Thursday, June 30, 2011

Obama's New Symbol of Class Warfare

by: Le Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatsm
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Obama taking class warfare to the next level.

Human Events
Before my colleagues in the White House Press Corps and I were escorted to the East Room for President Obama's news conference today, our conversation focused almost exclusively on just what he might say that was newsworthy at his first solo session with reporters in three months. Would Obama put something on the table he could negotiate with House Republicans over in return for their vote to lift the debt ceiling in August? Would he address the stormy situation in Greece and the possibility that Athens would default on its International Monetary Fund bailout package (which U.S. tax dollars helped underwrite)? Or would he take the opportunity to change his position and support gay marriage, as was widely rumored this morning?

The President did insist his support of action in Libya did not violate the War Powers Resolution, repeated his now-familiar warning about what a failure to lift the debt ceiling would mean, and told the Wall Street Journal about his position on gay marriage: "I'll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one. That won't be today!"

But if there was any news that came out of today's televised conclave, it was that, with the 2012 campaign season upon him, Obama is ratcheting up the rhetoric of class warfare. In so doing, he once again made it clear he wants to lift the tax cuts on America's highest wage earners that he backed down from last December.

And, in what was probably the most-talked-about remark to come out of the East Room today, the President invoked what is sure to be a catchphrase for him and fellow Democrats to describe those he hopes to make pay higher taxes: "corporate jet owners. {Continue Reading}

The President is becoming desperate, it is showing, and the American people are seeing the man has no effective plan.

Other than Class Warfare.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memorandum

The Lost Administration

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


From the inbox at Rational Nation USA. Via a regular reader of RN USA.
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican.

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be an Obama-Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are --- or where you are going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem.

You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

Priceless, absolutely priceless!

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

United Nations Names North Korea Chair of Conference on Disarmament.

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Once again the United Nations is proving itself irrelevant and useless. At the very least the body has proved yet once again, by naming North Korea chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament that  it is a total joke.

The Weekly Standard
On Tuesday, the United Nations again made itself an international laughing stock – except perhaps to the American taxpayers who continue to foot 22 percent of the bill – by appointing North Korea chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. That would be the same North Korea that, according to an article this week by Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has “twice tested nuclear weapons…is developing missiles to carry them…has built facilities capable of producing highly enriched uranium for more nuclear weapons” and has defied a U.N. arms embargo by exporting weapons and sensitive technologies to rogue regimes.

Alas, Senator Kerry is also one of the lead champion of the United Nations in the Senate. According to the U.N., "The Conference is funded from the UN regular budget, reports to the General Assembly and receives guidance from it."

North Korea assumes the Conference chairmanship by being the next state in the alphabetical rotation of the 65 members, which include five nuclear weapons states and 60 other countries such as Iran and Syria. North Korea will preside over the Conference for a four working-week period.

North Korea’s representative, So Se Pyong, was enthusiastic about his new job. He announced that he was “very much committed to the Conference” and that during his presidency he “welcomes any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the Conference on Disarmament.” He also said that “he would do everything in his capacity to move the Conference on Disarmament forward.”

That might make sense, if by “forward” he means toward a nuclear winter, or by “constructive,” he means steering clear of anything that might impede North Korea. The official mandate of the Conference looks a bit different and includes “all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems” with the following “main areas of interest”: “cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.”

North Korea’s chairmanship was heralded by other U.N. aficionados, including the Iranian delegate to the Conference. {Continue Reading}

Isn't it time the U.S.A. pulls the plug on the charade and put the taxpayer's money to better use?

More at Legal Insurrection

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memorandum

Is President Obama For Real?

by; Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tryanny


I can't figure out if Obama really takes his job as the President of the United States seriously or whether he thinks being the Top Dem Comedian is the most urgent of his priorities.

Maybe he thinks presenting the image of the "cool" President who steadfastly fuels class warfare and then gallantly fights the good fight on behalf of the downtrodden will save his political neck... Thus returning him to Washington for another disastrous 4 year stint as CEO of the ever growing Leviathan.

The following snippet from NationalJounal sums it up.
If President Obama's news conference accomplished anything on Wednesday afternoon, it underscored, in striking tones, his strategy for winning the debt ceiling fight with Republicans: Make it a clash of classes.
  • Rich versus Poor.
  • Us versus Them.
  • Those who support children, food safety, medical research and, presumably, puppies and apple pie versus the rich fat cats who don't.
In Obama's world, Democrats are for kids and Republicans are for corporate jets...

Without a doubt the President is disingenuously playing the class warfare card. Reasonable people will see through it for what it is.

In either case it is reasonable to question the man's seriousness and commitment to safeguarding America's capitalist values. The very ones that have heretofore been responsible for making this the greatest, most productive, influential, and prosperous nation in the world.

Video clip from Obama's news conference Wednesday


The requests by the opposing leadership in Washington to make cuts in the budget prior to raising the debt ceiling, or increasing taxes is reasonable, it is common sense, and it is time those in Washington {speaking of the progressives here} to show the real leadership it will take to right our sinking ship. The very sinking ship Obama administration tries so hard not to accept any responsibility for.

More at The Lonely Conservative.

Via: Memorandum

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Ex Prez Bill Clinton... The Stimulus Just Wasn't Big Enough


by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Politico - Former President Bill Clinton said he likes the economic stimulus - it just wasn’t big enough.

“I think the stimulus did as well as it could have done — there just wasn’t enough of it,” Clinton told reporters on Tuesday.

President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill, signed into law in 2009, has since being a rallying point of contention for Republicans and conservative tea party activists.

Clinton has made his support for the stimulus package clear in the past, telling Fox News in 2009: “I think the stimulus package is well conceived. A lot of it puts money in people’s hands, with the unemployment benefits and the food stamps and the tax cuts. A lot of it keeps the states and local governments from laying off a million more people or having big tax increases with the aid to education and health. And then I think the energy and the infrastructure investments will create the jobs the president wants. So I like the conception of that.

