What Would You Do If You Were President?

“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” — Thomas Paine

Last Sunday the New York Times ran a “If I Were President” piece on the opinion pages. It appears the Times selected certain of their favorite opinion writers to pen a paragraph or two on what they would do if they were the President of the United States. It’s quite a clever presentation as you can move your mouse of the likeness of the writer and a secondary dialogue box will open showing something about the writer. When you click on the image the writers contribution to the Times piece will open along with some background on the writer.

Playing the “what if” game is always fun. You might have some thoughts on what you would do if you were president, the manager or coach of your favorite baseball or football team or you won the Power Ball Lottery. I know I do, often in the shower. Here are a few examples of what the Time’s selected contributors had to say in the “what if” game.

Michael J. Sandel, Harvard professor and the author of “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?”

“I would lead a campaign against the skyboxification of American life. Not long ago, the ballpark was a place where C.E.O.’s and mailroom clerks sat side by side, and everyone got wet when it rained. Today, most stadiums have corporate skyboxes, which cosset the privileged in air-conditioned suites, far removed from the crowd below. Something similar has happened throughout our society. The affluent retreat from public schools, the military, and other public institutions, leaving fewer and fewer class-mixing places. Rich and poor increasingly live separate lives.

I would invest in an infrastructure for civic renewal — not just roads and bridges, but schools, transit, playgrounds, parks, community centers, health clinics, libraries and national service. This would put people to work. And it would draw us out of our skyboxes and into the common spaces of democratic citizenship.”

So Mr. Sandel wants us to get out of our “Skyboxes” and mix with the folks. I wonder if Mr. Sandel spends much time with the folks in “fly-over” country. It sounds like he would like more communal living. That did not work out well in the former Soviet Union.

Sharon Olds, Author of “Strike Sparks: Selected Poems 1980-2002”:

“I’d grant the very rich the boon of helping them help others, as a form of gratitude for their good fortune. I’d also connect every creative writing program with a hospital, a school, a library, a prison, a neighborhood center — workshops in the supermarkets! (“Aisles full of husbands! Wives in the avocados, babies in the tomatoes!”)”

Umh, helping people in gratitude for their good fortune. I thought that was what churches did. Can’t you see teaching creative writing to the MS 13 gang members incarcerated in San Quentin? Oh well, what would you expect from a poet.

Andrew Weil, Founder of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and author of “Why Our Health Matters”:

“I’d tell the nation that I was powerless to control the war machine, Wall Street, big oil and the other interests that run the country, and I would urge Americans to form a new political party not beholden to them.”

I think Mr. Weil should stick to medicine. We formed a new party a few years ago, it was called the Republican Party and we have a new movement towards reforming the parties, it’s called the Tea Party.

Geoffrey Canada, President of Harlem Children’s Zone:

“I would have a “grown-up” talk with the American people, emphasizing that we are facing a crisis and solving it will require a spirit of shared sacrifice. Those of us who have benefited mightily from this country and made billions, as well as those who make the minimum wage, must all sacrifice.

The social contract that we have taken for granted must be updated given our tough economic challenges, and all of us must now pay our great country back — giving more than we anticipated just a year ago. Those who can give a lot must do so; those of more modest means must also do their part.

All our sacred cows must be reconsidered: Medicare, tax breaks for corporations, Social Security, tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class, military spending, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there is one group that we must protect at all costs — our children. We must sacrifice so that our children won’t inherit a country that is less than the one our parents left us. Our march toward equity and equality cannot be sacrificed. God bless America and God bless America’s children!”

Mr. Canada makes a few good points, but the social contract talk sounds very progressive and liberal to me.

James Dyson, Inventor and founder of the James Dyson Foundation:

“I would get America back to what it does best: take risks. Or rather, the right type of risks. The United States was founded on brave, bold and untested inventions, not financial gambles. Real engineering, not endless economic engineering.

The United States still spends more than any other nation on research and development. But others are moving up, not least China. America needs to inspire a new generation of risk takers. And it starts in school.

No Child Left Behind “rates” children and schools arbitrarily through multiple choice questions. Standardization and rote learning lead to sub-standard results because they don’t inspire or challenge. My solution: get rid of binary right and wrong answers. Experimentation is learning. Only through making mistakes do we find out what works, what to do differently and how to get better. Box-ticking does not correlate with world winning. Certificates won’t beat global competition. Creativity will. Engineering and science will. Patents will. Let’s inspire children by giving them the freedom to get things wrong. By fostering an environment where learning through failure is celebrated, the United States can get back to ongoing success — making mistakes, making things.”

Now this guy is getting more to where I would want to go. Real engineering yes, social engineering no. Albeit Mr. Dyson was born in England and could not be president (unless he could produce a Hawaiian birth certificate) he still is on the right track. He made a billion dollars with his vacuum cleaner so I guess he knows business. Perhaps he could be the head of the Department of Education, if we keep it.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist, Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, and host of NOVA Science NOW:

“The question implies that if you swap out one, put in another, then all will be well with America — as though our leaders are the cause of all ailments.

When you’re scientifically literate, the world looks different. Science provides a particular way of questioning what you see and hear. When empowered by this state of mind, objective realities matter. These are the truths on which good governance should be based and which exist outside of particular belief systems.

Our government doesn’t work — not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, wouldn’t be to lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to bring an objective reality to the electorate so it could choose the right leaders in the first place.”

Wow, dysfunctional electorate. I think Mr. Tyson has spent too much time looking at the stars. How do we educate the voters to elect the “right leaders?”

Patricia Ryan Madson, Author of “Improv Wisdom: Don’t Prepare, Just Show Up”:

“I would invite all of the members of Congress to join me in an improvisation retreat. We would spend the time practicing saying “yes” to each other and really listening to one another’s offers. We would create stories of well-being. We would encourage thinking “inside the box.” We would look for innovative ways to use the resources at hand to solve our problems. We would make some mistakes, and we would laugh a lot. Real laughter has been absent in the White House lately.”

Yes, a retreat. We could all hold hands, sing Kumbaya and roast marshmallows. As for laughter in the White House I think Obama is laughing at us all the time.

You can go through the rest of the group on your own. It might be fun.

After reading the desires from the 12 contributors I found a few things missing from their “what ifs.” The number one thing missing was mention of the Constitution. Not one of them wished for a return to constitutional government and our founding principles. A few other things they did not mention were; Adherence to the Constitution and our founding principles, the rule of law, liberty, and fiscal responsibility.

So what would I do if I were president? First of all the President has limited power under the Constitution. He must work with Congress on fiscal matters and his/her main charge is to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of the United States. With this in mind here are a few things I would do:

Firstly I would work diligently to secure our borders and protect our citizens from the invasion of drug smugglers and illegal aliens.

Secondly I would work with Congress to reduce spending and curtail the onerous regulations that have been imposed of the people, regulations from light bulbs to fuel standards.

Thirdly I would get the government out of the education business and curtail the government monopoly of education by eliminating the Department of Education.

Fourthly I would appoint an Attorney General dedicated to the rule of law, the law for all people. I would also appoint federal judges dedicated to the Constitution.

Fifthly I would reduce the size of the federal government by eliminating agencies and programs that are bloated and threaten the liberty of the people. I would reduce government employees by 25% across the board and privatize and outsource as much as I could.

