perfect by taking property rightly earned by others and giving it to you in the form of loans or bailouts, by preventing people from making their own choices regarding healthcare or what sort of automobile to buy, or by using the massive power of the state to put in place new traditions and new values reflecting the beliefs of those who are in power. They wantmore people to be dependent on the government, sitting at home collecting wealth that they didn’t earn, even though that wealth is meager, letting their skills and education atrophy and damaging any future that they have.

The truth of the matter is that our nation is approaching a historic pivotal point, whether through immigrants who are not assimilating, an education system that is failing, laziness and carelessness of our parents in passing down values and beliefs, peer pressure by the lawless and tyrannical nations of the world, or circumstances and bad luck. We have two paths in front of us, as we have ever had- one path which taken which may seem harder and longer but in reality leads to prosperity and freedom, and the other path which seems bright and shiny but is proven to be lined with fools gold and only lit by the fires from below. The support for these two paths is about even today.

And there are those politicians on both sides who call for you to take one of these paths. Some are moderate and restrained with their calls, but none-the-less through the policies that they push for they are asking you to either protect the freedoms and liberties and property of people or to take away the freedoms and liberties of people.

As I sit here with my Bible, thinking about what I may say that may help guide your votes, I think of the two highest profiles campaigns and what they represent- one candidate speaks of going big again and doing big things once more, and the other has gone small and talks only of small and petty sayings and rhetoric. Go big or go home, my dad always says, and I think in this election we need to make a big and bold decision to vote once more for freedom and liberty and property protections, even if that means that you are voting against someone who you think ‘helped you’ by looting property from others to give to you. We can all be richer, more free, and more happy if we make the right choice this election.

So let me translate all this rhetoric into recommendations for you all for your voting choices tomorrow. I’m from Michigan, so you’ll have to rely on your own counsel if you are from another state, and I still keep a lot of my contacts in Oakland County, even though I know live near Flint.

Make the right choices this Tuesday. Make sure your friends and family know what the right choices are and encourage them to vote that way. Together this Tuesday, let’s do the right thing.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Passive Romney Misses Chance to Seize Victory in Third Debate? My Notes and Observations

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Approaching this third and final Presidential Debate in 2012, I am led to believe that the challenger Mitt Romney needs to score a victory in this debate and appear to voters as more competent and Presidential and a better Commander-in-Chief than President Obama. The media is in the bag on this one and will score a tie or even an Obama loss as an ‘Obama win’, and President Obama has the advantage of being able to tout over and over that ‘he killed bin Laden’, so Romney faces some formidable challenges. The President has access to information and can use hypothetical scenario’s, no matter how implausible, to attack the Governor, while the Governor an rely on actual events and the administration’s responses to these events to portray Obama as unfit for command. We’re probably in store for another battle of reality vs rhetoric, results vs slander/lies, and an epic matchup of the real world vs bizarro world. This is it- Romney needs a victory before this large audience to sway Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, and other swing states- let’s see if he is able to do this and highlight the foreign policy failures of our hapless and inept President- while also battling a likely heavily leftist moderator.

Here are my thoughts and notes and observations on the debate:

  • Governor Romney is forced to start by defending his statements about Obama’s policy. The start is rather rough- he started out shaky and fell back to material that sounded as if came from a speech. He needed to come out charging and instead it appears that he is playing it safe and going with a simple list of the failures of Obama’s policies. He just said we’re going to continue to do what Obama has done- “we just can’t kill our way out of this situation”- but that isn’t going to sell very well. Obama gets to say ‘I’m glad you agree that I’ve done a great job of killing the bad guys’- Romney should not have soft-served this one to Obama.
  • President Obama does not answer the question about Libya and whether or not his policies there a success there. He summarizes his actions as making a phone call to make sure everything was being done, issued a memo to conduct an investigation, and told someone to put together a speech about how he is going to catch the bad guys- and then went to bed, satisfied that he had done all the ‘work’ that goes into being a President. A lot of rhetoric followed this.
  • Someone told Romney to be wonkish and a policy analyst on this debate and appear to be ‘more Presidential’- but he is not doing so by really going after Obama. Oh, he is talking about a lack of progress in the Middle East- but not pinning it on Obama. The media isn’t going to do this- Romney is going to have to do this.
  • Obama on the other hand has come out hard-charging and attacking Romney, quoting him and putting him on the defensive, listing all of his positions- not ‘bad results’ but blaming Romney directly- this is sounding much better and is more effective. As a side note, the ‘social policies’ of the 1950′s led to important advances for minorities with Brown vs Board of Education and a Voting Rights Act and the ‘economic policies’ of the 1920′s led to a booming economy before it collapsed under FDR. Obama is a replay of the social policies under LBJ and a replay of the economic policies under FDR- neither of which I would consider a success.
  • Romney is letting Obama frame him- putting words in his mouth and then walking away, assuming that this frame will stick. Romney needs to do a better job rejecting this frame while also framing Obama. Obama wins this first exchange by quite a bit, and perhaps the election, letting him rip off lines like “one thing I have learned as commander-in-chief” without Romney replying back anything worthwhile. The Libya topic comes and goes without Romney landing a blow- what a blown opportunity- he was not properly prepared on this and assumes that the American people wanted a policy discussion instead of a political debate show. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange.
  • Question to Obama- talk about your successes and why your policies have been great towards Syria. A lot of rhetoric here, nothing of note.
  • Romney jumps into a discussion on the importance of Syria- no one cares about this. This was an opportunity to be critical of Obama’s policies, not to have a discussion on the sort of right policies to enact here. Romney is playing defense, and I think he needed to play offense instead. General vague phrases like ‘we need better policies’ should have been stated as ‘President Obama has pushed for bad policies here such as’ blah blah. Less about what we should be doing, and more about what President Obama is not doing. Another missed opportunity for Romney- and Obama was able to jump back onto Libya and hammer Romney on this issue- Romney didn’t do this and that was another miss. Obama won this exchange too and again comes off looking more Presidential. Obama gets in the last word, although the moderator tries to help out Romney by asking him about his policies- sadly, no one cares about our policies in Syria, we care about why your policies are better than Obama’s, and that was not established except as a glancing and side blow at the end. Oh, Obama gets the last word after all on this exchange.
  • Question to Obama- Do you have any regrets about pushing Mubarack out in Egypt? Obama says no, linking his actions to JFK and historical movements for democracy, and then even though it has turned out he gets to say a bunch of stuff about how he wants the region to improve (as if his words and thoughts can become reality without hard work and good policies). Romney needs to come back with “You helped push one of our historical allies out of power and led to radical Muslim groups taking more control of Egypt and destabilized the region”.
  • Romney instead comes back with “I agree with the President” and suggests that he would have also relied on rhetoric about freedom and such. Another missed change. No criticism on Obama in his answer, instead a rough transition about what his larger vision is on a range of issues. He’s talking about the economy now, debt, Iran, and foreign policy- what a mess. I am so disappointed that by his performance tonight- I thought he won the first debates, but this one is a mess for Romney so far- and we’re 30 minutes into it. Here was a chance to talk about the rape of our reporters, the rise of fundamentalists, the attacks on Coptic Churches, etc- and instead we got a lot of rhetoric. Obama gives us this kind of crap and does it better- Romney is coming off as tired and worn and scattered.
  • Question- What is our role in the world? Romney gives a confusing and sprawling answer- he is so unfocused, jumping from subject to subject. Obama is looking serious and locked in, Romney is sounding edgy and not calm. No attacks on Obama, letting him not play any defense at all. Obama gets to simply give a stock speech and engage in attacks on Romney.
  • Romney gets a little bit more excited and with it on talking about the economy- I am surprised at the difference in his tone of voice and passion with this topic switch- he nails his facts and lays down some good attacks. But Obama is clever and switched the topic over to education policy- don’t take the bait on this one, Governor- stick to going back to the economy and don’t get sucked into this argument about ‘how government can support teachers’. Obama spews off usual stuff about ‘government support for education’, even though the federal government plays such a tiny role in providing support for education. Romney took the bait though and instead talked about education successes- but didn’t link this back to the economy and didn’t do anything to hammer Obama. Obama interrupted the Governor several times during this exchange.
  • Question- How will we pay for an increased military? Romney talks about what he would cut- he should just do the usual Obama trick and say ‘I’m going to cut out fraud and waste and magically save billions of dollars’. Romney about a minute into his answer and Obama cuts him off over and over again- and Romney lets him. Obama gets to frame Romney’s policies again and just throw around numbers and information, coming off in control of the situation. I can’t believe that Romney discussed this topic without mentioning sequestration! In discussing Romney’s budget, I think that Obama did his usual accounting move and added trillions together multiple times- Obama’s ’5 trillion short’ number included already military increases and balancing the budget, yet here Obama added those to the 5 trillion number. Romney never answered the original question about how to pay for the increased military- the libertarians and Ron Paul people aren’t going to like this exchange. I score this exchange another win for Obama. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange, and gets to make a mockery of Romney’s plans by arguing them to absurdity, suggesting that having a smaller navy is the same thing as having less horse cavalry or less bayonets, pretending that having less destroyers and aircraft carriers and cruisers is the same thing as having less of obsolete technology. Romney gets no chance to rebut these attacks. At this point, I think that Obama has spoken a lot more than Romney has and seems to be dominating the time of possession.
  • Obama- “As long as I’m President, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon”, relying on sanctions and economic embargo’s. Obama is looking rather strong here, saying that he will not take any options off the table, while also saying that he is less militant than Romney. Romney has an option- either being stronger and more militant or appealing to moderates and independents by being smarter and less militant. Romney instead falls into policy discussions and ways to manage the situation. A bunch of policy options is no match for Obama pounding on the fact that he’s sent young men into battle, killed bin Laden, and is commander-in-chief right now. Romney’s not President yet, and won’t be unless he reverses the trend of this debate, so all of that is well and good but he needed to go after Obama.
  • President Obama talks about Iran and how we should deal with Iran, attempting to frame Romney as some sort of fool. Romney has an opening though- Obama’s failure to support the Iranian people during the Green Revolution. Obama said that he would ‘stand by the Iranian’ people- but here was a clear and visible time he did not. Romney should charge through here and hammer Obama on this. Romney instead talks about Iran’s views on our current administration- a great chance for him to bring up the fact that the Iran government has endorsed Obama and supports his re-election. In his answer there was a passing reference to both the Green Revolution and Iran’s support of Obama, but his overall argument- that Obama was weak in the beginning- was not a very strong argument- he needed to argue that Obama is weak NOW. Obama’s reply is that Romney is a liar and says his favorite line in every debate that “every fact-checker has looked into that claim and said that it’s simply not true” and gets to defend his actions in the Green Revolution. Romney gets into a discussion about the apology tour, but weakly lands blows on this. Obama replies with a bunch of rhetoric and deep-sounding words, avoiding the fact that there were real policy implications for his apology tour, and frames the debate once again. Obama gets the last word in on this exchange.
  • Romney demonstrates that he understands the role of a CEO for real- that there wouldn’t be some sort of call out of the blue saying that Israeli bombers are in the air about to bomb Iran. Obama would have had some sort of smart sounding answer for that, belaying the fact that it would have been out of the blue for him because he has not forged any relationship with any major leaders around the world and because he has not done the hard work- going to meetings, reading memo’s, etc- needed. Obama replies by framing Romney as some sort of extremist, flip-flopping, and lying fool, connecting various speeches without any context and just cherry-picking lines and stringing them together nicely. I’m sorry- it’s powerful stuff when Obama rolls off these sort of insincere, calculating, ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical attacks. He is an audacious fellow, our President, and with no principals or soul he has the ability to lay blows on this like Romney without worry about the fact that pretty much everything that he said was not true. Obama gets the last word in this exchange, Romney does not get a chance to reply to any of these charges, letting the lie stand. LETTING THE LIE STAND. Another win for Obama. This moderator is much better than the other ones in helping out Obama, throwing him softball questions and giving him the last word on every exchange, which are much more subtle but no less powerful means of injecting bias into a debate.
  • Question is about Afghanistan. Romney talked, nothing notable in there, I’ve already forgotten what he said. Obama gets to roll off usual nice-sounding lines. This is the perfect debate for him- a lot of pretty words and stories without having to defend his results and with the moderator helping to end the conversation after Obama drops a good line or series of lies. Obama got the last word in on this exchange.
  • Romney asked a question about Pakistan, answered the question with a lot of solid policies and well-thought out ideas. No attacks on Obama though and Obama is going to get the last word and the ability to say ‘Romney flipped on this’ or that ‘Romney now likes my policies.’ I can only hope that the American people were looking to this debate for policies and looking Presidential and will find Obama to be boorish and rude. Obama is comfortable, in his zone, and not at all flustered by Romney, who isn’t even looking at Obama any more. It’s almost as if Romney doesn’t know why he won the first debate and scored a win in the second- he’s talking to the moderator and just saying stuff- that isn’t how to defeat a skilled sophist like Obama. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange.
  • China- Obama is positioning himself as some sort of right-wing protectionist on Chinese trade. Obama pretends that he has some sort of positive leverage on China, ignoring the fact that we are borrowing money from them, cutting out military, and are abandoning our commitments around the world. That’s the usual ignore reality stuff that Romney needed needed to go after, instead Romney talks about these issues as if they are not Obama’s fault, as if they are happening in some sort of a vacuum- he is looking past Obama.
  • Moderator follows up on a Romney point by pointing out the other side- yet hasn’t done that the whole debate for any of Obama’s points- he never offered an alternative viewpoint or an argument against Obama’s points. I guess this is better than an incorrect fact-check, but still, it would be nice to have a fair moderator one of these debates. Obama gets the last word in on this issue, getting to talk about how he (using taxpayer money and ignoring all the failures that he dumps on taxpayers) was able to build businesses here (as if this is the same thing as a private businessman doing it!). No one is really going to care about currency manipulation and these complicated ideas- I wonder if Obama might be right in betting that Americans are uneducated and ignorant and can be easily fooled by words and shiny objects.
  • Regarding Romney’s stance on bankruptcy, Obama says that Romney did not want the auto companies to get any government help- let’s go to the record on this one- in Romney’s editorial he says “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing”- although Obama is correct and Romney does not say ‘bailouts without conditions for private companies’, Romney is correct that he felt that the federal government should provide guarantees, I assume loan guarantees, to the auto companies that emerge form bankruptcy restructured and stronger. That might have been a better approach than Obama’s, which was give a blank check to some companies and not others, play politics with those companies, and seize control of GM for the unions and the government. One approach relies on capitalism and free markets, and the other in a perverted economic system that could be described as some sort of third way alliance of big labor-big government- and big business. Obama got the last word on this subject.
  • Closing arguments- a lot of rhetoric from Obama, nice sounding phrases, keep trying, Romney’s bad, etc etc. Romney’s closing argument was less passion filled and more confident sounding than his earlier ones- he has got to get the fear back into him, the fear that he might lose, and that might have motivated him more- he sounds like he is targeting moderates and independents with this debate.