Hm, likely is considered common sense to the progressive statist. You know, the kind that want government to continue growing in scope and size until it destroys the private sector.

Via: Memeorandum

The Innocence and Truth of Youth

by:Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Consevatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Been on vacation in VT. with our 2 year and 8 month old grandson. Not only has it been a shear pleasure and joy it as also confirmed {at least in my mind} that children, even very small ones are more intelligent than their elders.

They are more intelligent because they are more acutely aware of their surroundings and a whole lot more inquisitive. By this Grandma and Grandpa mean honest inquisitiveness, without the preselected BS that most of the adult population have allowed themselves to be saddled with.

This post is not intended to be political so please don't respond as if it were. It is intended to point out the innocence, inquisitiveness, open mindedness, open acceptance, non judgmental, and naturally accepting nature of our youth. And I guess to brag a bit about our grandson Travis as well.

As Grandma and I enjoyed all of the above mentioned attributes in Travis we could not help but feel apprehension about his future, as well as that of our newly arrived granddaughter Olivia. Because we love them both so very much we can only hope that our country figures out the mess it has gotten itself into.

But that my dear readers is for another day...

And now, back to vacation.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Patriotism is Not Misguided! Hoo-Rah!


By: Pamela D. Hart

While perusing the blogosphere I came across a comment that read, “The truly sad thing is there are two reasons kids join the military: The first and likely most prominent is to escape poverty and horrendous living conditions at home, second, to satisfy some misguided sense of duty/patriotism that's handed down from one generation to the next.” Now, I haven’t been one to write a blog post about another blogger’s comment, but today I’m compelled to make an exception. Please keep in mind that it does NOT matter WHO wrote this comment so I will NOT divulge that information and I will NOT permit anyone who is familiar with it to inflict any negative or inflammatory rhetoric against this person in the comment section. I’m steadfast in our right to speak freely and believe we can all disagree with dignity thus, I wholeheartedly, but politely have to disagree with these statements and I’ll tell you why.

As many of you know MY oldest son joined the Army last July, consequently he took the oath to protect and defend OUR Constitution. During this last year, it also being his senior year of high school, he performed “drills” once a month. He graduated from high school, with honors, on June 10th and as of this writing is sitting in the Atlanta airport waiting for a bus to take him to Fort Benning, Georgia where he will undergo 15 weeks of Basic Combat and Advanced Individual training. Needless to say, I’m a bit emotional and that comment struck a chord with me.

My son did NOT join the Army to escape poverty and horrendous living conditions at home. There is nothing that could be further from the truth, but I don’t have to defend my parenting or my finances to anyone, because my husband and I did a damn good job (not that we were perfect) raising him. That was our JOB! We made it our MISSION! (There are way too many parents today who do NOT do that, to the demise of their children and it breaks my heart.) I also know a lot of other young men, NOT in my family, who have joined the military, and their reasons weren’t to escape poverty or horrendous living conditions at home, either, so this blanket statement, in my opinion, was said out of ignorance.

As far as my son joining the Army to satisfy some misguided sense of duty/patriotism that was handed down from one generation to the next. While I have never hidden the fact that I have military members in my family tree and possess VERY patriotic emotions toward MY country, I do NOT believe that is in any way misguided. I also logically know that my son is NOT misguided. I brought him into the world, loved, nurtured, guided and helped him evolve into the courageous, respectful, proud young man that he IS today. He knows his heart, his mind and his dreams and he is a warrior. Like his Uncle Tim, the cop who wants to get the bad guys to keep people safe, my son wants to defend OUR country to keep US safe! THAT is NOT misguided.

There are way too many people in our country who have no sense of right or wrong let alone a sense of patriotism. They get up every morning, put on whatever article of clothing they want, drive the car they want, go to the job they want and do what they want to entertain themselves (okay, within the confines of the laws and their pocketbooks!), but they don’t give one thought to the men and women who have died to give them those freedoms. Who’s misguided?

Have we been in wars that were senseless? Yes. But that’s not our soldiers’ fault. That’s the fault of the brain trusts on Capitol Hill. Our military does, without question, what it’s told to do. The misguided ones are those sitting behind desks playing games with the blood and lives of our soldiers.

MY son is a brave young man who is willing to lay HIS life on the line so that we can sit behind the safety of our computer screens and type what we want, when we want. He’s not misguided…he’s insightful for knowing that his path is dedicating his life to serving our country and anyone who knows himself THAT well is not misguided and I’m a VERY PROUD MOM!

**Crossposted @ The Oracular Opinion**

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Progressive Statism Continuing for Another 1 1/2 Years

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatisim
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Sent via e-mail to the inbox at Rational Nation by barbles.

Definitely worth the viewing!

The Obama Legacy

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Property Rights -vs- Progressive Statism



by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation 
USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

A person's right to their life is fundamental. The right to their property constitutes the secondary  upon which all  other rights flow. Specifically the right of every individual  to retain control and use of their property as they see fit. Properly understood, property rights stand in direct opposition to the premise held by statists that the State has the ultimate right to arbitrarily confiscate an individual's property and redistribute its worth as the state sees fit.

This discussion has, in one form or the other, dominated philosophical and political debate going back to the Age of Reason and The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason were profoundly influenced by Aristotelian logic. Enlightened thinkers begin applying logic to the notion of  "natural rights." During this era in history, and every since the battle between the advocates of the right of the individual to full and complete control of their property, which stands in stark opposition to the immoral premise held by  the altruistic collective that the state holds the right to the same, has been waged.

The most basic and fundamental property right is the right of the individual to their own life. From this right all other rights flow, including the right for one to seek their own happiness and the right to retain in full the rewards that naturally accrue as a result of their productive efforts as Murray N. Rothbard correctly observed in his "Human Rights" as Property Rights.