Sixthly I would regularly tell the people what I am doing and why I am doing it. I would end this class warfare nonsense and allow the American people to be the best they could be without government on their neck.

Seventhly I would open all lands and off shore leases to oil drilling so we could begin reducing our dependency on OPEC for our oil and natural gas.

Eighthly I would encourage the return of the home building industry by restoring confidence in the economy and reducing the onerous regulations on the builders.

And lastly I would cut every government handout program and allow the people to become self-sufficient without government money. If the states and local governments want to continue these programs so be it, it’s their right to do so.

There are many more things I would do like reducing our involvement in the UN, rebuilding and maintaining our infrastructure, and closing oversees bases that are no longer needed.

I know this sounds pretty draconian and would take some time so you will have to grant me two terms and a conservative Congress. In time we could return the thinking and things that made the United States great, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Libya, What Comes Next?

“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will." — John Adams

Today President Obama announced from his 28 acre retreat on Martha’s Vineyard that Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime is "coming to an end" but the fighting is "not over yet," as Libyan rebels brought Qaddafi's forces to the brink of collapse.

The president emerged from his vacation in Martha's Vineyard to publicly address the historic developments in Libya, where rebels moved with remarkable speed to capture control of most of Tripoli.

"The future of Libya is in the hands of its people," Obama said. "The celebrations that we've seen in the streets of Libya shows that the pursuit of human dignity is far stronger than any dictator."

Obama noted that there is still "fierce fighting" in some areas, and urged Qaddafi — whose location in unknown — to publicly give up power.

"Although it's clear that Qaddafi's rule is over, he still has the opportunity to reduce further bloodshed by explicitly relinquishing power to the people of Libya and calling for those forces that continue to fight to lay down their arms for the sake of Libya," Obama said.

In addressing the developments, Obama paused to remember all the Americans killed by the regime "in acts of terror in the past." And he touted the combined efforts of the United States and its NATO allies in supporting the anti-Qaddafi rebel movement since March.

Well how important is this in Obama’s mind. After almost eight months of bombing, warfare, and spending well over one billion dollars this event was not important enough for Obama to leave his rich friends in the bastion of liberal elites to return to Washington to make the announcement. I guess he will now have another feather for his political cap — I got bin Laden and now I got Qaddafi.

But what does all of this mean? Who are the so called rebels? What are their fundamental principles? What positions will they take in the Middle East? These are questions for which we have no concrete answers. We have been waging a war against a man, not against a government or an ideology. When the man is gone how will the vacuum be filled? Will it be filled with a democracy, a tribal coalition or an Islamic dictatorship where Sharia rules?

According to The Scribe the draft of Libya’s new constitution by the Transitional National Council states in Part 1, Article 1:

“Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).”

Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.

The Libyan Revolution, like all revolutions, is a three act play. Act One is the Fall of the Dictator. Act Two is the Rebels Turn. Act Three is It's a Fluid Situation with lots of players, and anything can happen. This was the story in Iraq and the ongoing story in Afghanistan. In both cases we are engaged in Act Three and it’s not going that well.

Act One: The Fall of the Dictator. Sometimes this act is quick, bloodless and easy, as it was in Egypt when President Mubarak was pushed aside. Libya has taken longer, six months of fighting, with a major and critical assist from NATO forces. In Iraq and Afghanistan it took much longer and cost the lives of thousands of American and coalition allies’ lives.

Act Two: The Rebels Rule. With the Dictator gone, it's the Rebels' turn to try their hand at governing. This is where everything starts to fall apart. The rebels, who had been united in their opposition to the hated Dictator and his gang, now start falling out amongst themselves. All the ancient animosities the Dictator had kept under wraps, are now unleashed in Act Two, as we saw in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.

The Rebels have never had leadership roles, yet they're now expected to run the country.

In Libya, Qaddafi, his relatives and his tribe, had their hands on all the levers of power for forty years. Now those hands are gone. But can the rebels take their places, and quickly enough to restore order before chaos ensues? This was also the case with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Act Two usually ends with everything up for grabs, and it's likely to be the same with Libya.

There no doubt will be fights between the various tribes over whose vision will be imposed on the Libyan people. I cannot resist using the closing scene in the film Lawrence of Arabia where once the united Arab tribes, under the leadership of T.E. Lawrence, had captured Damascus they immediately fell into factions fighting over old slights and insults as he British took control of the city. Who will fill the role of the British in Tripoli? Will it be NATO, the French, or the Muslim Brotherhood as they are doing in Egypt?

Act Three: Where Everything Gets Resolved. Either the rebels find a way to get their act together, unite the country and establish security and order, and get civil society going again.

If they can't, there is civil war, and the well-meaning reformers are thrust aside by the more ruthless, violent, committed group willing to do anything to gain power. That's what happened with Iranian revolution when the Shah of Iran fell in the late 1970. By 1980 the Ayatollahs were in charge and we all know how that turned out.

Today and for the next few days watch these main players in the Libyan drama. The next 72 hours will be crucial in whether this play is ultimately a drama, tragedy or farce. How they respond during the opening scenes of Act Two will determine how this play ends.

And, as the world watches this unfold, don't forget the players. Here's a look

The Rebels: Who are the rebels? Are they Islamists thirsting to establish a strict Sharia state? Are they western-educated secularists who want democracy and self-government? Are they bureaucrats who know how to run things? Are they warriors who love to fight, but don't have a clue what to do when the fighting stops? Or, as is more likely, all of the above?

Will the Rebels stay united? Can they govern? Will they break along tribal, ethnic, and religious fault lines? When things get difficult — and they will — do the rebels start blaming each other? Will they spend their energies settling scores with the remnants of the Qaddafi clan, pushing for justice for the men who murdered their families and friends? Or will they get on with the rather boring business of governing — making sure the streets are safe, the water is running and the electricity works?

In a recent poll on Fox News 81% of the respondents chose “No, there is a lot of tribalism among the rebel groups, this could easily get worse” as their response. Only 4% had an optimistic outlook for Libya.

Clan Qaddafi: Do the extended members of the Qaddafi clan flee or stay and fight? Do they flee abroad? If so, will they be granted a safe haven or be turned over to the International Criminal Court or arrested at home for trial and probable execution, Mubarak-style? Do they go underground, Saddam-style, and lead an insurgency? Do they regroup and come back to fight again, Taliban-style?

NATO: We helped deliver the Libyan rebels a revolution with our drone strikes and behind the scenes special forces. Will we stick around to help them form a government, or breathe a sigh of relief with the fall of Qaddafi and head for the exits?

The main problem of the National Transitional Council is that it’s an umbrella group that brings together several different groups of people, who really only have two things in common. They’re collectively referred to as the Libyan rebels, and they all share a desire to oust Moammar Qaddafi from power. The second you take that common mission away from them, you immediately open the door to in-fighting.

The Council has been based in Benghazi since February and has, for the entire time, professed a desire to relocate its political capital to Tripoli. This won’t be as easy as simply packing up their car and making a 12-hour drive west. When its leaders, almost all of whom have heavy ties to eastern Libya, which is historically distinct from other parts of the country, try to assert their power in the west, it will be met with resistance.