This debate was probably not for him- if it was, I would score it as a solid win for Obama. He was able to get the last word in on every subject, able to blast away with little reply from Romney, and Romney had a very laid back and measured strategy. The after-debate commentary is that Romney was trying to simply ‘hug’ Obama, as a boxer who has a lead in points does towards the end of a boxing match.

I don’t think Romney did what he needed to do in this debate to win the election- I think he got some bad advice on this one. Obama was aggressive, critical, petty, and had a lot of good lines- will this win moderate and independent voters or scare or turn them off?

CNN is talking about how Obama anticipated Romney’s move to the center and was ready for it, FOX is talking about how Romney might have surprised Obama by his passive and moderate approach in this debate. I can’t watch CNN any more- they are just bashing Romney and continuing Obama’s attacks on him instead of providing real analysis. FOX is back to looking at what the candidates said and their attitude in the debate, having people chime in with their views on who won, doing some fact-checking, and looking into focus groups. Chris Wallace echoed my thoughts- he said that anyone who just tuned in today would have thought that Romney was sitting on a big lead instead of playing the challenger role. Flipped back to CNN and watched them fact-check some of the debate- many of Obama’s claims against Romney are true but missing important and vital context that undermines that truth, many of Romney’s claims against Obama were mostly true both in context and principle.

Obama 42 minutes, Romney 41 minutes. Shocking- all four debates, advantage Democrat in time, and could have been higher if Romney hadn’t talked over Obama and the moderator several times. All four moderators biased in favor of the Democrats to some degree, some more so than others.

Please feel free to quote and reference my notes and observations in your own posts on this debate. Tinyurl link: http://tinyurl.com/9y2w7oa

UPDATE: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER may have made me feel a little bit better about Romney’s debate performance. Here is what he wrote:

…I think it’s unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn’t just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he’s had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he’s a competent man, somebody who you could trust as commander in chief, a who knows every area of the globe and he gave interesting extra details, like the Haqqani network, which gave the impression he knows what he’s talking about. But there is a third level here, and that is what actually happened in the debate. 

We can argue about the small points and the debating points. Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not go after the president on Libya, or Syria, or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger. Now I would have gone after Obama on Libya like a baseball bat, but that’s why Romney has won elections and I’ve never had to even contested them. He decided to stay away from the and I think that might have actually worked for him….

Last election a candidate who I liked not do every little thing needed to win and he ended up losing by the smallest of margins, so I really am trusting that Romney knows what he was doing in this debate.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Benghazi Update: What Did President Obama do from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM on September 11, 2012, An Analysis of the Timeline and Administration Responses

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

The buck stops at the top on this one. Via memeorandum I saw this CBS News storyCould U.S. military have helped during Libya attack?:

…Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn’t arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle….

…Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen believes help could have come much sooner. He commanded CIA counter-terrorism missions targeting Osama bin Laden and led the team that responded after bombings of the U.S. Embassy in East Africa.

“You find a way to make this happen,” Berntsen says. “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died.”

The Pentagon says it did move a team of special operators from central Europe to the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, but gave no other details. Sigonella is just an hour’s flight from Libya. Other nearby bases include Aviano and Souda Bay. Military sources tell CBS News that resources at the three bases include fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships, which the sources say can be extremely effective in flying in and buzzing a crowd to disperse it….

…Add to the controversy the fact that the last two Americans didn’t die until more than six hours into the attack, and the question of U.S. military help becomes very important…

The 3 AM phone call came in to someone (either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama) saying that our mission in Libya was under attack, that our Ambassador was locked in a life-and-death struggle with terrorists, that we were observing in real time the firefight from a drone, and that we had gunships and fighter jets within ‘an hour’s flight’ away. And nothing was done.

In fact, according to the report here, for several hours our drone watched the battle, and nothing was done. Let me just speculate out loud for a minute and try to figure out (based on this report) how the situation could have played out differently. According the timeline, security forces arrived at about 2:30 AM to retake the compound, so let’s work backwards from there. All times in Benghazi time.

If the drone had indeed watched ‘the final hours’, one can speculate that it arrived on the scene at the latest of 12:30 AM, the authorities took a couple minutes to assess the situation, then they dispatched fighter jets and gunships and transports, which took a little over an hour to arrive, putting help on the scene at 2 AM- a full 30 minutes earlier than they are reported to have arrived there. This probably doesn’t change much, although it does give authorities another 30 minutes to catch/kill the bad guys, recover sensitive information, and possibly discover where our Ambassador is.

But if the drone arrived earlier (12:00 or earlier) or help was dispatched as soon as the call for a drone went in (I’m not sure where the drone came from), than our forces might have arrived on the scene by 1:30 and been able to find the Ambassador’s body (not yet dead- maybe able to save with our medical technology) or 1:00 to rescue the Ambassador and prevent his death. If the drone was dispatched from Sigonella, then it is reasonable that help could have also been sent at the same time, and Stevens would have been saved for sure.

The timeline here is important, because someone dropped the ball and four Americans- including our Ambassador- are now dead because of that mistake.

Benghazi is 6 hours ahead of east coast time (Washington DC). So if the compound was attacked at 10 pm on September 11 (Benghazi time), that means it was 4:00 pm on September 11 in Washington DC. Around 11 pm (5 pm Eastern time), the fighting continues to rage around the main building. Around 12 am (6 pm eastern time), the annex comes under attack. Around 1 am (7 pm eastern time), Stevens is pulled out of the annex, alive by some reports. Around 2:30 am (8:30 eastern time), US forces retake the annex.