Liberals generally wish to preserve the concept of "rights" for such "human" rights as freedom of speech, while denying the concept to private property. [1] And yet, on the contrary the concept of "rights" only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.

 In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person's right to his own body, his personal liberty, is a property right in his own person as well as a "human right." But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of "public policy" or the "public good."

As I observe the results of the  progressive agenda, that is to say the anti individual, anti property rights agenda of past and present leaders, I find myself thinking a great deal more about the concept of property rights. As the leadership of both political parties press for rapid movement, albeit at differing trajectories towards the altruistic collectivist abyss the concept of property rights will become increasingly blurred until they simply disappear.

Most people understand that government and a sound socio-economic system is the glue holding a civilized society together. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply choosing not to think.

Accepting that government plays a role in society does not imply, nor does it require the acceptance of statism.  It does however require the roles and responsibilities of government to be well defined. Our Constitution does exactly that. It has been effectively doing so for 222 years. The beauty of our Constitution is that it limits the scope of the federal government, allows individual states significant power over their own internal affairs, and leaves the individual in charge of their own destiny. Of course the last presumes the individual will act rationally in pursuit of their own welfare. In other words it protected property rights.

If we accept government as necessary, and most people do, we must also accept that government requires funding to carry out the peoples business. Our duly elected representatives are responsible for determining what the people believe is necessary to insure a safe and prosperous nation. Within the group of 535 individual congressional representatives, and 100 senators is a wide range of economic, social, political, and philosophical beliefs. This is no doubt why we see such intense political debate and why the political chasm has grown so wide.

Given that government is a "necessary evil” the question with respect to property rights is, to what extent should our government be allowed to venture in confiscating the property of individuals in support of the collective? On one extreme there are those who believe the government should have no confiscatory authority. On the opposite extreme there are those who believe all property should be collective and government should have total confiscatory authority. Which as noted during opening remarks of this article would mean the right to an individuals life.


It seems to this student of history a majority of people today {especially those of the progressive mindset} fail to recognize and or seriously consider the importance of history and the lessons it can teach us. The result of this willful ignorance is seen in the problems this nation faces in the 21st century.

America, specifically the United States of America, became the world's most influential nation because its founding document, the Constitution of the United States, insured the protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. As Ayn Rand so accurately pointed out the individual constitutes the smallest minority known to mankind. As such the right of the individual to retain the fruits of his or her labor, as well as the right to utilize their tangible property as they see fit should be considered sacrosanct.

Property rights, beginning with the right to the property of one’s own life, rationally extends to all property a individual legally acquires through their productive efforts. As well as property which is passed to them from the prior generation(s). 

Property rights, once acquired, remain the property of the acquiring individual until such time as they freely chose to pass right of ownerships to another. However, when the transfer of property, whether it be ones life, tangible property {land, home, car etc} or money {liquid assets} is forced by a second party, be it an individual, a mob or the state, the transfer has no morally {ethically) defensible argument. 

Unless a transfer of property is mutually agreed to it amounts to nothing more than a redistribution of wealth at the point of gun. For the purposes of this discussion a gun held to the head of  every individual by  the state.

One of the primary purposes of the United States Constitution was to guard against unwarranted and unethical intrusion of government into the affairs of the nation's private citizens. As well the Constitution establish a legal framework to accomplish this noble task. Unfortunately as the progressive movement grew in popularity both in Europe and the U.S.A. during the early 1900's, under the statist oversight of  presumably well meaning yet misguided politicians, the nation began to lose sight of the moral aspect of property rights and the right of the individual to retain the fruits of their productive labor.

With the progressive movement the federal income tax came to be a permanent reality. Soon to be followed by a myriad of other taxes and fees which were arbitrarily set by an ever growing statist bureaucracy.  Of course the rationale{justification} for confiscating property  from individuals came in the name of  providing for the  "public welfare." 

Social engineering, which is what Social Security and public assistance programs really are, lead to an  expanding welfare bureaucracy. Ultimately this lead to the costly and likely unsustainable Medicare and Medicaid programs enacted during President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society experiment. The progressive statists had succeeded in taking control of the debate with respect to property and individual rights versus the rights of the collective and the power of the state to redistribute wealth as it sees fit. We now have a significant part of  the  population  that sees "entitlements bestowed upon them by the statist government" as their right.

Today we are witnessing the fulfillment of the progressive vision. A vision that says in essence it matters more what your government can do for you  than it matters what you can and should do for yourself.  A vision fully supported in the Presidency of Barrack Hussein Obama. If this nation is to survive as the beacon of liberty, such as it was envisioned in 1776 {and until recent history}, as well as the arbiter of a true capitalism and the power of productive achievement, it must return to the realization that property rights, and the rights of the individual to retain the fruits of their labor must be restored. In full.

Our government does not have a revenue problem. It has a insatiable appetite for spending. An appetite so large it has been involved in redistributing wealth for far too many years. The federal government indeed needs funding to administer its proper role. Which is a limited role as handed us by the framers of our Constitution and Founding Fathers. We have allowed our federal government to far overreach its constitutional authority. In doing so we have essentially given up the ability to fully realize the full benefits of our productive labor.

The question for the 21st century and beyond is... Are we as a people smart enough to see the benefits if we return to the principles that made us great. The principles of property rights and the individual’s right to fully enjoy the rewards of their industry. As well as a return to a properly limited constitutional government .

As I said earlier, many people recognize the positive role an effective and limited government plays in maintaining a civil society. What must ultimately be decided is whether or not we will return to a limited and effective government that allows for and fosters  liberty and prosperity. The 2010 mid term election results begin the process of potentially redefining our government. Going forward the decision we make as a nation will determine whether we experience greater Liberty and Prosper or greater Statism  and as Diminished prosperity .