There are a lot of different fronts in the Libyan war manned by different groups from different parts the country. Each of these groups is now going to feel as if it is entitled to a certain share of political authority, economic reward and share of power in the new Libya (just like the Arabs in Lawrence of Arabia). Those who manned the front lines of Brega are the closest geographically to both Benghazi and the bulk of Libya’s oil fields. They will feel as if they were the vanguard of Libyan revolution. Those who staved off the Libyan army in Misurata for so many months feel as if they are the most hardened fighters and therefore worthy of a reward.

The Berbers in the Nafusa Mountains played a critical role in the final push to enter Tripoli, while the Arab rebels who joined them in Zawiya and Zabrata will argue that they actually entered the capital first and therefore drove the dagger into Qaddafi's heart. Finally there are the people of Tripoli itself, a city which makes up about a quarter of Libya’s overall population, who may not be very receptive to the idea of the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council taking the place of the previous regime for very long.

There are also known Islamist militias who’ve been participating in the fighting in the east and who have also been providing security in Benghazi itself. The presence of these militias has caused the National Transitional Council to worry that they may attempt to fill any potential power vacuum that is left by Qaddafi's departure. When you add all these factors together, it’s clear that the Council has a potential problem on its hand, and that, while the Libyan war seems to be nearing an end, it’s possible that the real battle has only just begun.

Will this be Iran redux, where the Carter administration helped push out the Shah but then failed to help the Iranian Revolutionaries form the post-Shah government — and ended up with an radical Islamist government far worse than the Shah's ever was in Iran. Or will NATO and the United States offer technical assistance as Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush did to Eastern Europe when the Iron Curtain came down, and see an entire region become pro-Western and self-governing?

Months ago the Arab spring opened to a sense of wonderment and euphoria. But once the opening night enthusiasms faded, the Arab Spring has had very mixed reviews. Egypt's revolution will likely end in the election of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

Bahrain's revolution is on hold for now, but Iran would like to see it play out again.

Morocco is turning out well so far, with a rapid transition to democratic government, but this is only at the beginning.

Syria is a simply a bloodbath with no real end in sight.

The Arab Spring started out to cheers that the Arab Muslim world was throwing off the shackles of dictatorship and oppression. But as the season has worn on, the initial enthusiasm has given way to a harsher reality. Will the Spring become the Winter of our Discontent? We'll have to stay in our seats 'til the end of the play to know how it turns out.

Will Obama stay the course and oversee the final act or will he become distracted and bored and walk away from the play? Perhaps he will get Hollywood to release a film called “The Fall of Tripoli” by next October. It can run as a double feature with the Killing of bin Laden at a theater in your neighborhood.

Will Sarah Palin Run?

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” — Thomas Jefferson

We are constantly bombarded with reports in the media about the status of Sarah Palin. With she enter the presidential race or won’t she? Almost on a daily basis there are reports and comments by pundits on both side of the political spectrum as to Palin’s viability as a presidential candidate. It seems that wherever Palin goes she draws a crowd of passionate supporters and reporters.

The latest example of Palin’s popularity was demonstrated last week during the Iowa Straw Poll when Palin was interviewed by Sean Hannity If you watch the video you can see the passionate support of the crowd standing behind Palin and Hannity. If nothing else Palin can draw a crowd larger than any other Republican hopeful.

Does this mean she is a going to enter the race? According to Karl Rove it does. In an interview on Fox News Saturday Morning Rove said in commenting about her upcoming schedule; it looks more like that of a 'candidate' than a 'celebrity'.

The Washington Examiner highlights that schedule theory. Palin is set to appear in Iowa on September 3rd, serving as the keynote speaker at the Tea Party of America's "Restoring America" event.

"This is her last chance," Rove said on the broadcast. "She either gets in or gets out after this visit next week. I think she gets in."

Rove's forecast comes one day after Palin released a new video highlighting her Iowa travels. Entitled "Iowa Passion," the ex-Vice Presidential candidate profiles Iowans who explain why she is "a normal person just like every one of us."

Regarding the rally, Politico reports:

“Palin is scheduled to keynote a tea party rally near Des Moines that day. And while she said during her last Iowa visit that she’s nearing a decision on a presidential run and doesn’t want to be “perceived as stringing people along,” she continues to milk her indecision for everything it’s worth. She reiterated to Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren at the close of a lengthy interview Thursday night that she’s still contemplating jumping in.

Another report in the Daily Caller states that according to Mark Levine; “I believe Sarah Palin will run for president.”

“Although conservative talker Mark Levin says he has no insider knowledge of Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential aspirations, he claimed at the top of his Thursday radio show he believes that the former Alaska Governor will be a candidate.

Palin has appeared as a guest on Levin’s show, which is a favorite of many Palin supporters.

“Look, I could be dead wrong,” Levin said. “I have no inside information. But I want to underscore what I’ve been saying, which is I believe Sarah Palin will run for president. Just want to put my marker down because others are starting to do it and I put it down quite some time ago.”

In still another article in National Review Online Robert Costa cites ample evidence that Palin is set to announce her candidacy:

“Political organizer Peter Singleton tells National Review Online that Sarah Palin will likely launch a presidential campaign by the end of September. “I believe that she will run,” he says. “I can’t see her sitting this election out.”

Palin, a former Alaska governor, is scheduled to address a tea-party rally on September 3 in south-central Iowa. Singleton is one of the forces behind the event, working with grassroots groups. “Labor Day will kick off the Republican campaign for the nomination,” he hints. “She is going to make a major, major speech.”

Since late last year, Singleton has crisscrossed the Hawkeye State, connecting a network of supporters at rubber-chicken dinners and Republican picnics. He has huddled with county GOP chairmen, spoken with a number of conservative state lawmakers, and assembled a close-knit team of pro-Palin activists.

All of Singleton’s efforts have been self-directed, with no official involvement from Palin’s political apparatus. Still, he says, “We have not been on a lark. But we are happy, delighted even, to have people think that.”

GOP presidential contenders, from Rick Perry to Mitt Romney, will be in for a shock when Palin makes her entry, he predicts. “When she gets in the race, I would not want to be the other candidates, who have shamelessly whispered to Iowa Republicans for months that she is not running,” he says. “There will probably be some defections.”

Singleton, a 57-year-old former software salesman, says he has already compiled an extensive e-mail list of Iowans ready to join her ranks. With the help of Michelle McCormick, his fellow Organize4Palin state coordinator, “we have laid the groundwork for her,” he says.

Costa continues:

“Singleton points to Palin’s June visit to Pella, Iowa, as an example of how she is ready to make a splash in the run-up to the first-in-the-nation caucuses. Palin spoke at the premiere of The Undefeated, a documentary about her gubernatorial record, then attended a barbeque with attendees in the sleepy Midwestern town. Singleton and McCormick helped the film’s creators reach out to Palin’s Iowa base, drawing a big and boisterous crowd to the downtown square.

Filmmaker Stephen Brannon, who directed The Undefeated, tells NRO that he is amazed at how popular Palin remains in Iowa. Her reception in Pella, he says, was indicative of how a campaign could be received. “There is something happening under the surface here,” he says. “It’s pretty powerful.” Since the premiere, Singleton and Bannon have organized screenings across the state, hoping to generate interest in the governor’s story and her message.