According to the President’s scheduleon that day he was going to be departing from Bethesda, Maryland at 4:40 PM en route the White House, arrive back to the White House at 4:50, and at 5:00 he would meet (along with Joe Biden) with the Secretary of Defense Panetta. At 7:51 pm we get a report that our compound in Libya has been attacked, at 10:10 pm we get an unnamed administration official saying that Egypt embassy statements don’t reflect White House views, 10:38 pm the Secretary of State issued a statement, at 12:09 am Obama spokesman tweets that the White House is shocked by Romney’s earlier tweets, at 7:21 am on September 12 Obama issued a statement. (source on statements)

I have been unable to establish (through an hour of searching google) anything further regarding the President’s actions to counter this schedule on September 11 that would shed more light on his actions, including where was the President, what did he know, and when did he know it.

According to reports, the President was aware about the attack about 90 minutes after it began- about 5:30. Give him a couple minutes to take in the information and figure out our response, and by 6:00 pm at the latest he’s ordered our boys in to rescue our people under attack. Given a ‘one hour response time’, that puts our forces in control of the compound at 7:00 pm, or 1:00 AM Benghazi time, right around the time that the annex was under attack and BEFORE the Ambassador was dead. But that didn’t happen.

Although some are saying that President Obama simply heard the news and then went to bed, I was unable to find any evidence of this or any sort of reaction by the administration. The first responses by the administration at 10:10 pm (4 am Benghazi) playing defense regarding statements from the embassy in Egypt and at 12:09 am (6 am Benghazi) a political response attacking his opponent in an upcoming election- but Obama and the media have been silent about what President Obama did between 5:30 pm and the next day.

I’m most concerned myself regarding the President’s actions between 5:30 pm and 7:30 pm- during that 2 hour window the President was in the unique position to do something to save Americans lives and prevent bad guys from killing our Ambassador, and it is still today, some time later, that we are unclear about just what he was doing during that time period. It’s too early for him to be in bed, so I don’t think that was it- but it would not surprise me if he was watching TV or a movie or eating some sort of fancy meal during that time instead of DOING HIS JOB and working to defend American citizens, soldiers, and diplomats.

So it wasn’t a ’3 AM’ phone call- but when the phone rang at 5:30 and the President was briefed about what was going on (with information fed to him then or soon after by an unmanned drone), the President was thrust into a position to make a call and exercise leadership to save American lives… and there is no evidence from him or anyone else that he did so in any way. Instead he soon was back to playing politics and jetting off to fundraise before celebrities, proving once more that he is unfit for command and should be relieved of his duties as Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States of America.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

The Farce of the Vice Presidential Debate: My Notes

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Okay, I turned in to the Vice Presidential Debate late (9:06) because I was watching a stupid movie (Easy A), but here are some of my thoughts and notes, as I wrote them while I watched the debate…

  • The first question that I heard was the moderator passing judgement on Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney as to their timing of their response to the murder of our Ambassador. Then she allowed Uncle Joe to cut off Representative Ryan, and asked him to elaborate further and in detail about all the reasons why Paul Ryan was a liar. Why do Republicans put up with this sort of third-world dictatorship facade of a debate? She asks Paul Ryan why he was wrong and then asks Biden to tell her why his policies were so good- and this passes as unbiased and fair?
  • Next question- “Romney has book on No Apologies- tell me why this book is wrong and sucks and you are wrong for being part of this book”, then she interrupts Ryan to be critical of his answer. Look, I know that Obama appointed her baby’s daddy to a major office and Obama was at her wedding, but I can’t believe that she just interrupted Ryan about 30 seconds into his answer, especially after she let Uncle Joe ramble on and on for a full answer. He should have just stood up and walked out on her- I’ve been watching it for 7 minutes now and it’s clearly a joke of a ‘debate’.
  • This set-up- sit down in silence and no responding to each other and a moderator who wants to prove that she is something important- is boring.
  • So Biden’s strategy must be to question and ridicule everything that Romney and Ryan say- “this is incredible,” “that was malarkey,” “facts matter,”, etc.
  • Biden- “Iran has no weapon to put an atomic bomb in”- but yet Iran has Shahab missiles and Sajjil missiles- the Sajjil-2 is a medium-range missile of about 2,200 km or 1,375 miles when carrying a 750-kg warhead, capable of hitting our assets in the Middle East or any of our allies in the regime (although admittedly it’s rather inaccurate). So he’s wrong, flat wrong, and totally wrong.
  • This moderator continues to judge Ryan, have a conversation with Biden, throw tough questions at Ryan, softball questions to Biden, cut off Ryan, and let Joe ramble. This debate is a joke- the format, moderator, and set-up are all BAD. Ask a question and get the heck out of the way.
  • “What is worse- Iran with bombs or another war in the Middle East?” Who the heck is talking about another war in the Middle East?!? Why would the question be phrased in such a matter by the moderator? Her next question probably will be “what would be worse, Obama continuing to fight for jobs and the middle class or Romney and Ryan throwing grandparents off a cliff.” The real question is how to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and what sorts of policies work and don’t work- why in the world would the moderator argue to absurdity one of the Republican points if she was an unbiased and fair moderator.
  • Fighting Joe has come out hard on this stuff, playing up class warfare and trying to pretend that taxing the ‘super rich’ will improve our economy, as if more jobs and investment and a more balanced budget will be somehow achieved by the government taking more money from successful people in our nation.
  • Ryan tries to respond to the question by trotting out facts, figures, and personal stories- but to be honest, this isn’t going to play well with the American people- Ryan is being set up to fail, Joe is being given a big strike zone, and Ryan needs to confront these facts.
  • “Everything I say is true,” Joe Biden- really Joe, you can’t go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without having a slight Indian accent?
  • “Show me a policy”- ever heard of the Ryan Budget Plan? He doesn’t want to see “a policy”- he wants his policies. Ryan responds to this by pointing out that the Democrats ran everything for several years. Biden responds for 2 minutes, no interruptions- Ryan gets 30 seconds into his response and the moderator cuts him off and changes the question. Biden cuts off Ryan after another 30 seconds and gets to speak, the moderator interrupts to back up Joe and question Ryan, Biden continues to speak without interruption. Look, watch the exchange yourself, about 9:28 to 9:33, and you can see for yourself how this debate goes down. Ryan asks a tough question- moderator says “nope, only Joe is allowed to ask tough questions”. I’m stunned by this debate- I’ve never seen a moderator this bad ever. Get out of the way and let Biden and Ryan debate the issues, the programs, the results, their philosophies, their experience, and their records.
  • “Who do you believe, special interest groups and government officials, or businessman and people who have budgeted everything out”- this is Biden’s argument, and is the usual argument that is put forward by those who see it as beneficial of Big Business- Big Labor- Big Government.
  • Biden- “Have you been denied choices”… the legislation doesn’t fully kick in until 2014, and everyone knows this. To suggest that Obamacare doesn’t take away choices in the future because it isn’t doing it right now is a false argument and misleading.
  • Biden is arguing that over the last 4 years that the stock market has badly crashed and that if young people had had the freedom to invest their own wealth it would have worked badly… but on the other hand, it is really bad that the stock market has crashed so badly over the past 4 years as Biden is arguing so I don’t understand how he can argue both of these. Let me look it up though…. Bush proposed social security reforms in 2005 and Dow Jones was at 10000… Obama is elected in Nov 2008 and it was at 10000… today it is at 12000. So I guess the stock market has recovered (fueled by inflationary Fed policy), and Biden’s central argument that “people would have lost everything if they invested in the stock market” is utterly and totally and completely wrong. That makes sense- Biden was just wrong in his argument.
  • Moderator- “Paul Ryan, do you have any specific plans or is this all phony”? Okay, now let’s see her ask Biden the same question about Obama’s plans… oh wait, she didn’t. She interrupts Paul Ryan to say “so no specific then”- did she seriously just summarize his plan that way???  Biden doesn’t even need to be up there- just have him wander off and the moderator can just debate and attack Ryan. He question to Ryan “Is he wrong about his claims?”… okay, let’s hear her ask Biden “Is he wrong about his claims?”
  • This is so amateurish- did Biden just say that Paul Ryan is no Jack Kennedy? What did he do, go through past debates and simply lift lines from past debates.
  • At 9:52, Paul Ryan is asked a question, and is interrupted and attacked by both the moderator and Joe Biden, he turns right, he turns left, he is being interrupted, and he keeps trying to push through, even over the moderator, who at 9:55 began to summarize Ryan’s plans in a typical-liberal manner, and now that she is done hearing his views and hearing him defend himself, she says “I want to move on now and ask another biased and slanted question of you.” Get out of the debate, moderator, and let Biden and Ryan talk.
  • Moderator- “We’ve won and lost a lot of people and money” (in a judgemental tone that says that she doesn’t agree with the war or what we are doing) “why should we still be there?” Who is she working for and how much is she paid for questions like these? I might not be a well-respected journalist, but the way to ask this question is “Talk about your candidates Afghanistan policies”.  Joe Biden says that “our purpose for the war in Afghanistan was to kill al-Qaeda”… but yet in another breath he is going to argue that we went to war there “for the wrong reasons”. It can’t be both, so let’s go to the tape… and a little bit of research will tell anyone (including the VP) that we are there for the stated goal of dismantling the al-Qaeda terrorist organization AND ending its use of Afghanistan as a base. This is the fact.
  • Ryan doesn’t want to telegraph to our enemies when we leave a war because he doesn’t think that this is very wise policy for fighting a war. Biden doesn’t car- he stated over and over that we will leave in 2014, and thinks that simply telling the Afghanistan allies we have to simply ‘step up’ will be better than fighting a war and winning it.
  • Blame game- every bad thing that has happened under Obama/Biden in foreign policy is the fault of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Biden- “you can’t have a cliff where you just pull out your troops- that will be very bad”, but “in 2014 we will pull out all of our troops at once and that will be very good.” Look, if you want to pull out our troops and you are a pacifist and hate the wars, then fine- stick with it. If you want to keep our troops there and fight and win the war and kill bad guys, then stick with it (Romney/Ryan). But this ‘have it both ways’ logic of Obama/Biden does not work. Afghans to the job, eh Joe?
  • Moderator- “Why is Syria different from Libya”, Biden’s answer “They are different nations, even though all of the same concerns that we have for Syria are the exact same as those concerns that others had for Libya.” Joe- “the facts are that Romney wants to send in 100K ground troops into Syria.” I been following this campaign for a while… I don’t recall Romney even proposing to send in ANY troops to Syria. Ryan said this- “No one is proposing to send troops to Syria”- that’s a wide disagreement between Biden and Ryan. Let’s go to the tape… according to a major speech that Romney on this, he did not in any way or fashion even hint that American troops would be sent to Syria. Joe, dead wrong again, wildly wrong, crazy-eyed drunk uncle wrong.
  • Ryan- “We should not have called Bashar Al-Assad a ‘reformer’”- like Obama/Biden did. Moderator attempts to interrupt him to have him define what he thinks a ‘reformer’ is- why??? The topic is on Romney/Ryan’s plan on dealing with Syria- attempting to switch the topic and ‘gotchya’ the candidate is bush-league. She continues to be awful and needs to stay out of it- she is not on the ballot. Ryan’s point was a valid one- rather than support Al-Assad verbally and be nice to him and refuse to support those who oppose him, it would have been better to not support him and to be mean to him and support (morally and verbally at least) those who opposed him. Obama/Biden adopted the wrong policies on this, Romney/Ryan are right on this. I don’t know how one can argue otherwise. Now, I understand that sometimes hindsight is 20/20- so say “we made mistakes and had bad assumptions and adopted poor policies in the past” and accept the results of that. Don’t try to have the moderator help you out.
  • Why is the moderator following up on Ryan’s position on abortion… but not following up with Biden’s position on abortion? Isn’t it fair to ask both sides to defend their positions- why does only Ryan have to defend his position on this? Liberals love fairness- but yet once again, there was no ‘fairness’ with this debate.
  • Moderator- “Biden, I know your children are heroes, talk about why your children are heroes.” Are these seriously the questions that are being asked? Her real question was whether the candidates should be embarrassed by the conduct of the campaigns, Biden starts to attack Ryan and question whether or not Romney or Obama has the ‘conviction to help restore the middle class’- but let me point out that he doesn’t want the question to be whether or not ‘Obama has restored the middle class.’ Results matter. They do. Ryan’s answer- the campaign has gotten ugly, and most of this ugliness- the personal attacks, the attempts to demonize the opponent, etc- is coming from Obama. Ryan’s attacks are quotes of Obama and discussions of results. Ryan- all the Obama administration is giving is speeches and asking people to vote on ‘efforts’ and phony convictions. Biden answered, Ryan replied… and Biden answered. Fairness would dictate that Ryan get another round of talking… but doesn’t get a chance to because the moderator cuts him off.
  • Ryan- I will provide honesty. I will do what I promise to do and get results. Biden- my record stands for itself and my whole life has been devoted to ‘leveling the playing field’. I’ve got to be honest- this is the Obama/Biden platform- using the government to pick winners and losers, tax everyone and redistribute wealth, engage in class warfare, and play political games. Romney/Ryan platform- use the government to protect life and liberty and property, tax everyone the same and let people acquire wealth, embrace success, and speak openly and honestly about the future of our nation.