I leave you with the following to consider... thoughts from 
Frederic Bastiat:

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
 When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.
 Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
 People are beginning to realize that the apparatus of government is costly. But what they do not know is that the burden falls inevitably on them.
 Law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
 The plans differ; the planners are all alike...
 Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism. Read More

Saturday, June 25, 2011

New York Properly Legalizes Same Sex Unions... By Legilative Action

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


New York State, the sixth to join the list of states where same sex unions are now legal did so via legislation as opposed to judicial fiat. This, above all else, is to be cheered.

Those who regularly read Rational Nation USA are aware of my position with respect to same sex unions. Though I believe the concept of marriage should remain as the millennium old definition so do I believe same sex unions should be afforded the same rights and recognition as heterosexual unions.

From the New York Times
ALBANY — Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.

The marriage bill, whose fate was uncertain until moments before the vote, was approved 33 to 29 in a packed but hushed Senate chamber. Four members of the Republican majority joined all but one Democrat in the Senate in supporting the measure after an intense and emotional campaign aimed at the handful of lawmakers wrestling with a decision that divided their friends, their constituents and sometimes their own homes.

With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.” {Continue Reading}

My only question is why should anyone apologize for finally being right?

For a slightly different flavor and analysis visit the Left Coast Rebel

Va: Memeorandum

Friday, June 24, 2011

'Columbo' Star Peter Falk Dies at 83


by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Peter Falk, best known for his role as detective Columbo died in his Beverly Hills home today. Falk was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 2007.
Peter Falk, the Emmy-winning stage, screen and TV actor, best known to world audiences as the always-underestimated police detective in the long-running telepic series "Columbo," died Thursday at his home in Beverly Hills. He was 83.

It was announced that he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease in December 2007.

Falk won five Emmys, four for portraying Columbo, and was twice Oscar nommed for supporting roles.

Actor-director John Cassavetes referred to him as the man "everybody falls in love with." Falk had several starring roles in films directed by Cassavetes, found success onstage in the early '70s with Neil Simon's "The Prisoner of Second Avenue," and drew two Oscar nominations early in his career. But television proved to be the medium that most effectively brought across his compact, rumpled, impish quality.

By the mid-1970s, when "Columbo" was at its height, Falk was earning $500,000 for each of the two-hour telepics. Ironically, he fought for years with Universal Television to let him out of his "Columbo" contract, only to return time and again to the character.

"Columbo" was a worldwide television phenomenon, and it brought him to the attention of Wim Wenders, who starred Falk in what was probably the best film of his later career, "Wings of Desire" (he also appeared in the sequel, "Faraway, So Close").

Falk did not decide on an acting career until he was almost 30. Born in Manhattan, he was rasied in Ossining, N.Y. After serving in the merchant marine for 18 months as a cook in the days following WWII, he studied at Hamilton College, finished his B.A. in political science at the New School for Social Research in 1951 and his M.A. in public administration at Syracuse U.

After being rejected by the CIA, he worked for the state of Connecticut and began acting in community theater. Encouraged by his acting teacher, he quit his job and moved to New York to study under Jack Landau and Sanford Meisner, making his Off Broadway debut in 1956 in Moliere's "Don Juan" and hitting Broadway in "St. Joan" when it transferred from Off Broadway in 1957.

Next came the role of the bartender in the hit revival of Eugene O'Neill's "The Iceman Cometh" and roles in "Diary of a Scoundrel," "The Lady's Not for Burning," "Purple Dust," "Bonds of Interest" and "Comic Strip."

He was discouraged from seeking employment in the movies due to his glass eye, the result of the removal of his real eye at the age of 3 due to a malignant tumor. Columbia's Harry Cohn, after expressing interest in the young actor, turned him away when he heard of the artificial eye, which caused Falk to squint somewhat - a disadvantage that was to become an envied acting trademark. {Read More}

Peter Falk, one of actings finest and most beloved detective persona's set the bar for those who followed him. It was, and continues to be a high one.

Rest in Peace Columbo.

Via: Memeorandum

The National Debt Cannot Be Erased by Tax Increases

Michael Ramirez-Creators Syndicate
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


From RIGHTNET DAILY
By Robert Romano – The Obama Administration must be laboring under the delusion that the $14.3 trillion debt can somehow be paid for with tax increases.

It cannot. And it would a foolish gambit to try.

That is why House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl are to be commended for walking out of the Biden-led White House debt ceiling talks.

“As it stands, the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases,” said Cantor on the matter. “There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don’t believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue.”

Lest there was any confusion at the White House, House Speaker John Boehner reminded the Obama Administration that “since the beginning, the Majority Leader and myself, along with Sen. McConnell and Sen. Kyl have been clear: tax hikes are off the table.”

As they should be. After all, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we don’t have a $14.3 trillion debt because we have not taxed enough, we have a $14.3 trillion debt because we spend too much. {Continue Reading}

Methinks there are few rational thinking individuals with a sense of fiscal responsibility that would disagree with the above commentary.

Fiscally sound and responsible judgement is, of course, something the Obama administration specifically, and progressive generally, are in short supply of.

Read a great article on the most fiscally irresponsible government in United States History right here.

Via: Memeorandum

Secretary Hillary Clinton... Whose Side Are You On?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


It is interesting. I mean, just how the trappings of power seem to influence and change a person.

h/t: THEBLAZE
Hillary Clinton in 2003.

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.

Hillary Clinton in 2011.

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

There is a name for this sort of thing.

More from The Other McCain.

Via: Memeorandum

When a Dem is Right He is Right

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


One of the benefits {and greatest things} of being an independent conservative is that when a rational thinking democrat is right on an issue you have no compunction in siding with them.

Unlike the progressives {with respect to conservative thought} who never stray from the confines of their narrow and tightly confined thought process and ideology.

The Hill
A House Democrat warned Friday that the U.S. president is becoming an "absolute monarch" on matters related to the authority to start a war.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Congress must act to limit funding for military operations in Libya in order to correct that trend.