The unofficial, on-the-ground Palin movement in Iowa has been boosted by the governor’s visits to the state this summer. Palin caused another stir earlier this month when she appeared at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, greeting families and farmers as scores of reporters and television cameras trailed her. Following the visit, her political team released a video chronicling the spectacle. The clip, which Palin posted on her Facebook page, ends with a message to her Iowa supporters. “Thank you, Iowa!” it reads. “See you again September 3rd.”

In yet another piece in the Daily Caller Alec Jacobs writes:

“Palin is schedule to speak at a Tea Party of America-sponsored event in Iowa on September 3. The event was recently moved to a bigger location to host a larger crowd.

“This is her last chance. She either gets in or gets out. I think she gets in,” Rove said.

A late announcement “always raises questions about whether a candidate has the time to raise money, build an organization and meet voters face-to-face,” the Washington Examiner’s Byron York writes.

But Rove addressed that issue on Fox: “[Palin] thinks the normal rules don’t apply. If you’re Sarah Palin, you just show up and the money comes and the organization comes and the people come.”

York writes about a Fox News appearance in May where Rove said much the same thing. Asked if Palin was right that the rules don’t apply to her, Rove replied then: “Look, politics is changing. My sense is her people don’t think she needs to have county chairmen and organizations and go around and line up people. It’s just going to happen.”

As you can see from all of this chatter from the pundits and media Palin seems to be front and center in the media. There is no denying her ability to draw passionate support from her numerous followers and vicious fire from her detractors. Not since 1964 when Barry Goldwater was running against Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican nomination has the passion and vitriol been so pronounced. It appears that one either loves Palin or hates her, and the left certainly hates her.

In a poll on National Review Online 72% of the respondents said Palin should not run for the presidency. Keep in mind that probably most who those who responded to the poll were conservatives. What their reasons for voting no are unclear and no doubt range from disagreement with her ideology to thinking she cannot defeat Obama.

Dick Morris claims Palin cannot defeat Obama in 2012. He states:

“Three new candidates are slowly circling above the GOP presidential race.  Will they land or fly on by?  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former VP candidate Sarah Palin, and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan are in various stages of contemplating possible candidacies.

Start with Palin.  A good Iowa source tells me that she is preparing a massive event in his state on September 3rd, very possibly to announce her presidential candidacy.   It would be a huge mistake...but it would help the Republicans defeat Obama!

A mistake because she'd get slaughtered.  Michele Bachmann - more credentialed, accomplished, and informed - has breathed all the oxygen she'd need for her candidacy.  Before she could compete in the primaries, she would need to defeat Bachmann in the "woman's primary."  But the Congressman is vastly better equipped to discuss budget, deficit, foreign affairs, and virtually any other issue.  She has stirred the same kind of enthusiasm as the former Alaska Governor, but with much more substance behind it.  If she ran, it would end up trivializing her and showing feet of clay.”

During World War II Churchill and Stalin constantly urged Roosevelt to launch a cross-channel invasion to liberate Europe. Our military leaders resisted these pleas on grounds that we lacked the resources (especially landing craft), intelligence, and training. Our first attempt at an invasion was in North Africa where our Army suffered badly at Kasserine Pass. What we did, however, gain from that defeat was knowledge of the German Army and experienced NCOs who would begin training recruits in combat tactics. Our next venture into an invasion was Sicily, where we did much better due to better equipment and trained officers and NCOs.

In the meanwhile we were building an arsenal in England. An arsenal of planes, ships, supplies and trained soldiers. When we finally opened the Second Front with the Normandy Invasion our troops were ready. They had the training and resources to defeat the Nazi war machine.

I view Palin’s possible run for the presidency in the same manner. Palin had her North Africa during the 2008 presidential election. She knew little about the enemy (Obama) and her officer corps, especially the overall commander John McCain who was as inept as Major General Fredendall who Eisenhower replaced with George S. Patton. She has yet to have the success Patton had in Sicily.

So where is Palin’s analogous Sicily? I believe it is in Arizona where she should run for the Senate seat of the retiring John Kyl. As an Arizona resident she can make a run at Kyl’s seat and probably win it. McCain will have to support her and the Tea Party certainly will.

Once elected to the Senate she will have the time and experience in Washington D.C. to sharpen her political tactics, polish her message, and establish a national record. She will also begin building up her resources for the ultimate D-Day in 2016 if Obama wins and 2020 if the Republican wins.

Palin is still young (she is only 47-years old) and attractive. Her supporters will not go away. A senatorial campaign will allow her to modulate her voice, like Margaret Thatcher did, and stay in the national spotlight. No matter what her detractors on the east coast will have to say, it will be the people of Arizona who will make the choice. Once in the Senate she can sit on committees and introduce bills. She can speak with a conservative voice and satisfy the Tea Party.

I am a big fan of Sarah Palin and I do not want her to suffer a Kasserine Pass style defeat at the hands of enemies in the media and the pundits, both right and left. I think Rove is dead wrong when he says this is her last chance. While Rove may be a political expert and campaign strategist he is missing the point with Palin. If she runs and wins the senate seat in Arizona she will not only still have a chance, she will have a very good chance to win the presidency and serve the Republic.

The Hypocrisy of the Elites

“Many are destined to reason wrongly; others, not to reason at all; and others to persecute those who do reason.” — Voltaire

President Barack Obama promised to extricate the U.S. from foreign wars. Instead, he’s starting new ones. The silence of the anti-war left is deafening. Where they loudly opposed President George W. Bush’s wars, they support Obama; if not openly, then through their silence.

The elected elites love war at home, too. They are fomenting war among the American people, and it is breaking out. As surely as class warfare was behind the riots in Great Britain, it is on the cusp of erupting here.

The elites play classes off one another. They denounce the rich as the evil. They promote a lie, lumping into a group both hard-working and innovative entrepreneurs who made it by the sweat of their brow and the crony capitalists they created themselves, and then call them all rich.

They take an arbitrary figure, pulled out of thin air, and set it as the Rubicon. Cross it and somehow you were luckier than most, got a break someone else never got. Yachts and airplanes are demonized, while the elected elites vacation on yachts bought by others and are ferried about in private jets paid for by others.

Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal of the President’s island retreat:

“Mr. Obama shouldn't be faulted for wanting to rest, relax and spend whole days with his family. But the timing of this vacation is incongruent, and so is the location.

On the timing, there's an air of economic crisis hanging over everything, a sense that other shoes may drop. Actually it's a sense of something impending, with unemployment high, Europe broke and the Mideast reaching full boil. A politician who wanted to impart a sense of leadership in crisis, who passionately wanted to keep the presidency, and who was prudently anxious about his prospects, just might let such a moment change his plans.

As for the location, the president loves Martha's Vineyard, and there's a lot to love—beautiful beaches, hills, biking. But it's a little island whose summertime population is dominated by those who, due to their affluence, are essentially detached from everyday life in America. It's a playground of the liberal rich: hedge-fund maestros, network producers, Wall Street heavyweights, left-leaning activists. It's the kind of place that reverberates in the national imagination—that tags you as elitist no matter how many g's you drop.