The choice is clear on this debate- as much as the moderator attempted to assist Joe and help him out, by his own mouth he said that this election is an election between supporters of communism vs capitalism, dictatorship vs republic, control vs liberty, slavery vs freedom. The choice is clear indeed.
UPDATE 10/12: Today my students talked about the debate, and as much as I defended Biden (it’s my job to challenge them and make them think), they made two points that were very worthwhile-

1. Joe Biden was not Presidential- he may have been an effective attack dog, but there is no way anyone should feel comfortable with him one heartbeat away from the office of commander-in-chief. It’s not the job of the Vice-President to campaign and defend the President- it’s his job to be ready to be President, and Joe did not display those qualities last night.

2. Joe Biden was a phony. He was fake aggressive- someone is telling Biden and Obama how to pretend to be President and vice-President, and the difference is stunning compared to people like Romney and Ryan who don’t have to fake it. Romney and Ryan are real leaders and when they are themselves they become stronger and smarter and better- Obama and Biden are fakes and phonies who are trying to fool and scare Americans into voting for them by pretending to be passive, aggressive, etc. because they know that Americans would never vote for them if they were themselves.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

My Conversation with Big Bird (an Obama supporter)

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Yesterday I had a conversation with a leftist at a Paul Ryan event and I’d like to repeat how it went for the enjoyment of my readers. Paul Ryan was in Michigan yesterday giving a speech at Oakland University in Rochester and I personally made the trip down from my house in Flint to see him speak. It was a good speech and a nice event (the 2008 event with Palin in Michigan was better and I would have liked to see Kid Rock sing something rather than just speak) but what I really want to write about today is a conversation that I had with a protester who was there.

The protester was dressed as Big Bird, and out of curiosity I approached the guy and asked him “Hey buddy, why are you dressed as Big Bird?”

He rounded on me and looked at me with those crazy leftist eyes of judgement and ignorance and said “Romney wants to shut down PBS and I’m here to say that that IS WRONG”. He shouted at various points during our conversation, usually at odd times.

Willing to take the bait and hear what he had to say, I asked “Why is that wrong?”

Big Bird stared at me, as if I was beyond believable. “Are you kidding me? Why is it wrong to cancel PBS?” he asked.

I replied, “Yes, why is it wrong for taxpayers to subsidize children’s television programs, or for that matter any educational programs, when there are clearly so many offerings available from Disney, Nickelodeon, On Demand, online, youtube, or for rent from public libraries? For that matter, why is it more essential for PBS to take money from me in the form of taxes where I could be using that money myself to invest in factories, businesses, education, or to buy products and services for me or my family?”

Big Bird was surprised by this- he apparently was rarely confronted with logical, moral, or important questions at his left-wing group meetings. “Mitt Romney wanted Detroit to go bankrupt!” He shouted back.

Assuming that this meant that I had won the debate regarding funding for PBS (and in doing so made the guy dressed up as Big Bird a giant fool), I decided to follow up on this new line of attack. “Didn’t General Motors and Chrysler enter bankruptcyprotection when Obama was President, and thus ‘go bankrupt’ under him?”

Big Bird shook his head at this one- “That’s not true- Obama saved GM and the entire automotive industry when Romney was trying to force them all into bankruptcy and force that business to his rich buddies in China.”

I shook my head- “Did you read Mitt Romney’s editorial in USA Today about that, because I did, and I don’t think he ever argued that? And for the record, GM and Chrysler did go into bankruptcy under Obama, where the usual bankruptcy process was violated in favor of playing games and rewarding political supporters.”

Big Bird really was growing frustrated with me, and at this point attempted to move away from me so that he could go back to shouting his slogans at passing cars. He was apparently not interested in a spirited exchange of ideas and viewpoints, much like President Obama, and when faced with logic and history he physically rejected these by moving away. But I wouldn’t let him go and followed him, asking “Well, what about those points?”

“I never read Romney’s stupid article,” Big Bird said, admitting that he didn’t know what he was talking about with this issue and was simply a useful idiot for Obama. “But I don’t have to- I know that Romney just wants to lower taxes for all his rich buddies and screw over the working class.”

Still following him as he continued to retreat from me towards a group of his supporters (also dressed up as various Muppets), I asked “Where on his website or in which one of his speeches or in which book of his or what in his past as Governor leads you to that conclusion?”

Big Bird now was back near his group of friends, and they all responded to my questions by shouting various personal insults at me and stating various variations of the same theme that Big Bird expressed. At no point was evidence offered- to be honest, I think that they felt that he lack of evidence of their charges and accusations was a good thing, as if these were so self-evident that attempting to back them up was beneath them (again, very much like Obama).

In 2010 I wrote a post inspired by G.K. Chesterton‘s book The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare. In that post I noticed how Chesterton described anarchists:

This is a vast philosophic movement, consisting of an outer and inner ring. The outer ring- the main mass of their supporters- are merely anarchists; that is, men who believe that rules and formulas have destroyed human happiness. They believe that all the evil results of human crime are the results of the system… these people talk about ‘a happy time coming,’ ‘the paradise of the future,’ ‘mankind freed from the bondage of vice and the bondage of virtue,’ and so on…

…And so also the men of the inner circle speak. But in their mouths these happy phrases have a horrible meaning. They are under no illusions; they are too intellectual to think that man upon this earth can ever be quite free of original sin and the struggle. And they mean death. When they say that mankind shall be free at last, they mean that mankind shall commit suicide. When they talk of a paradise without right or wrong, they mean the grave. They have but two objects, to destroy first humanity and then themselves.

Although I am not a psychologist, I can’t help but see in Obama a man of the inner circle- a person who supports abortion, describes producing life as ‘a mistake’, sees ‘progress’ as the destruction of industry and commerce and production, and at times to almost dislike himself. And Big Bird was the useful idiot of the outer circle, believing that by supporting Obama we will be led to some sort of better future even though the results under Obama are a lesser future.

This is no game people- this election is about a fundamental direction for our nation, towards life, liberty, and protection of property, or towards death, slavery, and destruction of property. These useful idiots need to be countered and opposed, and to do that we must support Romney and Republican candidates on the ticket and help them to win office in 2012. We can later turn to the effort of working over these Republican candidates and holding them to the higher standards what we are called to, but in the meantime we need them in office. Donate today and vote next month.

 Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Romney Demolishes Obama in Debate 1: Reality Wins over Myth

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

This debate has the potential to be the game-changer that Romney needs. Trailing by over 3% in the polls based on the RealClearPolitics average and needing something more than a tie or marginal win that would likely only narrow the polls, Romney delivered a game-changing performance and changed the narrative of this election in the first debate.

President Obama has attempted to make this election into some sort of class warfare or blame Bush election- but Governor Romney was successful in this debate into making this election into a decision on whether or not to continue Obama’s policies or change them. Romney was right- we can go with the traditional American economic system or continue to attempt Obama’s trickle down government economic theories that have been so unsuccessful over the last 4 years and have slowed the recovery. Throughout the debate, Romney lectured Obama on economic policies, the proper role of government in society, theories in leadership, and on basic truths of the world, and Obama sulked and looked away and looked angry (you can tell by his head tilt). There were times during this debate that I felt that even Obama didn’t believe what he was saying- his tone and cadence changed into what I call ‘lecture mode’ as he spewed out talking points and parts of past speeches, while Romney appeared to be in the debate, listening to Obama, attacking his policies and theories of government, and responding to the flow of the debate.