"We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch," Nadler said on the floor. "And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don't want to become an empire instead of a republic."

Nadler stressed that he is not talking exclusively about "this president," meaning President Obama. But he said nonetheless that Congress needs to reassert its authority to declare war, and said this should be done even over concerns that it would damage U.S. credibility with its NATO allies.

"I think that the nation's credibility, that is to say its promise to go to war as backed by the president, not by the Congress, ought to be damaged," he said.

"And if foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on American military intervention unless Congress is aboard for the ride, good," he added. "That's a good thing." {Continue Reading}

The Constitution expressly reserves the authority to declare war to the Congress of the United States. It is about time we return to this wisdom and I applaud Rep. Nadler for having the proverbial balls to break rank with those in his party {specifically Obama} who think otherwise.

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Considering Presidential War Powers and the Constitutional Authority for the Same

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


On the heels of Obama's announcement yesterday of American troop draw down and eventual exit from Afghanistan, {and I As I prepare for a vacation break with my grandson and grandma} I leave this for your consideration. Perhaps a few will consider the content and revisit our founding charter, the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is long past due.

The Truth About Progressivism

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


As I sat pondering the primary reasons for the abject failure of progressivism it finally occurred to me. Progressivism, and its natural end collectivism, fail because it always results in society finding its lowest common denominator.

Progressives, socialists, leftist democrats, or any other variant of the altruistic mentality will of course disagree. Which is quite to be expected. And it is quite alright. After all each must find that which trips their trigger.

Having said the above...  some thought provoking points from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
While Franklin Delano Roosevelt narrowly missed being Time Magazine’s "Man of the Century," there is no doubt that the man who prolonged the Great Depression and helped lay the groundwork for World War II looms large in the consciousness of statist journalists and historians. Although FDR’s role in the Second World War is of utmost importance to the pundits, his main historical role seems to be the New Deal, which permanently established the welfare/warfare state in this country.

Contrary to popular belief, FDR’s New Deal was not the most significant legislative period of the 20th Century. In fact, had it not been for the reign of Progressivism more than two decades earlier, Franklin Roosevelt would simply have been a relatively obscure governor of New York, known more for being a distant cousin of President Theodore Roosevelt.

The New Deal did not rise out of a vacuum. Rather, the New Deal — and the subsequent canonization of FDR — came about as the result of the legal, bureaucratic, and intellectual framework that was laid down during the Progressive Era of the early 1900s.

Without Progressivism, the New Deal would and never could have come into existence. The vast expansion of the state apparatus that occurred during the 1930s moved along tracks already laid by politicians like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. By the mid-1930s, the New Deal, far from being a legislative aberration, naturally followed the economic crisis that Progressivism had caused.

Just what was Progressivism, what were its causes, and what followed from the Progressive Movement? Historians refer to it as an influential social movement that began in the late 1800s and ended with the United State’s 1917 entry into World War I.

SKIP

If this era is known for impressive economic accomplishments, it is also known for its journalistic excesses. Not only did William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer conspire to inflame Americans with war fever against Spain in 1898, but a group of writers called muckrakers created a false picture of life in the United States.

In fact, it seems that one of the most insidious things to come from the Progressive Era was the wedding of mainstream journalism and statism. The formerly independent journalist now became a flack for expansion of the power of the state, as the chief "beat" of news reporters became the various government agencies.

SKIP

Nor was Progressivism the domain of just one political party, as both Republicans and Democrats vied with each other to see who could more thoroughly expand the state. Republicans, led by Theodore Roosevelt and Sen. Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, pushed for high tariffs, government ownership of natural resources, antitrust legislation, and imperialistic adventures abroad.

Democrats, on the other hand, led by William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson, pushed the income tax, inflation through debasement of the money supply, and the internal protectionist device known as Jim Crow laws, which attempted to shield white workers from competition from blacks. Both parties favored expansion of voting rights to women. What is clear is that neither party had any intention of honoring the U.S. Constitution.

In fact, the Progressive Era would not have had its social and legal effect had it not been for its reworking of the Constitution through the amendment process. The 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th amendments reworked the political landscape and greatly expanded the scope of the central government, one of the main goals of progressives. The 16th Amendment was probably the worst, as it authorized Congress for the first time to levy an income tax that would not be struck down by the Supreme Court.

The 17th Amendment took power of appointment of U.S. senators from the state legislatures and and placed it in the hands of voters. This further helped make the states subservient to the national agenda of progressives.

SKIP

The imposition of the income tax was a green light for unbridled growth of the central government by allowing politicians to confiscate willy-nilly the property of individuals — and especially the property of the most productive citizens. Prohibition further increased the power of the central government over the property of Americans, while the other two amendments permanently altered the delicate balance of powers that the framers of the Constitution so painstakingly laid out in 1787.

SKIP

After the Fed-induced crash of 1929, President Herbert Hoover, a favorite of a large number of Progressives, decided to take a non laissez-faire approach to the economic downturn that followed the crash. Within a couple of years, Hoover had openly urged business owners to keep wages and prices artificially high, signed the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff into law and oversaw the doubling of tax rates. As Rothbard noted in America’s Great Depression, all of these measures took what would have been a brief recession and turned it into the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history.

That Progressivism ultimately led to the Great Depression should be obvious. Not surprisingly, Franklin Roosevelt chose to expand the powers of the state. Not surprisingly, his actions prolonged the depression. And, not surprisingly, the Progressivist propaganda machine was able to convince the public that the solution lay not in elimination of government intervention, but rather in further expansion of government.

SKIP

Just as the political classes turned liberalism upon its head with Liberalism, so have Progressivists undermined the meaning of progress. The rise of humanity from its existence of perpetual poverty to the modern standard of living has occurred precisely because people were free to dream, invent, and invest. Real progress has happened because the stifling chains of government were removed from people. It is false Progress which seeks to reimpose those shackles. {Read Full Article}

Perhaps through education, a rational understanding of history, as well as applying logic and reasoned thought we can turn the nation around.