Both parties have to deal with certain tropes, symbols and clichés. If you're a conservative president, you probably shouldn't spend your vacation at a house on the edge of an exclusive golf club that's had a history of problems admitting blacks, Jews, and the self-made sons of Dad's old half-Irish, half-Puerto Rican cook. If you're a liberal president, you probably shouldn't be on vacation at a place known for snooty liberal insularity.”

They accept “campaign contributions” from Wall Street, then, with a wink and nod, demonize Wall Street. Then, they print billions of dollars to prop up Wall Street; rewarding it for bringing down the economy. This keeps the contributions flowing and themselves in power.

They demonize Big Oil, Big Medicine, Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. Then, they enrich those industries with special subsidies and tax breaks and laws passed to their benefit. They are rewarded with more campaign cash and, when their time on Capitol Hill is done, cushy jobs lobbying their replacements.

Their policies destroy the middle class. They preach fairness and set themselves up as the arbiters of fairness. They create a parasite class with an entitlement mentality. Then they work to grow the parasite class to keep themselves in power by taking more and more from the wages of the middle class.

Tax freedom day this year fell on Aug. 12. That’s how long it now takes for the middle class worker to fulfill his “obligation” to the leviathan. The Ponzi scheme that is our fiat money system is insatiable. It inflates away the savings and investments of Main Street America.

While the middle class struggles, the entitlement class grows. High unemployment (almost 14 million are unemployed), directly caused by government policies, pushes more people out of the middle class and into the parasite class. One in five American children now lives in poverty, according to a report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

But the parasites live well off the producers. They get “free” housing, “free” food, “free” cable television, “free” cell phones. Their kids eat “free” at school. These “entitlements,” along with ever-extended long-term unemployment benefits, become so attractive that the incentive to work is suppressed.

The workers look with disdain on the parasites. The parasites look with envy on the workers, wanting not their jobs but what they have. Recent riots in Great Britain demonstrate what happens when the parasites decide they want more.

Meanwhile, even the working class is at war with one another. This is encouraged by the elites, but the current Administration has doubled down. Just one example is the case of Boeing’s decision to build an airplane in right-to-work South Carolina. Obama’s National Labor Relations Board sued.

The thugocracy of the Labor Unions terrorize non-union workers and companies large and small. In Toledo, Ohio last week, a man investigating after he noticed his security light had come on was greeted by a gunshot to the arm. On the side of his truck the word “scab” was scrawled. The man owns the largest non-union electrical company in his area.

Also last week, Verizon, which is in contract negotiations with the Communication Workers of America, reported that cable lines had been destroyed and equipment stolen in a number of States. Striking workers are the chief suspects.

According to news reports, union members in New York were encouraged to deal harshly with “managers and scabs.”

A phone hotline set up for union members said it was open season and told them to torture management and scabs with noise and chants.

In New Jersey, a judge had to issue an injunction against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which is also on strike against Verizon. The injunction prohibited, “Dropping, spreading, throwing, placing or otherwise causing nails, glass, cinder block, spikes, feces clubs, rocks, screws, or puncture devices of any kind, or other object or debris to be thrown or strewn in, on, or about Verizon’s driveways, parking lots, entrances, exits, vehicles and adjoining roads to any of Verizon’s property or any work site.”

Internal emails promote violence against management and workers crossing picket lines, suggesting first the use of tire irons and then a reminder that a strike is underway.

Isolated incidents? Hardly, but the mainstream media ignore them, preferring instead to parrot the elite’s lies and distortions of Tea Party members as terrorists, implying guilt by association even though there is no association. The MSM shrugs its collective shoulders as Vice President Joe Biden calls members of Congress terrorists for trying to hold fast to Tea Party ideals.

The MSM tries to link every act of violence to the Tea Party. Jared Loughner and Anders Breivik right wing? Those were lies. Doublespeak.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters had strong words for the Tea Party Saturday, saying they could go “straight to hell” for impeding job growth.

Speaking at a forum in her California district, Waters vowed to push Congress to create more jobs, the Los Angeles Times reported.

“I’m not afraid of anybody,” Waters told the crowd. “This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. As far as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell. You can watch the video of Water’s comments by clicking here.

It was interesting to watch he comments from her supporters. One woman made a comment that I thought was indicative of many on the left when she said she wanted to know what the country could do for her. What happened to the famous Kennedy phrase; “ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for the country.” I guess the liberalism of John Kennedy is dead in the Democratic Party.

Tea Party members, at least those who gathered in 2009 and much of 2010 before the Republican Party began to co-opt the movement, are blue collar and white collar, owners of small businesses, retirees, former military, salt-of-the-earth people from all political spectrums. And while they indicated they are fed up with the status quo, Tea Party rallies were peaceful and orderly gatherings: Americans engaging in their right to petition government.

The Demagogue Media are now making it a moral crime to be a Republican or join the Tea Party. The vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, has called the Moms and Pops of the Tea Party "terrorists." Which tells you all you need to know about Veep Joe. John Kerry has denounced sinister Tea Partiers who might not want to be tax slaves for the Democrat Machine. When the whole chorus speaks with one voice, you know the White House is pulling the strings. Little baby Trig Palin is a open target for these hypocites. They cannot handle dissent. They are One-Party apparatchiks. As for Obama, he's always been a One-Party guy — his.

The yes-men of the media won't tell you about the Democrat Machine. All the JourNOlists coordinate their daily Hallelujah Chorus for Comrade Stalin and Da Mare. They all march in lockstep for Barry da Boss in his sinister black bus.

In a One-Party system, Pravda and Isztvestiya sing from the same hymn sheet, like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Your schoolteachers won't tell you the truth because they are afraid. In Stalin's time scientists had to follow the Party Line about phony genetics and education. Today they kowtow to Nobel Prize-winner Al Gore who just threw a majestic public tantrum because too many people are deviating from the Global Warming Line. He can't understand it. Hasn't he told us The Truth over and over again?

But it's not just Stalin and Al Gore. George Orwell satirized the BBC as The Ministry of Truth — meaning Lies. Listen to the BBC today and you can hear the Islamo-leftist line. According to the BBC, Karl Marx is "the most admired philosopher" in Britain today — but the BBC could switch to the Prophet Mohammed any day. That's all you need to know about Europe, where dissidents like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are persecuted for telling the truth.

George Bernard Shaw wrote that "Englishmen never shall be slaves; they are free to do whatever Government and public opinion allow them to do." But in Europe, Government and public opinion are one and the same. People censor themselves and talk in whispers. They rehearse media lies, and squeal on each other as "racists." Dissenters are denounced, ruined, isolated, fired.

Meanwhile, the Other Political Party is trashed and scapegoated 24/7, relentlessly, indecently, without mercy. Chris Matthews runs his own Vatican Inquisition at MSNBC, a self-appointed Holy Crusader Knight against deviant thought. Republican RINOs are coopted for a piece of the pie.

Behold, America in 2011. We have virtually a one party system comprised of the elites, the mainstream media, and academia — it’s called the Democratic Party. Any deviation from the party line is unacceptable and those who do so will be demonized and punished. This also applies to elite Republicans who would rather be accepted by the Democrats than stand with integrity.

This is not what the American Founders had in mind.

The Founders were a great debating society. They knew about One-Party Machines, because the Old World was rife with them.