On to the specific points and questions… here are my thoughts:

  • Romney did a skillful job of anticipating Obama’s attacks and was very well prepared for this debate- he came out roaring and hard-hitting. He responded to Obama’s attacks while not getting sucked into his bizarro world and replying to all of the backwards and wrong facts contained in them.
  • Watch the first 15 minutes of the debate- in that first part, I think that Romney hammered Obama pretty heavily, although the middle of the debate was more even.
  • Obama stuck to the ‘$5 trillion tax cut for the rich’ angle over and over, even though Romney said that he doesn’t have this policy- either Obama believes Romney is a liar or Obama is a liar.
  • Obama over and over cited ‘studies’- compare this to Romney, who cited actual commissions and their findings and said the name of the organizations whose studies he was quoting. I wonder whose studies Obama is citing and whether or not they are nonpartisan, well-sourced, and well-researched. I doubt it, and so did Romney later on, when he said he could find 6 studies that said that the study that Obama was citing was bunk.
  • “Look at the evidence of the last 4 years”- good line from Romney, because this is not a debate between Romney’s potential theories and Obama’s potential theories- we’re comparing the evidence of President Obama’s results (as President) vs the evidence (such as it is) of Governor Romney’s results (as Governor).
  • Obama had NO answer for the debt and deficit questions. He didn’t even try to defend himself or his record on this and dodged and ducked is way through it.
  • Romney said that he will grow his way out of debt. Liberals don’t like this and will talk about ‘the math’- but the math that they will use will be static and assume that tax cuts or spending cuts do not affect revenue, and this assumption is poor. Tax cuts may lead to less revenue of the government- but they also lead to employment growth and after that they lead to much greater revenue than without the tax cuts. Romney believes in a dynamic economy- Obama is about locking in and divvying up a static economy. Later I imagine the liberals will do the math over and over on this issue, ignoring the dynamic nature of the economy the entire time.
  • Obama brought up a bunch of taxes that he would repeal if he were President- but he is President and has been President for 4 years and for the first half of that time his party controlled the House and Senate- and he didn’t repeal those taxes. Either he lied here and doesn’t want to really repeal those taxes or he was incompetent and when handed the keys to the car he drove it in a different direction than he should have.
  • When asked about how President Obama would deal with the skyrocketing (and immoral) debt, President Obama talked about spending more money on college and cutting a minor tax break for oil companies that has been around for over 100 years.
  • “I’ve been in business for 25 years, and I have no idea what you are talking about”- Romney to Obama. Great line, because it establishes that Romney knows what he is talking about and that Obama does not.
  • Obama began his discussion about how to deal with the looming and massive policy problems of entitlement reform by speaking about how we shouldn’t call them entitlements. The name of the program is not really what the problem is here, Mr. President- it is the fact that these programs are broke and insolvent and will soon result in poor and elderly facing a reduced standard of living and less security.
  • Romney says “I want to repeal and replace program”- Obama says “Romney wants to repeal”- Romney says “Also I want to replace it- repeal and replace”- Obama says “Yeah, but there are no details on the replacement”- Romney says “Here are the details”- Obama flashes a sheepish grin and shakes his head because he knows that he is selling BS and got caught.
  • Romney addresses the costs of healthcare and talked about how to get the costs of this program under control.
  • Although Obama mentioned several roles of government, the one that he spoke the most about and with the most passion about was new spending programs.
  • Romney talked about the role of government in protecting liberty and freedom and encouraging prosperity- his answer is much closer to what our Founding Fathers wrote about in the Declaration of Independence.
  • Several times, President Obama said “Romney doesn’t have any details” and then in the next sentence said “But based on the details we have, I can predict”. It is not possible for there to both be ‘not enough details’ and there to be ‘enough details to predict numbers’- that’s double-speak.
  • President Obama talked about how he has lately been making progress dealing with the GOP House as his example of how he has been bipartisan- but I predict that next week Obama will give a speech where he accuses the GOP House of being the sole barrier to him being more successful.
  • Obama in his conclusion laid out his vision of the next four years- raise taxes, more money for green energy, more money to teachers, and continue doing what he has been doing.
  • Romney in his conclusion said that he wants to change directions, course change for America, two paths to take, look at the records and results, and vote based on this contrast in success.

Final verdict- big win for Romney.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Labor Force Participation Rate Continues Obama Drop

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures the number of people in the US who are employed- it’s called the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Since 1980, on average 65.8% of the number of people available to work have in fact been producing goods and services. From 1988 to 2008 we were above this average, but since 2008 the number of people being productive, paying taxes, and contributing goods and services to our nation’s wealth has dramatically dropped. Today, only 63.5% of people are employed and this number is dropping steadily- in the last year alone the number of people participating in the labor force has shrunk by 0.6%.

Graphically, you can see those numbers reflected below. Reagan gets the benefit of inheriting the last of a wave of women entering the workforce but still posts great growth; HW Bush battled through a recession to recover at basically the same level; Clinton rode the wave up and avoided any recessions; W Bush inherited a recession (the .com bubble) and battled through it and at the end of his 8 years the nation dropped into another recession (banking crisis) but all expectations in 2008 were that our nation would recover.

President Barack Obama though is a historically bad President and the policies that he pushes- higher energy, more regulations, more taxes and fees, anti-business climate, breaking of bankruptcy laws, favoritism towards selected companies, loose monetary policy, etc- have sent our labor force participation rate tumbling down. It does not matter who is in Congress- as long as President Obama remains in the White House, the number of people who have gainful employment will continue to drop and America will produce less and spend more and go farther and farther in debt.

Here is the graph:

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher
Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

The Fable of Bearack Obama Book Review

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Today I got an email from Joseph Teach, who is trying to promote his debut bookThe Fable of Bearack Obama. So I took a moment to read the book and was delighted by it!

Look, we all know that in this election there has been a lot of talk about ‘you didn’t build that’ and ‘government dependency’, and these are very sophisticated ideas that even some adults don’t fully understand. So I appreciated his attempt to make this material understandable and fun for young children, and I really hope that if you have young children in your family- sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, etc- that you think about purchasing this book and sending it to them.

You can purchase copies of the book on Amazon.com by going to http://amzn.com/1479194778, or buy it direct from the printer at CreateSpace.com/3977143. It is only $9.99.

Here is a graphic that was on the email from Joseph Teach- these are some of the illustrations that are in the book and you can see for yourself how beautiful they are!

The story of The Fable of Bearack Obama is simple enough- a brown bear who is self-sufficient begins to get free government help, grows fat and lazy and unhappy on it, one day begins to hunt and fish and dig out his den on his own, and is much happier because of it. And the illustrations are beautiful- whimsical and natural, in a soft and kind-hearted way that makes you really like Bearack and hope that things work out for him. It is a short book- 24 pages or something- and the font is nice and big and well positioned for reading to a young child while pointing out the pretty pictures. It has a solid cover with a nice picture on the front, and is professionally bound.

I don’t recommend a lot of products on my blog (although my review of the book Killing Lincoln is very popular), but I really do think that this book is a winner and suggest that you all think about buying one or several copies and spreading it around. Go ahead and post some reviews on Amazon about it, tweet about it, and spread the word- being self-sufficient and making your own way in the world leads to a lot more happiness than living on government handouts, and The Fable of Bearack Obama is a fun and enjoyable way to teach this to kids!

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Obama Supporters vs Romney Supporters

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

In debate after debate with people about the upcoming election I am seeing two clear differences between how those who are voting for Romney are approaching this election and those who are voting for Obama are approaching it.

When I am critical of President Obama, my criticisms are almost always about results- I feel that as President he has done a bad job in his job. I use statistics and facts and data to demonstrate that his policies have made our nation less prosperous, less free, and life less protected. I point to the dramatic rise in debt, budgets that he has proposed that increase spending even further, efforts by his to increase the number of people on government programs, his blocking of reform efforts in major programs, and his policies with regards to the Middle East. It is about results and policies and doing a job for me- and Obama isn’t getting the results and is doing a poor job.

Likewise, my support for Romney and my voting for him is grounded in his ability to get the job done- saving the Salt Lake City Olympics, as a successful Governor of a liberal state, amazing success in private business, etc. I’m not in love with Romney and don’t know if I would sit down for a beer with him and don’t love everything that he thinks about inside his head- but I’m not voting in November for the job of ‘best friend’ or ‘wife’ or ‘savior’- I’m voting for him to be President. He is good at getting things done and especially has demonstrated the ability to save institutions that are in crisis- and I want those results.

On the other hand, those people who support Obama do not talk about results- instead they have a long list of reasons why the results have been poor under Obama, usually citing facts that are in fact not true (for example, most Obama supporters say that Obama’s lack of results are because of a ‘right wing Congress’, but this ignores that the Democrats controlled Congress for Obama’s first two years and passed whatever he wanted them to pass and that even today the Democrats control the Senate). Supporters of Obama like him- some even love him and worship him as a cult figure- because they like what he represents and what he thinks. They don’t care about results- they are voting for a friend in government and someone who they think thinks like them.

Likewise, most of Obama’s supporters are critical of Governor Romney not because of his results of what he would do as President, but because of what they think he will do as President and what they think that Romney thinks. Conspiracy theories, class warfare, ‘the 1%’, and ‘secret meetings with millionaires’ dominates their criticism of Romney- they don’t like what they think is in his head and disagree with his personal opinions and that pisses them off. They want to control his thoughts and control his opinions and care less about what he actually does and the results of his policies.

Personal attacks, name-calling, and hyperbole might barely carry this election for Obama- but it is probably better for American that instead we all vote for a moderate results-oriented guy who was able to govern in a liberal state and saved the Olympics.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

(QE 1)+(QE 2) +(QE 3) = ??? Do Three Negatives Make A Positive?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

I’m not uying that three negatives make a positive. But, Ben Bernanke thinks so and he is much smarter than I am. From reading his profile at Wikipedia,  I learned that Ben was class Valedictorian of his highschool. His highschool didn’t teach calculus, so he taught it to himself. He did his undergraduate  studies in economics at Harvard and graduated Cum Laude. He then got his Doctorate in economics at MIT. Me? I managed to get a Masters in Metallurgical Engineering at a state college in Michigan. Game, Set, and Match_ Bernanke!

Despite my disadvantage, those who have visited this site more than once know that this humble observer is not shy about voicing his opinions and today will be no different.