Those who truly understand the meaning of liberty must stand firm against  the never ending onslaught of the progressive statist  movement.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Obama's Economic Train Wreck


by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


As our President keeps on a smiling...

The Examiner reports.
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that President Obama’s economic stimulus program helped nearly double U.S. debt.

The 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook, released Wednesday morning, reports that the “the combination of automatic budgetary responses” and Obama’s stimulus “had a profound impact on the federal budget.” According to CBO projections, before Obama’s stimulus became law, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP and was projected to decline slightly over the next few years. Instead, thanks in large part to the stimulus, debt reached 62 percent of GDP by 2010.

Other lowlights from the report include:
  • Debt will reach 70 percent of GDP by the end of this year – the highest percentage since World War II.
  • Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will reach 15 percent of GDP by 2035 – spending on all government programs has averaged 18.5 percent over the past 40 years.
  • Total government spending is set to hit 27 percent of GDP by 2035.
  • Taxes are set to grow from 19 percent of GDP in 2013, to 23 percent by 2035.
  • Americans “at various points on the income scale would pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than people at the same points do today.”
  • The effective marginal tax rate on labor income would rise from about 25 percent now to about 35 percent in 2035.

Irrespective of what the progressives tell you Obama's economic policies have been a train wreck. In less than three years he has managed to almost double the national debt. Employment remains at staggering levels. And the anemic economic growth continues.

How's that "Hope and Change" working for ya'll?

Via: The Examiner

Kudos to House Republicans... Time to Defund the U.S.A Libyan Action


John Boehner's spokesman says GOP looks to defund the conflict in a responsible way. | AP Photo

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Breaking News. From Politico
House Republicans are planning to vote on a bill that would prohibit funding of the American mission in Libya, a shift from previous plans to consider a weaker rebuke of President Barack Obama’s military intervention in the north African country.

The new measure, likely to be considered Friday, would “restrict funds for the remainder of the fiscal year, but in a responsible way,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The change is a response to a desire among House Republicans to vote on a stronger version of a resolution Boehner had prepared Tuesday night that many experts believe would be found unconstitutional in the unlikely event that both chambers approved of it. The House will also take up, as previously planned, another resolution authorizing the use of American force in Libya. That measure is designed to fail and show Obama that he does not have the support of the House for U.S. operations in Libya.

Rank-and-file Republicans have taken issue not only with the U.S. participation in the NATO-led effort in Libya, but also what they say is a failure of the president to make the case for the engagement and his determination that he need not comply with the strictures of the War Powers Act because American operations in Libya, which have included missile strikes, do not constitute “hostilities.”

Boehner has said the latter line of reasoning doesn’t pass the “straight face” test. {Continue Reading}

It is time to stop the continuous stream of conflicts in which we have no national security issues or any other national interest.

Considering the region, and that Gadhafi is not connected to Al Qaeda, perhaps we ought to be supporting an effort to keep him in power. Just saying.

Via: Memeoranmum

"Cut, Cap, and Balance

by:Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


The "cut, cap, and balance" concept gaining popularity in congress sounds an awful lot like what Rational Nation USA, as well as many others have been saying for a long time. The reality is it is now a necessity we take responsible action to curb spending, cap government growth,and balance the budget. The time is certainly upon us when politicians on both sides of the aisle start putting the future of the nation ahead of their own political aspirations and economics.

Video h/t NETRIGHT DAILY.


NETRIGHT DAILY has much more in an article entitled "Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge the Only Way." The article offers commonsense insight into the very real dangers increasing our 14.3 trillion dollar debt ceiling presents.

Article from NETRIGHT.
By Robert Romano – “The only way Republicans’ leverage on the debt ceiling will work is if they’re willing to not increase the debt ceiling,” Americans for Limited Government (ALG) President Bill Wilson declared in a recent plea for congressional Republicans.

He wants them to hold firm on their commitment to attach significant spending cuts to any increase in the nation’s borrowing limit.

Today, Wilson is joining congressional conservatives and other free market and limited government leaders today in a press conference in support of the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” pledge.

ALG and others are concerned that without firm conditions, the current fight over increasing the $14.294 trillion national debt ceiling will only yield token cuts that will fail to rein in Washington, D.C.’s out-of-control spending. The pledge is targeted to all federal elected officials as well as candidates for federal office including the presidency.

“House Republicans gambled big time on the continuing resolution earlier this year, when they had the threat of a government shutdown to use. But that only yielded $352 million in actual spending reductions for this fiscal year,” Wilson noted, warning, “After promising the American people something big on the debt ceiling, they cannot politically afford to fall short like they did in April.”

Wilson believes the debt ceiling is an opportunity for members to redeem themselves in the eyes of the American people. “It’s never too late to do the right thing,” he said.

By signing the pledge, members of Congress are agreeing not to under any circumstances increase the $14.294 trillion debt ceiling — unless the deficit is reduced by hundreds of billions of dollars immediately, spending is statutorily capped to no more than 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, and a Balanced Budget Amendment is passed in both houses of Congress and sent to the several states for adoption.

If the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuse to deal, under the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” pledge, the debt ceiling would not be raised.

“Now it is time for Republican leaders in Congress to draw a line in the sand and take the pledge,” Wilson said, adding, “There should be no vote to further increase the debt ceiling unless the American people have the assurance that it will not need to be increased again, and again, and again.”

Americans really do need that assurance. The current system of government never contemplates repayment. It should. {Read More}

Indeed it is time to show fiscal responsibility on the national level. For far to long both the progressive democratic party as well as the republican party has Chosen to ignore the impending crisis. Neither party can continue to do so.

It is time for both parties to put up or shut up. The American people, as shown in a recent poll, are rather dissatisfied with the performance of their government.