One-Party Machines are the oldest trick pony on record. They are not new or "progressive." They are ancient, and go back to the mob killings of chimp clans. Chimps will surround, taunt, mob, and kill wounded clan members when they look wounded and weak. In a mob atmosphere human beings turn into chimps.

One-Party Machines are the norm in human history. If you read the Book of Kings you see one after the next. Saddam Hussein and Bashir Assad ran them for decades.

Multiple-Party governments are a historical novelty. The Founders wrote the Constitution to secure free speech and free debate. But they were realists. They understood that it took moral courage for free citizens to speak out. That is why Ben Franklin said, walking out of the Constitutional Convention on the last day, "A Republic --- if you can keep it."

The coming election will show if America can become a Republic again. Right now the Founders would be horrified to look at us, just as they would have been horrified by the Dixiecrats and the Carpetbaggers. You will know the outcome when free speech comes out looking robust and healthy. Maybe, maybe -- even in our schools and universities.

Bad Behavior Begets More Bad Behavior

Behavior is the mirror in which everyone shows their image. — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Several years while on a cruise I had a conversation with couple from Great Britain. They were decrying he violence and hooliganism prevalent at European soccer games and how it was impossible to take a family, especially with young children, to one of these games. They said the combination of “low class” fans, alcohol, and lack of proper security made the games off limits for the average family. They also said that this combination along with the out of control passion displayed by supporters of one team over the other was the cause of onging verbal assaults leading to fights.

The went on to say that they had watch games of American football on television and though he game was much more exciting and the fans seemed more friendly and well behaved.

When the NFL had their minor league teams in Europe according to an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the leading papers in Germany, comparing the crowds attending the NFL style football as opposed to soccer games the writer claimed the crowds were more “upscale” and well behaved. Even the Frankfurt chief of police said he needed about half the security at he NFL games than the soccer games.

That was several years ago, but things have taken a turn for the worse in the United States. Football and baseball games are becoming unfriendly events for families. The crowds are becoming more hostile and he fans more aggressive to fans of the opposing teams. The language you will hear spouted around you as you sit in you $75 or $100 dollar seat will make sailor blush and there is a constant display of bad behavior and fights in the stands. In fact these fights draw more attention than the plays on the field.

Over the weekend there were fights and shootings at Candlestick Park, in San Francisco during a game between the San Francisco 49ers and their arch rivals the Oakland Raiders. While the Oakland Raiders have always had a reputation of bad unruly fan behavior it reached a new height on Saturday night when two fans were gunned down in the parking lot for wearing the jersey of the wrong team. ESPN reported:

“A man wearing a shirt slamming the San Francisco 49ers was seriously wounded as gunfire erupted in the parking lot after the team's NFL preseason game, while another man sustained lesser injuries in an earlier shooting, police said.

The violence occurred after the 49ers' 17-3 victory Saturday night over the Oakland Raiders at Candlestick Park, police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said.

A 24-year-old man was treated at San Francisco General Hospital for life-threatening injuries, and a 20-year-old man was hospitalized with less serious wounds, Andraychack told The Associated Press.:

Their names were not released.

The violence comes months after a San Francisco Giants fan was severely beaten by two men in Los Angeles Dodgers gear outside Dodger Stadium after the teams' season opener March 31. Two suspects have been charged in the case.

Police Sgt. Frank Harrell said that in Saturday's attack the 24-year-old man, who was wearing a T-shirt referring to the 49ers with an obscenity, was shot two to four times in the stomach, according to reports in the Oakland Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle. He drove his truck to a gate and stumbled to security, Harrell said.

The other man was shot before that in the parking lot and had superficial face injuries, Harrell said.

"We are treating it as separate shootings, but we believe they are related," Harrell told reporters outside the stadium.

Harrell said police took a man in a Raiders jersey off a party bus before it left the stadium and were calling him a suspect.

The suspect and the two victims had all attended the game, Harrell told the newspapers.

The 49ers issued a statement acknowledging the shootings and the investigation, but offering no further details.

In violence during the game, the Oakland Tribune reported that a 26-year-old San Rafael man was assaulted and knocked unconscious in a men's restroom. Police said he was hospitalized and a suspect was arrested. There was no immediate indication that it was connected to the postgame shootings.”

In another report on Fox News this morning a horrific brawl broke out in the stands at the same game. Click here to watch the video, it will tell you much more than I can. There were other numerous fights throughout the stadium.

What is amazing, when watching the video, is to see the fans urging the brawlers on and other fans taking video so they can post it to YouTube. The looks on the faces of the fans urging the fighters on is downright scary and the security guard seemed totally overpowered by the brawlers.

Consider if you had taken your wife and child to the game and laid out from $100 to $250 dollars for the three tickets and then had to have your well being threatened by being exposed to this behavior.

I recall when I could afford to go to the games and had games I could go to (I lost my team to St. Louis years ago) it was fun. You booed the opposing team amd the officials when they made a call you did not agree with. You even booed your own team when you thought they were playing badly. People would talk with each other and critique he play on the field. Now you have to watch who you root on for fear getting punched in the face by some irate fan.

What drives this bad behavior? In my view it’s an extension of the overall bad behavior in our general society. We have flash mobs running through the streets breaking windows and beating on people. We have riots after a team wins a championship game, riots that end in looting and vandalism that is more like the invading Huns than a civilized society.

We also have bad behavior by mobs protesting political events like the recent bad behavior by the union mobs in Wisconsin protesting Governor Scott Walker’s legislation to curtail collective bargaining and pension contributions by union thugs, college students and teachers. The recent strike by unionized Verizon working on the east coast also showed union thugs exhibiting the same bad behavior. It seems that this bad behavior always come from the left.

You can see example after example in the left-wing blogs and publications like the Daily Kos where invectives like “racist”, “moron”, and “fascists” are thrown around like so many snowballs in a snowball fight. It is not only the invectives but the foul and obscene language they use in the comment sections. They seem incapable of expressing themselves in a cogent manner without using ad hominines and four letter words that sailors would not use in mixed company, yet they feel totally at ease with. Just look at his latest example in the Daily Kos’ week in review: Obama vs. Moronic, Racist, Violent Anita Bryant Fans as reported by News Busters:

“Even Kossacks who've been hugely disappointed in President Obama are starting to realize that for them, he's clearly preferable to anyone the Republicans might nominate. For that reason, they've dialed back their criticism of Obama for falling short of the progressive ideal on issues from health care to the deficit in favor of blasts at their enemies on the right.

As usual, each headline is preceded by the blogger's name or pseudonym.”

Is it any wonder people feel empowered to behave badly when they cannot type a simple sentence to deliver their opinion without resorting to bad language and insults. This is what the left has learned over the years. Facts don’t matter, screaming and invectives will do.

They are so blinded by hatred for everyone who disagrees with them, so cocksure of their moral superiority and their towering intelligence that they can only attack with unhinged verbal vengeance like those fans at the football game. If they weren't somewhat frightening, they'd almost be funny.

Look at what happened in the United Kingdom last week. Crowds ran rampage through the streets of London, Birmingham, and Manchester looting, burning and smashing everything in sight.