Let me start by giving you my layman’s definition of what QE or Quantitative Easing means. In a nut shell, it is a fancy term for printing money with the goal of juicing the economy. However, in this modern age, they don’t actually turn on the printing presses to produce more green backs. With a few keystrokes on a computer, digital money appears like magic.

A little background is in order. Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson (Secretary of the Treasury under Bush II) and Tiny Tim Geithner were, up to a few weeks before the sub-prime mortgage bubble burst, telling everyone who would listen that our economy was rock solid and was only going to get better. it was these same gentlemen that when the bubble broke, convinced the President Bush and most of our Congress that the world would come to an end if they didn’t immediately to bailout the Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks. The result of their sale of panic was TARP and Obama’s stimulus package. So, think of QE as monetary stimulus in the same way Obama’s program was fiscal stimulus. The same thing happened in Europe and other countries for all the same reasons. To my knowledge, the only country that did the smart thing by telling the banks to go to hell, was Iceland and they have recovered very nicely, thank you very much!

While trying to keep up with all that is going on in the political arena and now the events in the middle-East, I have read many articles about Bernanke’s announcement of the Fed’s lattest launch pf QE 3. It should be noted that Bernanke and the Fed also had, and still have, a program going on called Operation Twist. I’ll give a short explication of what the funny money is used for in the QE and Twist programs in a moment. First, here is a short list of some of the articles I’ve read, along with some annotations by me,  that you can peruse at your pleasure. You will recognize that some of the sources are from my blogroll.

  1. Sherman Broder at property…Fredom…Peace worte Obama Is In The Catbird Seat. Sherman sees Bernanke’s action as politically motivated to help Obama win reelection and there by save his own  job. There is definitely a political element to Ben’s QE 3.
  2. John Galt at America¡s Chronicles wrote,  Ben Bernanke – Destroying The Independence of The Fed And Our Future Growth.  John also sees a political element to QE 3 and points out that the goal to reduce interest rates to kick-start the economy is doomed to fail because interest rate are already near zero. he correctly points out that this may backfire on Bernanke and Obama if inflation takes a jump before the elections.
  3. Brian at Frankenstein Government wrote, Bernanke Screws the Pooch! Welcome to the Idiocracy. Brian sees us heading for hyperinflation because of Ben’s maddness. There certainly is that risk.
  4. John Carney at CNBC wrote, Could Fed’s QE Spiral Out Of Control? Of course, he thinks it will and so do I.
  5. Robert Frank at CNBC wrote, Does Quantitative Easing mainly Help the Rich? He and I agree that is the case and I will have more to say om that in a moment.
  6. Catherine Boyle at CNBC wrote, Gold Set for Even Bigger Bernanke Boost. yep! That’s what happens when there is inflation.
  7. marc Faber, the famous author of Gloom, Doom and Boom, wrote at CNBC,  If I Were Bernanke, I would Resign. Farber blames Bernanke’s expansionist monetary policies for the financial crisis we are still in today. he is right!
  8. Nouriel Roubini, a well know economist, wrote at Project-Syndicate, Fiddling at the Fire. He believes that the markets in Europe and the US are very unstable and is predicting an investment bubble burst in 2013 and it won’t be pretty. Roubini has an excellent track record so he may be right.
  9. David Harsanyi at Human Events wrote,  The Fed Goes Political. Seems there is a lot of agreement on this point.
  10. George Will at the Washington Post wrote, A different kind of inflation problem. His article relates to an interview he did with the head of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, Esther George, prior to Bernanke’s annoucement. She sees the Fed¡s role as strictly monetary policy; but it is becoming more and more political and the lines between discal policy and monetary policy are becoming blurred. She is right!

Although every author of the articles listed above are much more knowledgeable about economics and monetary policy than I am, I still have something to say even though I agree with these authors on almost everything.

What is it that Bernanke is planning to do with his new digital dollars from QE 3? He announced that he will spend  (my number four  and dollar sign key is giving me fits again today) forty billion dollars a month to buy mortgaged backed securities and put them as assets on the Fed’s balance sheet. The theory, we are told, is to reduce mortgage interest rates and spark home buying in the US. he is a smart man and he knows he is talking BS. With current interest rates at about 3%, the reason people are not buying isn’t because the interest rates aren’t 2.9%.  Bernanke says he will also continue Operation Twist, a program to buy longer term bonds to drive long-term interest rates down, to the tune of another 45 billion dollars a month. The math is easy. The total comes to about one trillion dollars per year. And, he said he would keep  the Fed interest rate at near zero until at least the middle of 2015 even if the economy becomes more robust. This last point is important and I will have more to say on that shortly.

Those that say the Quantitative Easings have mostly helped the rich are right. Only a small part of all of these digital dollars have reached the main stream economy. It has been enough, because of the debasing of the dollar, to cause some inflation. You see it when you buy gasoline or food. The Fed, however, ignores oil price and food price in their calculation of inflation because they are too volatile. Most of the QE dollars have only helped a very small part of our economy. The Big Boy investors and the  Wall Street bankers have benefited big time. Most of  these new dollars ended up with the TBTF banks and is now sitting, about two trillion dollars, in their excess reserves accounts at the Fed. After the announcement of QE 3, the stock market has taken off.  The QE 3 funds will be used to buy securities backed by mortgages, right? Who do you think are holding those mortgage back securities? The TBTF banks, of course. It is like TARP all over again.

The bearded wonder “crapweasel” and nobel laureate economist, Paul Krugman,  is forever wagging his finger at the Austrian economist and others critics of stimulus who argue that stimulus will lead to inflation. He says “Where is the inflation?”. And he is right because he is not talking about the inflation you are seeing at the gas pump and grocery store. He is talking about real serious inflation. But, he is being dishonest because he knows why the serious inflation hasn’t hit yet. That two trillion dollars, and soon to be three trillion, is sitting on the sidelines in the excess reserve accounts. And, there in lies the real danger of Bernanke’s Quantitative Easing policies. When our economy does start moving again, the banks will start lending again. The money will come out of the excess reserve accounts as the banks decide they want to get in on the action of a growing economy.

Here is an easy question for you. Which  of the two candidates for the Presidency is most likely to get the economy growing again? Right! So, if Americans want to avoid some serious inflation, they should vote for Obama because he will delay the day of reckoning. If there are enough adults left in America, they will vote for Romney and accept some years of high inflation as being the price we must pay for decades of bad fiscal and monetary policies.

Earlier, I noted that Bernanke plans to keep his zero interest rate policy going well beyond the economic surge. That is because he knows that inflation is going to take off and that the normal Fed response of raising interest rates to curb inflation would send the economy back into recession or worse.

I would like to go on and explain what I would like to see a Romney administration do to minimize the length of time we will have to put up with high inflation; but this post is already way too long. Maybe another day.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Student in My Classroom: “Parents grew up in Communism and it is not good”

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Last week we were talking about different political systems in my government class (this is a common topic of the first week or two of most government classes) and the class got into a discussion on communism. These discussions usually are pretty theoretical with students- many haven’t had a job where they have produced anything at all, most pay little in taxes, and all of them have been heavily steeped over years of public school experience in ‘fairness’ and ‘redistribution of wealth.’ Even those students who believe in capitalism and freedom and protection of property are forced to mostly rely on theory and logic (which they do have on their side).

But this year the battle against communism is personal for one of my students- he stood up and said the following:

“Both of my parents grew up on communist Poland where people had nothing. I don’t mean ‘like nothing’- I mean they had nothing. And I saw first hand what it means to ‘spread the wealth around’ and to ‘share everything’- there ends up being no wealth and there is nothing to eat. My parents came to America and worked hard, and now they have a lot- and so I believe that what matters the most in this country is working and encouraging people to work and protecting the property that people earn through their work.”

We live in a great nation and I think that sometimes people lose sight of how great it is and how it became great. It became great because we had a limited government that did not rescue people or provide a cradle-to-grave safety net for them, and this made them take responsibility for themselves and it made the community or civil society take responsibility for others.

Our nation became great because politicians encouraged people to work and to work hard- even into this generation Democrats encouraged hard work, before Obama led the party into a radical left direction. And our nation became great because people knew that their property that they worked so hard for would be protected and looked at proudly- class warfare and envy of the rich was frowned on by our society, taxes were low and not designed to just punish people for their hard work, and people aspired to be successful more so than to get a government job for the purposes of tearing down wealth.

What made America great was a government that protected peoples’ lives, liberty, and property so that they could pursue happiness- and we have lost sight of that as a nation.

Students like the one that spoke in my class the other day remind us of this fact by providing a comparative view of what is really going on in nations that practice communism. He also remind us of that one of the positives of immigration is that we get to hear from other people who have lived in nations’ where they have implemented a ‘spread the wealth’ or ‘government built that’ philosophy. Perhaps Barack Obama in his upbringing came to know and love the way they do things in other nations and perhaps a lot of people out there still look to Europe as a source of inspiration and guidance- but that’s not how we have traditionally done things in America and it is about time we remember that and celebrate what it means to be an American.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Obama Adminsitration Out of Control and Playing Politics While America is Attacked? UPDATED

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

THE events of the last few days underscore more than anything else that President Obama is dangerously incompetent and that his continued employment as President of the United States is only doing further harm to our national security and our nation.

On Foreign Policy magazine there was an article titled Inside the public relations disaster at the Cairo embassy. It relies as sources on staffers at the embassy and top administration officials, and the picture it paints is the same picture that Bob Woodward painted in his recent book about the Obama’s administration during the debt crisis- an administration that is unable to control situations, that does not really know what it is doing, and that’s first and second and third reaction is to play politics rather than do the job. From the article:

…A heated discussion ensued among State Department and White House officials over e-mail as the controversy over the statement grew Tuesday evening, even grabbing the attention of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, those same officials were dealing with a more serious attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four American officials, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“People at the highest levels both at the State Department and at the White House were not happy with the way the statement went down. There was a lot of anger both about the process and the content,” the official said. “Frankly, people here did not understand it. The statement was just tone deaf. It didn’t provide adequate balance. We thought the references to the 9/11 attacks were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.’”….

From the timeline of events and the narrative provided in this account we can see that while the US Embassy in Libya was under attack and Americans were dying, ‘people at the highest levels in the White House’ were busy not trying to figure out what was going on or how to restore order in a chaotic region but rather trying to spin emails and tweets.