In a related publication the Congressional Budget Office had the following to saywith respect to our future fiscal stability.
This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report presents the agency's projections of federal spending and revenues over the coming decades. Under current law, an aging population and rapidly rising health care costs will sharply increase federal spending for health care programs and Social Security. If revenues remained at their historical average share of gross domestic product (GDP), such spending growth would cause federal debt to grow to unsustainable levels. If policymakers are to put the federal government on a sustainable budgetary path, they will need to increase revenues substantially as a percentage of GDP, decrease spending significantly from projected levels, or adopt some combination of those two approaches. In keeping with CBO's mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, this report makes no recommendations. {Continue Reading}

Via: Liberty Action Report
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Memorandum

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Huntsmen... The Dark Horse?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Before I begin I will admit to being a skeptic. Huntsmen has just today added his name to the long list of republican hopefuls to become the next president of the United States.

The ultimate progressive senator of Nevada, Harry Reid, has just weighed in. I find the commentary interesting as well as instructional.

Perhaps it is politics in full display.

From The Hill
Even though he won't be able to cast a vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) picked his favorite Mormon candidate in the GOP presidential field on Tuesday: Jon Huntsman.

Reid, a Mormon, was asked if the country is ready for a president of his faith because there are two in the Republican primary race. Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China faces Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

"Certainly they're not ready for the former governor of Massachusetts. Which says in that race if I had a choice I would favor Huntsman over Romney," he told reporters at the Capitol.

Reid's comments came on the same day that Huntsman made his bid for president official at Liberty State Park in New Jersey. A recent Gallup poll showed that 22 percent of the public would not vote for a Mormon candidate for president. {Read More}

Further data provided by The Atlantic shows Huntsmen dead last amongst republican candidates. The two publications have me intrigued.

From the Atlantic
A few weeks ago, I was up in New Hampshire for Jon Huntsman's maiden swing through the state as a possible -- it's now official -- presidential candidate. The rest of the national press corps seemed to be there, too. At many of the events, we reporters outnumbered actual voters, sometimes vastly. (Matt Bai describes this crush of media folks in the lede to his new Huntsman profile.) That's somewhat understandable for a candidate like Huntsman who has potential, though not yet many supporters. I wasn't at Huntsman's announcement speech in New Jersey this morning, but word on the ground is that, as in New Hampshire, there were still more members of the media present than actual voters. Needless to say, this is a problem he'll have to overcome in pretty short order if he wants to get any traction. And it's not as if there's some great mass of Huntsman couch potatoes sitting at home watching his motorcycle videos. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put Huntsman dead last among 10 candidates.

There is no question but what conservatives and Libertarians, as well as a majority of independent voters, want to see Obama become history in 2012. It is also true that to defeat the American Socialist will require the independent as well as the conservative and Libertarian vote. Irrespective of what one may ideally desire my observation is the reality of the times.

It is entirely possible that a moderate republican candidate such as Huntsman at the top of the republican ticket, and a more conservative Tea Party candidate such as Backmann as the vice presidential candidate may very well be the best combination for the republicans.

When all is said and done the premier issue is, after all, the defeat of Barrack Hussein Obama. The above scenario may very well be the best chance at doing so.

Given The Hills report and the Atlantic is it be possible {indeed likely} the Dems are advocating for the most liberal republican candidate in anticipation of an Obama defeat in 2012?

The above is not an endorsement of either Huntsman or Bachmann for either respective slot. It is merely a rational observation. This writers choice continues to be Ron Paul.

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, June 20, 2011

Miss USA Winner Supports Science

Patrick Prather, AFP/Getty Images



by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Aside from being absolutely gorgeous, as well as sexy, Miss USA 2011 is an intelligent young women we can and should be proud of.

Excerpts from USA TODAY:
Score one for Charles Darwin. The newly crowned Miss USA, Alyssa Campanella, 21, of Los Angeles, who calls herself "a huge science geek," says evolution should be taught in public schools.

No, it didn't happen on air in a replay of the Carrie-Prejean-Perez-Hilton showdown over a gay marriage question two years ago. Evolution was among the preliminary questions, not the televised finale.

Before her victory night, Miss California earned her way into the semifinals in preliminary judging including interviews in which she was one of only two among 51 contestants to unequivocally support teaching evolution.

Given the early Fox News alert that the contestants were rattled by the preliminary questions, I went to the site and watched all 51 interviews where they wrestled with the evolution question...

Only Miss Massachusetts and Campanella stood up for Darwin.

The eventual winner (with an on-air question about legalizing marijuana -- she said medically yes, otherwise no) said,

I was taught evolution in high school. I do believe in it. I'm a huge science geek...I like to believe in the big bang theory and, you know, the evolution of humans throughout time.

Sunday night on the main stage, the first runner-up -- Miss Tennessee Ashley Durham -- was asked if burning religious books is protected by the same First Amendment free speech rules that cover burning an American flag.

She went with an answer that appeared to make the U.S. Constitution optional:

"I know that some people view it as a freedom of speech, however, burning the American flag is not patriotic at all. No American citizen should do that, and you should also respect other religions. I'm a Christian and a faithful person. I would personally not appreciate someone burning the Bible, and that's just a line you do not cross." {Read Full Article}

Just thinking outloud... a future career in politics?

Via: Memeorandum

Sarah and Bristol Palin's Names are Soon to be Trademarked















by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


From the Atlantic
A few months ago, an attorney for Sarah and Bristol Palin put in an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark their names. (One of many things that suggests that profit, and not the presidency, is what's motivating Palin.) For Sarah Palin, the intent was a little less clear cut than it was for her daughter, as this article in Politics Daily made clear:

For Sarah Palin's application, there are two classes of commercial service for which her name would be a registered trademark. One is for "information about political elections" and "providing a website featuring information about political issues." The second is for "educational and entertainment services ... providing motivational speaking services in the field of politics, culture, business and values."