We accept this behavior today and give it excuses like, they are poor, they are underprivileged, and they are just expressing their frustrations with society. When the ones doing the rioting and looting are arrested, which is all to rare, they go to court all decked out in suits and ties and their attorneys play on the sympathies of the judges and juries begging them not to ruin this young person’s or family man’s life by convicting him of a felony and sentencing him to jail. Most of these offenders get off with a slap on the wrist suffering much less consequences than their victims.

It’s time for society and our judicial system to begin cracking down on these hooligans and their anti-social behavior. No excuses, no exceptions.

Another Example of Tyranny from the Left

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I have written ad nausea about the fact that tyranny has always began from the left, not the right. It has always been the progressive liberals that have wanted to impose their will on the people. Another example of this is illustrated by a recent example what has happened to school teacher in Florida.

Lake County Schools in Florida suspended Jerry Buell, a high-school teacher with a reportedly impeccable record for 22 years, for posting his opposition to New York’s new gay-marriage law, and will start termination proceedings against him. The case will test First Amendment rights and encroaching political correctness:

“Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.

“We took the allegations seriously,” said Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools. “All teachers are bound by a code of special ethics (and) this is a code ethics violation investigation.”

Patton said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.”

So what did Buell write on his Facebook page that was so offensive to the political correct tyranny of the left? His first comment was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news:

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment:

“By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

The school district suspended Buell, who had been the school’s Teacher of the Year in 2010-11, because thelley are concerned that gay students might be “frightened or intimidated” in his class. That’s a pretty thin rationale for punishing someone over what appears to be more or less mainstream opposition to the gay-marriage law. Even saying the above in a classroom would be a thin rationale for disciplinary action, unless school districts will be taking action against all teachers who talk politics in the classroom, and a Facebook posting is not a classroom speech.

If school districts are worried about hate speech outside the classroom, wouldn’t we be demanding that these Wisconsin teachers get fired?

Wonder how many of these were talking about the Wisconsin PEU reform in their classrooms? A few of them brought their students out to protest, as I recall. Should they be suspended and fired, too? Isn’t this “intimidating and frightening” to conservative-minded students in Wisconsin?

A recurring theme here is how The Left redefines what they want when they want to advance their extremist agenda. How else can it sell policies in contravention to the commonsense, traditional, natural and foundational — a way of life counter to all that is intuitive and instinctive? More than that, it will take opponents’ statements or positions, as straightforward as they may be, and literally (ironically) repurpose the statement or position into something utterly not what it is. If a conservative says he’s for a balanced budget without raising taxes, leftists will excoriate him for saying he favors starving the poor, and no amount of facts will set the record straight in the Left’s collective mind. To the Left, its what it wants you to have said so it can demagogue you.

Teachers are American citizens with same rights as every other American citizen. They get to have opinions and express them publicly. The school can and should control classroom conduct, and should butt out of other speech entirely. And here’s a lesson about free speech and the Constitution that Lake County Schools apparently hasn’t grasped: there is no freedom from offense built into the First Amendment. We don’t curtail speech on the off chance it might hurt someone’s feelings. If we did, we wouldn’t have any free political speech at all. And I would make the same argument in support of a teacher suspended from a public school for offering Facebook support for New York’s gay-marriage bill.

In steps the school district’s communications officer, Chris Patton is way off base. Not only was what Mr. Buell wrote “disturbing” (his opinion is disturbing but two men kissing on television is not?), but none of what he wrote is “personal.” According to the Minister of Information Mr. Patton:

“He has (more than) 700 friends. How private is that — really? Social media can be troubling if you don’t respect it and know that just because you think you are in a private realm — it’s not private.”

First, it was his personal opinion. Of course, once he wrote it, it was no longer something he held to himself. All opinions are personal and we know each other’s’ personal opinions because we tell each other! If it was private he’d never have announced it. Facebook is a place where you choose your friends and share what you want. Is Mr. Buell’s time on the social media giant relegated to clicking “likes’ on sports contests and posting updates on the lines at the grocery store?

Second, one’s personal Facebook account is not a school district maintained site. That might be different given whatever rules it might establish. Third, do Lake County employees forsake their rights to have opinions? Especially given his occupation — academic freedom anyone? The same Left defends to the death professors who demagogue outrageous and preposterous assertions and promulgate the most offensive theories on faith and country.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

I wonder if Mr. Buell would have received a similar punishment had he posted comments expressing his disapproval of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or Governor Scott Walker’s actions in Wisconsin opposing collective bargaining for public school teachers. The answer is probably no. The left is selective when it comes to free speech, it always has been. Its mantra is free speech for me but not for thee.

Just look what public figures and politicians have had to say about the Tea Party with Senator John Kerry advocating censorship of Tea Party opinions in the media when he said:

“And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely, the media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”

And:

“It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t.”

I wonder if that bastion of liberty, the ACLU, will take Mr. Buell’s case and bring a whopping suit against the Lake County School District. And what about that special code of ethics Mr. Patton is referring to? What are those ethics? Do the prohibit dragging middle school children out of class to protest an anti-collective bargaining bill or to a rally for liberal politician? Do they include union teachers openly protesting Arizona’s immigration bill? Do they include teachers going to a NEA convention and openly protesting conservatives and holding rallies in support of Gay marriage, illegal immigration, and other left-wing causes?

These are rhetorical questions and the answer to each one is probably no. Mr. Patton is espousing a very thin reason for the dismissal of Mr. Buell. I would imagine the attorneys for the Lake County School Board are not very pleased with the actions of who ever made the decision to suspend Mr. Buell over hos Facebook comments. They no doubt are trying to figure out how they will be paying Mr. Buell the compensation he will receive from his suit and how the will wipe the egg of the faces of the school board members.

Liberal Plantations

“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.” — Thomas Sowell

Walter Williams, a conservative black professor of economics at George Mason University writes a blog at least once a week. He also contributes to many conservative publications such as National Review, Human Events, and American Spectator along with the Wall Street Journal. In a May 18, 2011 blog he wrote something that sounds a great deal like the writings of Frederick Bastiat:

“The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.

Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.

The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.

Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me 2 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."

That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.

Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."

Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?

Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.

If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft (or as Bastiat calls it plunder), namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.”

In his latest book “Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?” Williams exposes the liberal myth that racism is the cause of today’s plight of the African American in the inner city. Williams applies an economic analysis to the problems black Americans have faced in the past and still face in the present to show that that free-market resource allocation, as opposed to political allocation, is in the best interests of minorities. Contrasting the features of market resource allocation with those of the political arena, he explains how, in the political arena, minorities cannot realize a particular preference unless they win the will of the majority. In the market, he shows, there is a sort of parity (nonexistent in the political arena) in which one person's dollar has the same power as the next person's.

The black experience in America naturally gives rise to thinking of today’s black experience in terms of racism and oppression. But the most difficult problems black Americans face, particularly those who are poor, cannot adequately be explained by current racial discrimination. In Race and Economics, Walter Williams argues that many problems are a result of policies, regulations, and restrictions emanating from federal, state, and local governments. It is not free markets and the profit motive that have reduced opportunities, the author asserts; instead, it is the power of vested interest groups, as a means to greater wealth, to use the coercive powers of government to stifle market competition. In essence this is the new plantation devised and overseen by the liberals and their minions in he media. In other words we (the liberals and government) will take care of them, warehouse them in a kinder, gentler gulag as long as they continue to support us with their votes and voices.

Williams debunks many common labor market myths and reveals how the minimum-wage law has imposed incalculable harm on the most disadvantaged members of our society. He explains that the real problem is people are not so much underpaid as under skilled and that the real task is to help unskilled people become skilled. The author also reveals how licensing and regulation reduce economic opportunities for people, especially those who might be described as discriminated against and having little political clout. Using the example of the trucking industry before and after deregulation, he illustrates how government regulation closes entry and reinforces economic handicaps, whereas deregulation not only has helped minorities enter an industry in greater numbers, but also has benefited consumers.

People will not engage in activities, including racial discrimination, says Williams, if the cost is too high. In markets, because transactions are mostly an individual affair, it is unnecessary to win the approval or permission of others; the costs and benefits are a private matter. But in the political arena, each citizen has only one vote, meaning that, unlike the free market, a minority cannot register the intensity of his preference. Further, increased concentration of political power at the national level handicaps minorities in the sense that their votes become

Many people see racism as a problem that exists in the private sector, that can be solved by officials in the public sector. Walter Williams turns this popular view of racism on its head. Public policies often put minorities at a disadvantage. Racists often find it easier to discriminate through public policy than through private enterprise. Williams is extending the cost-driven theoretical arguments of Gary Becker on the economics of discrimination. He uses many interesting examples to support the idea that government intervention serves as the primary means of discrimination: minimum wage laws, licensing, and other restrictions on otherwise free markets. These are controversial propositions that will offend some readers. Hopefully most people will read it critically and in so doing benefit from its well-reasoned and supported arguments. You can read a preview of Williams’ book by clicking here and be sure to read pages 17 and 18 where he talks about the difference between material and moral poverty.

Several days ago Rep. Allen West said he believes that the Democratic Party is akin to a modern-day “plantation.” In an interview on Wednesday night’s “O’Reilly Factor,” he told guest host Laura Ingraham that he is the “modern-day Harriet Tubman“ and that he wants to lead fellow African Americans away from the ”21st century plantation.”

West made extremely bold statements throughout the interview, apparently undeterred by any negative response he might receive from the Democratic Party or from fellow African Americans. Commenting on anger that was seen at a Congressional Black Caucus (of which West is the only GOP member) town hall meeting in Detroit this week, he said:

“The people on that plantation are upset because they’ve been disregarded, disrespected and their concerns are not cared about…I’m here as the modern-day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the underground railroad away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.”

West went on to dismiss some African American leaders as “nothing more than overseers over that plantation” and he stated his belief that white liberals have relied upon people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to support Democratic policies. These individuals, he claims, have failed to addresses important matters. West also discussed recent flash mobs (as per the Huffington Post):

“The freshman Republican said the fact that black leaders have done nothing in response to the recent spate of flash mobs in U.S. cities is proof of their disconnect from the black community. This summer has been marked by flash mobs in several cities, including Philadelphia and Cleveland, and are thought to be fueled by growing discontent among unemployed urban youth.”

He also went on to say that Republicans have not done well drawing black voters into the conservative movement. That said, he explained that there is an opportunity for conservatives to reach African Americans by connecting with them on the issues of “individual responsibility and accountability, faith and family, and the hard work ethic.”

A few days later Laura Ingraham interviewed one on the plantation overseers, Rep. Charles Wrangle on New York, also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and constant race baiter. Wrangle began to disparage West’s remarks until Ms. Ingraham began to challenge him. I was then retreated to his old race baiting spin zone and his rebuttal total collapsed. Click here to watch the video on Fox News. It’s well worth nine minutes of your time.

On Thursday Rep. Maxine Waters, another one of the plantation overseers, exploded with an attack on Obama for not paying more attention to the African American plantations. Waters renewed her assault on President Barack Obama on Thursday, a day after admitting that black Democrats in Congress don’t criticize him because they fear a backlash from constituents.

In a swipe at Obama’s bus tour through small-town Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois, she said, “He went to rural communities and he went with a plan…to invest money in those rural communities in order to develop jobs.

“We want the rural poor to be attended to,” Waters said in an interview on CNN. “But we also want the urban poor to be attended to.”

In a separate interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, she picked up a copy of the Wall Street Journal. “Take a look at this headline,” she said, “‘Obama aims to keep white voters on board.’ Well we want to be on board, too.”

The California Democrat’s comments are the first sign of a rift between Obama and his most steadfast supporters, and were quickly picked up by radio host Rush Limbaugh who called Obama’s Mid-West trip the “white-like-me tour.”

“Obama does not seem to want to hang around with them,” Limbaugh said, referring to African Americans. “Obama does not seem to want to do anything for them.

“Maxine, listen to me,” Limbaugh said. “He’s ignoring you because he knows he’s got you. Why spend any money or time with the cow when you already get the milk for free?”

The Democrat hit the airwaves a day after asking black voters in Detroit to “unleash” her and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) so they could feel free to attack Obama’s policies.

Calling it “the reality of politics,” the California congresswoman said, “If we go after the president, you’re going after us.”

“We don’t put pressure on the president because you all love the president. You are very proud to have a black man, first time in the history of the United States of America.

“When you tell us it’s all right and you unleash us and you tell us you are

“We don’t know what the strategy is,” Waters continued. “We don’t know why, on this trip that he’s on in the United States, he’s not in the black community.”

Waters said she and other black Democrats in Congress “love” Obama, but added “We’re getting tired.”

She added, “We want to give the president every opportunity to show what he can do or what he’s prepared to lead on… but our people are hurting.”

On Thursday, Waters contrasted the African American unemployment rate of 15.9 percent – which she said was the highest since the Great Depression – with the overall rate for the country of 9.1 percent. “It’s unconscionable,” she said.

And she said Obama should be using his bully pulpit to call in bank leaders and telling them, “We bailed you out, now you have got to put money back

Last night Sean Hannity had Niger Ennis of the Congress on Racial Equality and Jehmu Greene, a Democratic strategist in a head to head dust up on this issue of the new plantation. Green, the typical Black liberal tried to defend the plantation while Ennis, a conservative Black, supported West’ comments. Click here to watch the video.

Obama, the grand master of the plantation is off on a vacation to Martha’s Vineyard where he will stay in his $56,000 per week ocean-view home and hob nob with the rich and famous, all wealthy liberals and supporters of the plantation system. To him, as Rush Limbaugh told Maxine Waters, why buy the cow when you get the milk free. Neither Obama, nor any other liberal can do a damn thing for the Black community. They have been trying for years by dumping trillions of dollars into the plantation system and the results keep getting worse. Wasn’t it the icon of the liberals, John F. Kennedy who said; “A rising tide lifts all boats?” As Walter Williams said you cannot help the Black community without helping all communities. After all it is the rich who create the jobs, not the poor.

Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia gave a stirring address the other day at a local Baptist Church where he laid it on the people of the Black community for the moral poverty.

Unless the Black leaders like Mayor Nutter, Allan West, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Niger Ennis can convince the occupants of the liberal plantation having babies out of wedlock, lack of education to develop skills, personal appearance, development of a work ethic, learning to speak properly, and showing respect for all of society the liberal plantation system will prevail.