While a US ambassador was being murdered- the sixth U.S. ambassador to be killed by hostile forces in the history of the U.S. diplomatic service- the main concern was not to immediately issue upgrades in security or to realize the extent of the attacks, but rather to play political games with words. Obama hasn’t even been to half of the intelligence briefings- reports are that he missed the briefings today- but even if he is derelict in his duty there he still should have known of the very real possibility that there might be a terrorist attack on 9/11 in the Middle East and that this was might be the start of something big. But he didn’t- he say in the corner and voted present as he does in every crisis, letting the metaphorical 3 AM phone call ring and ring, and only emerged to say something when his own power was threatened.

Rather than be in charge of the situation by being present in Washington before and after the now-important date of 9/11, President Obama choose to be in Ohio on Monday (Sept 10) campaigning, and stories report that this week he was getting ready for a campaign event in New York with rapper Jay-Z and singer Beyonce (a $40,000-a-head fund-raiser – only the top 1% are invited). These are not the decisions of a responsible, hard-working President who cares about the American people and the security of our people around the world- these are the selfish actions of a man who likes the office of the President and all the pomp and taxpayer-funded vacations that go with it.

Now, I know the media is trying to make this disaster into some sort of Mitt Romney story- for example, see this article which exposes reporters coordinating with one another prior regarding the questions that they intend to ask Romney so that they can phrase them in ways that make Romney look bad. But the reality of the situation is that Mitt Romney is not the President of the United States.

Barack Obama is the President of the United States- it is his job to protect our embassies, stay current with intelligence and threats to our nation, and take control of the situation when we are under attack. Mitt Romney has no power over events in the Middle East- he is a private citizen who is running for office and in doing so criticized the President for his policies. And he wasn’t just piling on when others were being critical- Romney was one of the first and is the most vocal in pointing out that it is the President’s very policies that may have encouraged these riots and the murder of a US official and that it was was wrong for any government official to every apologize for free speech and religious freedom in our nation.

President Obama is frantically out there trying to say that he has no control over our state department and what our officials do in other nations, and that he is calmly doing nothing while riots and chaos breaks out in a very important region of the world. But unlike the media, I don’t think those are good things, I think those are bad things.

Being a bad executive and having no control over your employees or the offices under your control is not a good excuse. The buck stops there, as the saying goes, but in this particular case Obama simply stared in fright at the buck and desperately thought of some way to go back to campaigning.

That is what this whole race for President is about- it isn’t about race, it isn’t about personal politics, it isn’t even partisan- the whole point is that President Obama is bad at being President of the United States of America. And we have a chance to replace him in November, and the Democrats re-nominted him, and third parties aren’t an option, so that means Mitt Romney should be the choice for voters in 2012.

UPDATE 9/14: I’m furious. The Daily Mail is reporting that the Obama administration had credible information 48 hours before the attack and did nothing. President Obama did not attend the intelligence briefing on that day. The Daily Mail is also reporting that Americans were dragged out of the compound in Libya while still alive and then executed while on American soil. There are bloody columns in the compound where the American diplomats desperately grabbed at in an attempt to halt being dragged to a brutal death. Meanwhile President Obama is still spinning and attempting to make this into something to do with Mitt Romney.

After 9/11 there was a commission that evaluated what we knew and what we didn’t know- they better convene one for this incident so that Obama has a chance to demonstrate that there he took the appropriate steps in the face of credible evidence of a threat and that he and his administration did all they could to prevent the brutal murder of American citizens on American soil by evil men from happening.

 Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher
Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Has America Passed the Point of No Return (ie, 50.1%+ Dependency on Government)?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Here is an eye-opening article from the normally even keeled John Hinderaker over at Powerline blog- title of post was Why Is This Election Close?:

For a long time I have been predicting that Mitt Romney would get the Republican nomination, and that he would then win the general election. I have said that the election will be reasonably close–demographic realities dictate that all national elections will be reasonably close, for the foreseeable future–but not a squeaker; more like 2004 than 2000. Given President Obama’s dismal record, that seemed like a safe prediction.

But it now appears that the election will be very close after all, and that Obama might even win it. It will require a few more days to assess the effects (if any) of the parties’ two conventions, but for now it looks as though the Democrats emerged with at least a draw, despite a convention that was in some ways a fiasco. In today’s Rasmussen survey, Obama has regained a two point lead over Romney, 46%-44%….

…On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come….

…I am afraid the problem in this year’s race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority.

Maybe this anxiety is misplaced. President Obama has never been able to rise above 47% support in the polls, and perhaps when November comes undecided voters will break against the incumbent, as the conventional wisdom has it. Maybe the election won’t be so close after all. We’d all better hope so. Because, given the rate at which Democrats are frantically adding to the dependency state, another four years of Obama may be enough to tip the balance between the private sector and government dependence once and for all.

This sort of post sort of rattled me- it’s a scary idea to think about, that we have passed the point of no return and now more people depend on the government than depend on themselves. Once we pass that point, the end of liberty and freedom and private property protection will come faster and faster and the mob demands that the fewer work harder and harder to provide for them.

A couple months ago I laid out three possible futures for America- I still wonder what path we are on and what path my children and grandchildren will take.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

2012 Turning Into Battle Between Successful American and Bankrupt European models?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Some of you probably don’t enjoy the ‘Obama everyday’ approach that some blogs have adopted, and I have also struggled with this, but the truth of the matter is that this Presidential campaign is increasingly becoming a story between two opposing forces and a good storyteller (me) should always focus on the main characters in that battle.

The battle lines have been drawn up.

On one side is President Barack Obama, who has taken the lead in the new-look Democratic Party and is being followed by assorted people like Senator Stabenow and Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi. He has declared war on ‘the rich’- those who are successful and make money or those who own small businesses or those who own family farms- and has stated that the purpose of the state is to redistribute wealth to those who he favors, whether they be union bosses or green investors or Hollywood elite. Democrats reluctantly follow him, wary of his radical nature and tired of his continual divisive campaigning, but he does control the political power right now in our nation- as he tweeted recently, he currently fills the chair in the White House and is going to do everything in his power to keep filling it. This new-version Democratic Party looks to Europe for inspiration on a range of policy issues, from welfare to healthcare, and believes that the entitlement/welfare state needs to be increased in these difficult times even if there is no money to pay for this sort of reckless expansion.

I focus mainly on President Obama because he is the main character, but in reality he represents a bigger group of people and a timeless desire- he is the face of those who wish to empower political elites to control others, control their wealth and prosperity, and direct their lives. His sort has been around forever, and for most of human history his sort has been in political control, and around most of the globe his sort is in control today. Even if President Obama is defeated in 2012, the struggle will continue, although the face of it will surely change as Obama rides off into the sunset of taxpayer-paid retirement, golf, and expensive speeches of a bitter and resentful sort.

On the other side apparently is the GOP nominee for President Mitt Romney, who has emerged from a spirited round of debates about the future of our nation to win the nomination for his party and be its standard bearer in 2012. Romney picked Paul Ryan as his VP and surrounded himself with convention speakers like Congressman Marco Rubio and Governor Susana Martinez. At the convention we heard him double-down on important themes like ‘we did build that’ and ‘we can do better’ and ‘we believe in America’, promising to support small businesses, the middle class, manufacturing, and energy producers with less regulations and lower taxes. He believes that the purpose of the state is to protect peoples’ lives through a strong military and a secure social safety net- one that is not going bankrupt and in danger of collapse-, that the state should protect private property, and that people should be more free to make choices on issues such as healthcare. Republicans follow him, but are cautious in doing so, because they’ve been promised these sorts of things before and then were led astray by moderates and RINO’s, and the GOP today is a large and diverse political party filled with sometimes passionate oppositions. This Republican Party looks very much like the party did in the 1980′s and 1990′s, and one imagines that if Romney and the Republicans were to win power in 2012 that they would go about attempting to implement many of the important reforms that are needed to secure a better future for our nation.

I’m not the only one to pick up the emerging broader themes in this campaign- across the pond they’ve noticed it too. In the Telegraph on Sunday, British reporter Janet Daley wrote in We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show: The myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished:

…Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade. Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phony money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union.

Or else democratically elected governments can be replaced by puppet austerity regimes which are free to ignore the protests of the populace when they are deprived of their promised entitlements. You can, in other words, decide to debauch the currency which underwrites the market economy, or you can dispense with democracy. Both of these possible solutions are currently being tried in the European Union, whose leaders are reduced to talking sinister gibberish in order to evade the obvious conclusion: the myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century.

Mitt Romney had been hinting, in an oblique, undeveloped way, at this line of argument as he moved tentatively toward finding a real message. Then he took the startling step of appointing Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, and the earth moved. If Romney was the embodiment of the spirit of a free market, Ryan was its prophet. His speech at the convention was so dangerous to the Obama Democrats, with their aspirations toward European-style democratic socialism, that they unleashed their “fact checkers” to find mistakes (“lies”) in it. (Remember the old Yes Minister joke: “You can always accuse them of errors of detail, sir. There are always some errors of detail”.) When Romney and Ryan offer their arguments to the American people, they are, of course, at an advantage over almost any British or European politician. Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue. Romney caught this rather nicely in his acceptance speech, with the comment that the US was built on the idea of “a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.” Or as Marco Rubio put it in his speech, Obama is “trying ideas that people came to America to get away from”.

So it would be deeply misleading to imply that this campaign will be a contest between what Britain likes to call “progressive” politics and some atavistic longing for a return to frontier America where everybody made a success of his own life with no help from anybody but his kith and kin…

…But in the course of this campaign, however it concludes, we are all going to get an education in what it might be possible to say if economic reality was actually confronted. Mr Ryan wound up his acceptance speech for the vice-presidential nomination with the chorus, “Our nation needs this debate. We want this debate. We will win this debate.” Some of us would like to have that debate here. We even think we might have a chance of winning it.

As a teacher, it is my job to help inspire critical thinking and debate so that we may all learn the truths and facts of this world- and I am glad that 2012 has become less of a fight for political power and more of an election about principles and a discussion of what truly makes America great.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

If Teachers Were Paid Minimum Wage to Babysit Students They Would Make $189K/year?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Some people claim that teachers’ are overpaid- they argue that teachers’ only work 9 or 10 months a year and basically most teachers simply babysit kids today. And for that they should be paid a minimum wage.

That’s right- people claim that we should pay teachers $7.50 (roughly the minimum wage in most states) an hour and only pay them for the hours they worked (not any of that silly planning time or any time they spend before or after school). That would be $48.75 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan– that equals 6 1/2 hours).

So, in summary each parent should pay $48.75 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Teachers only work about 180 days a year, so that works out to $8775 each year in childcare (per kid) to have teachers babysit your children. That’s a little high for daycare, but is pretty darn close to what some of us pay for our own kids for childcare.

But hold on- let’s look at this from the teacher’s perspective. The average classroom size in America is 23 students. So that means to babysit these students each day the teacher brings in $48.75 x 23 = $1052 a day. If the teacher brings in $1052/day and works 180 days a year, this teacher brings in $189,360.

The average teacher’s salary is about $55,000 though. That’s about $134K less than expected.

Many in the public sector and many union people would argue that the failure here is that people are not paying enough for education- they want higher taxes, more money sent into education, more government control over the process, and more centralized control over education in general coming from Washington DC. They suggest that taxes should be levied on businesses, individuals, homes, and goods that we buy to increase the amount of money that is churned into the education establishment and that if this happened than teachers would be paid more. Probably a bit of the wealth that is extracted from free citizens would in fact find its way to teachers- but this whole argument is missing an important idea- why is so much of parents’ money not finding its way into the classroom now?

The problem is not that government isn’t involved enough here- the problem is that government is too involved in education today. Teachers are being robbed of the wealth that should flow to them for the services that they provide- $134K per year per teacher is being sucked away by non-classroom teachers such as union employees, government bureaucrats, and other useless waste on the system. Oh, some of that money obviously goes to cover administration, those children who free-load because their parents can’t afford to pay, the building costs, bus drivers, and the cost of technology and textbooks- but I doubt that those costs would eat away all of that $134 per teacher per year.

The problem is that education is the government is interfering with the market for supply and demand for education and is running horribly inefficiently. To solve these problems, we need to strengthen the connection between parents paying for education (through local property taxes or direct payments to schools) and the connection between teachers being paid for providing education to these children (without having that money cycle through government bureaucrats all around the United States).

I’m sure my math on this subject is far off, and of course teachers provide much greater service than babysitting, but maybe I’m on to something here- maybe government is not the solution to the problem in education, maybe government is the problem?

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

A Plea to Government Officials to Stop Their Amateur Meddling in Business

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Last week at a political event I had an interesting conversation with several other Republican city officials regarding what to do with a local vacant shopping mall. These were all nice people- one owned a local business, one was a nurse, another worked for a charity- and all of them have a vote on the city board and all of them were properly concerned regarding the vacant and non-taxpaying property in the city. But, and I think this is very important, none of them were real estate investors or successful operators of shopping malls.

They were simply nice people with no knowledge of how to make that particular business work who found themselves holding a little bit of local political power. And they let that little bit of political power go straight to their heads. They told me that they had sat down with the owner of that property and told him how that property should be developed, that acting as agents for the city they had lectured him about what sorts of businesses they thought would be great to put in there (with no market research to back those up), and they proudly told me how they tried to make this private business owner (who was sitting on a bad investment) do what they wanted to do.

Government officials at every level- unless you are an expert in real estate redevelopment or unless you are a private investor who wants to use your own money to do whatever you want to do- stay out of other people’s business. You are not elected to play lord and master, you are not elected to ignorantly lecture businessmen, and you are not elected to try to impose your vision on other people- you are elected to do a job and to do it right.

The only conversation that a government official should have with a property owner of a vacant shopping mall is one where the government official asks what sorts of laws, regulations, and government barriers can he/she remove to encourage the development of that property. That’s it.

These Republican amateur meddlers asked me what I would do if I had been on the city board, and I told them I would do nothing, and they laughed- but the truth of the matter is that the first instinct of a government official should be ‘do no harm’ and this means not meddling, lecturing, or getting in the way of private businesses.

It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or if you are a Democrat- as a government official, you are a servant of the people and that thought should always be foremost in your thoughts. Do not attempt to meddle in affairs that you have almost no knowledge of, do not attempt to boss around a business without knowing its market or seeing its books, and do not try to use the little power given to you by taxpayers to impose your own views and vision on others. Freedom, liberty, equality before the law, and protection of property should guide your actions, thoughts, and decisions.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

President Obama Ignores Pleas to Lend 1K to Save His Sick Nephew

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

This is a stunning story, especially for those who think that Obama is still ‘a nice guy.’ He may be a good husband and father (from what we’ve heard), but no ‘nice guy’ acts this way towards his immediate family.

Via Powerlineblog from their story AN INSTANCE OF LIBERALS’ PREFERENCE FOR NARRATIVE OVER REALITY:

…We learned in a remarkable news story, a couple of days ago, that Barack Obama has an actual brother, not a figurative one, who is living in poverty in Africa. His name is George Obama. Barack has met his brother George, but has no ongoing contact with him. George Obama is in trouble: he has a young son who is sick and has been hospitalized, and George, a poor man, has no way to pay the hospital bill.

You would naturally assume that George Obama would reach out to his brother Barack for help. After all, Barack is a multimillionaire; not only that, he is the most powerful man in the world and has often spoken of the importance of being one’s brother’s keeper. So surely Barack would be happy to “keep” his real brother by paying his son’s–Barack’s nephew’s–hospital bill, right?

Wrong. What a silly idea! George Obama exists in the world of reality, not narrative. He is a real brother, not a fictitious “brother” who exists only as an excuse to raise someone else’s taxes. George apparently knew better than to call on his real brother, the President of the United States, in a time of need. So where did he turn? To Dinesh D’Souza.

George met D’Souza when Dinesh was in Africa, working on his blockbuster movie 2016, which is harshly critical of Barack Obama. D’Souza interviewed George Obama, and they spent a day together (here is the story)….

…This is, I think, one of the more stunning stories I have ever read, and if Barack Obama were a Republican, it would dominate the news. George Obama turned to a political opponent of his brother the President for help, because his brother Barack is useful only in the world of narrative, not in the world of reality. If you actually need a thousand bucks, and now, don’t go to a liberal: “brotherhood” goes only so far. Even in Africa, it apparently is understood that if you need real help in the real world, you should go to a conservative…

This is certainly a major news story and John is right- the fact that President Obama goes around the nation living it up on taxpayer money while hording his own personal income without helping out his family is a wrong.

Contrast this with Mitt Romney, who a couple years ago personally loaned money to a couple to buy a house even though they didn’t qualify for any loans under any government program. Or the story about how Mitt’s family in Michigan are some of his strongest supporters. Or any of the dozens of other stories about how when times are tough, Mitt doesn’t just appear to be a nice guy- he really is and really helps people out.

It is important that we know that Obama is not a nice guy- he is a power-seeking radical fascist from Chicago who voters took a gamble on in 2012. It was a bad gamble and in a couple months our nation will have an opportunity to correct the mistake. Mitt Romney is a nice guy, he has a long and well-known track record, and he has done a lot of good things in government. He won’t be the best President ever and I am sure he has some negatives and there is probably a policy or two you don’t like of his, but 4 to 8 years from now, you’ll be glad you voted for him instead of for Obama.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Is Your City or Town Going Bankrupt?

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

Most of us follow national politics, many of us follow state politics, but how many are closely watching their own local politics? Your city or town might just be running deficits and facing bankruptcy- and when it does, their might be no one to bail them out, and police and fire and library and recreational services will be gone.

From The Trumpet story More U.S. Cities Going Bankrupt Indicate Nation’s Future:

…Last Friday, the city of Scranton sent out paychecks to its employees, as it does every two weeks. But these checks were for amounts significantly smaller than usual because Mayor Chris Doherty reduced all city employees’ pay – including his own – to the state minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. 

After sending out Friday’s checks, Scranton had only $5,000 left in the bank and still owed its 400 employees almost $1 million. 

Scranton’s police unions, firefighters’ union and public works unions have taken the city to court over the reduced pay, but Doherty says he has no other choice because the city is broke. His planned solution is to immediately raise taxes by 29 percent, and by 78 percent over the next three years. But the council wants the city to instead borrow money to solve Scranton’s fiscal woes. 

On Monday, Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis said, “It should be perfectly obvious to every soul on the planet that Scranton is bankrupt. Tax hikes are not the answer. The solution is filing bankruptcy with the hope of killing public union wages and benefits.” 

But like many other states, Pennsylvania has rules in place that prohibit cities from filing bankruptcy without approval from the state. Mish’s final assessment is that “Inept city management, with public union wages and benefits at the heart of it, killed Scranton.” Whether or not Pennsylvania is prepared to admit it, Scranton is bankrupt, and the tensions there are rising. 

And Scranton it is not the only U.S. city in such a condition. 

San Bernardino is expected to become the third Californian city in two weeks to file for municipal bankruptcy protection as it wrestles with increasing employee costs and declining tax revenues. Last fall, Jefferson County, Alabama, filed the biggest Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy in American history, leaving county commissioners planning to default on a general obligation bond payment. In late 2011, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, said it would default on a payment coming due to general obligation bondholders. Stockton, California, was in negotiations earlier this year in hopes of avoiding becoming the biggest American city yet to declare bankruptcy. The most recent reports said it is “very likely” that Stockton will go bankrupt. These are just a few of many examples. 

Many municipalities across the nation have found themselves pushed over the brink by the recession and its lingering aftermath. They are in dire financial straits with little hope of recovery. “This is truly a new era for dealing with troubled municipalities,” said Michael Stanton, publisher of The Bond Buyer, a public finance newspaper. 

Cities are going belly up while states and the nation hang on, largely because cities cannot rely on the deus ex machina currency printing that the larger entities rely on. Mayor Doherty explained that he does not have the same options as the Fed or even a state government, saying, “I want the employees to get paid. Our people work hard – our police and fire – I just don’t have enough money, and I can’t print it in the basement.” 

These cities are the canaries in the toxic coalmine that is the U.S. economy. Smaller and more fragile than states, they are succumbing to their economic ailments in tragic ways. But the canary analogy breaks down at that point because, unlike the coal miner who leaves the mine after watching his canary keel over, state and federal policymakers are not heeding the warning…

Check out the finances of your local city or village and you may just be surprised at what you find.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Google+LiveJournalTechnorati FavoritesTumblrStumbleUponRedditYahoo BookmarksNewsVineFacebookFriendFeedTwitterShare

10 Million More in Poverty Under President Obama

Google+LiveJournal