The "Bristol Palin" application is for "educational and entertainment services, namely, providing motivational speaking services in the field of life choices."

According to the same reporter, the deadline to challenge Palin's application passed on Friday and -- amazingly -- nobody seems to have challenged it. So it looks like the Patent and Trademark Office will award both patents in the near future. Better hold off on those bootleg Palin T-shirts you were thinking about printing up. For anyone who's curious, here's Palin's trademark application.

Having vowed not to publish posts on Sarah Palin {due to both the positive and negative passion she generates} I am still questioning myself as to why I went ahead with this post. I suppose it is because the progressive left continues to find fabricate avenues to trash the 1/2 time governor of Alaska.

Being the objective and balanced independent conservative that I am {having recently defended Jimmy Carter and called Senator McCain into serious question} I attempt to view issues with a logical and unemotional perspective. Admittedly this can be hard at times. If in doubt just check into the world of the progressive or the extreme hard core right.

Putting the above aside. I read the report the Palin's were trademarking their name with both interest and amusement. My interest of course was with respect to Sarah's future political aspirations if any. The amusement was exactly what the H has Bristol to do with Sarah's future?

Yeah, I know. The left's contention is its all about the money. And perhaps it is. So what?

Sarah Palin has not yet announced her candidacy for the presidency of the United States. In my independent conservative judgement she won't be doing so. At least not for the 2012 election cycle.

Sarah, keep in mind, has the right to trademark protection just as all American citizens do who market "their" brand. Sarah is merely marketing her brand {she ought to copyright everything she can as well} and out of fear the left feels the need to target her motives.

While Sarah may not be the "intellectual" that Obama is so readily tauted to be by the kool aid drinking left she does have her convictions and beliefs as to what traditional American values are and should be. I say good for her!

It should come as no surprise to anybody that a significant portion of the American electorate shares her views with respect to traditional American values. Which of course is precisely why the progressive left has so consistently trashed Sarah. Simply said... they fear her and her message.

As to Bristol, good for her. We should all hope she does well in the entertainment field. Speaking for myself, having once been a ballroom dancer,  were I younger I would select her as a dance partner. The young lady actually does have talent.

Now on to answer the question burning in all progressive minds. I won't be voting for Sarah Palin in the primaries should she decide to run. Nor will I vote for her in the general in the unlikely event she runs and wins the republican nomination.

My advice to the "intellectual" progressives {not that they will listen} is to finally let the Palin Syndrome drop. My advice to conservatives and Libertarians of all stripes is identify and support the strongest candidate who can beat Obama in 2012.

Speaking of course only for myself,  I know there are more qualified candidates on the conservative side.  I look forward to doing battle with the progressives having the most qualifies candidate to advocate for.

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Dufus {McCain} Does It Again

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Senator John McCain, the respected Vietnam War Veteran that he is, has spoke without presenting substantiated proof for his claims Arizona's wildfires were set in part by illegal aliens.

Rational Nation USA has been a strong advocate for enforcing border security and a critic of Obama's laxity of the same. However, for Senator McCain to make accusations without presenting any substantial proof is, well, just plain foolish. He should know it plays right into the hands of the pogressives.

Excerpt from CNN
U.S. Sen. John McCain is blaming illegal immigrants for starting some of the wildfires that have scorched hundreds of thousands of acres in Arizona.

"There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally," McCain, R-Arizona, said Saturday at a press conference. "The answer to that part of the problem is to get a secure border."

The Arizona senator, however, did not say what the evidence is, prompting a swift rebuke from Latino civil rights advocates.

"It's easier to fan the flames of intolerance, especially in Arizona," said Randy Parraz, a civil rights advocate who ran unsuccessfully against McCain as a Democratic candidate in 2010.

Parraz called McCain's remarks "careless and reckless" but not entirely surprising given the political climate in Arizona. The Latino advocate is co-founder of Citizens for a Better Arizona, a group trying the recall the legislator who authored the state's controversial anti-illegal immigration law.

Parraz said McCain "should know better" than to make such an accusation without presenting any facts.

McCain said that illegal immigrants set such fires either to send signals, keep warm or distract law enforcement agents. But he did not specify which fires allegedly had been started by illegal immigrants, nor did he identify his sources or provide details of the "substantial" evidence he cited.{ Continue Reading}

If Senator McCain's assertions are in fact correct he should have presented the evidence. If data is still being gathered and sifted through that will eventually support the Senator's assertions he ought to have held his tongue until such data was conclusive and then made it available.

And this man is supposedly a seasoned politian and experienced senator. Makes one wonder if it migh be worth the time and effort to consider entering the rough and tumble of politics.

On second thought...

Via: Memeorandum

Russian President Mededev Gets It... Unlike Obama


by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservastism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


As our own nation drifts toward greater government control and regulation over the economy and means of production Russian President Medvedev gets it.

Power Line Blog
Russia's President, Dmitri Medvedev, addressed the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum yesterday. He pledged a new course for Russia:

Medvedev acknowledged that the government's expansion in managing the economy and the centralization of authority in the Kremlin under Putin was necessary in an earlier period of the country's post-Soviet development. But, he said, "this economic mode is dangerous for the country's future."

"The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits to 'preferred' companies," he said.

"My choice is different. The Russian economy ought to be dominated by private businesses and private investors. The government must protect the choice and property of those who willingly risk their money and reputation." ...

"Corruption, hostility to investment, excessive government role in the economy and the excessive centralization of power are the taxes on the future that we must and will scrap," he said.

As Obama, Reid, Pelosi et all continue to labor our nation towards a more centralized government, with the ultimate goal of central planning, forces elsewhere recognize the futility of such systems.

It is likely however the progressive {statist} forces in America will continue to spur the once greatest economy and motive force the world has ever known closer to the proverbial cliff. Hopefully countervailing forces yet alive in our nation are able to stop and then reverse the current path toward the economic abyss.

Cross possted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails