Thursday, May 31, 2012

Objectivist Ethics

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Rational objective ethics, or the lack thereof plays a great part in one's life, and by extension their success and happiness. However they define these two terms.

I post this not to make a statement in support of Objectivist Ethics, although I personally subscribe to them, but rather to expose the individual reader to the concepts and leave it up to them whether to consider the validity or lack thereof..



Via: Ayn Rand Institute

Fox News Reporting Steps Over the Line...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Great work Fox News, specifically Fox and Friends. With Wednesday's video, a "attack ad" on Obama's first term record, the network has been damaged as a credible news organization. It is the function of news organizations to responsibly cover the campaigns of politicians, not shill for them. That is the purpose of declared opinion columnists and commentators.

While I happen to personally concur with the content of the video I certainly do not want news agencies to politicize their reporting. Just give be the facts and give them to me balanced. I'll take it from their.

Video - h/t HOT AIR



Ed Morrissey's spot on must read commentary.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

President Obama Honors Honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



President Obama has awarded the nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Dolores Huerta. Ms. Huerta, co founder of the United Farm Workers with Cesar Chavez, and a Honorary Chair of Democratic Socialists of America was also given credit by the President for his 2008 campaign slogan, "yes we can."

The Heritage Foundation - President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Tuesday to Dolores Huerta, an 82-year-old labor activist and co-founder of the United Farm Workers union.

Huerta is also an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.

DSA describes itself as “the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International.”

Huerta has claimed, “Republicans hate Latinos,” and has spoken fondly of Hugo Chavez’s despotic regime in Venezuela. Some of her more radical comments were captured in this audio clip:



Despite her apparent radicalism, Huerta has received accolades from top administration officials, including Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. She is now the recipient of the nation’s highest civilian honor – one of 14 individuals to receive the medal Tuesday at the White House.

I am sure the President wished to recognize Ms. Huerta for her tireless work in organizing Mexican American farm workers, thus helping to improve their lot in life. However what I found most compelling is the fact she is an avowed and active socialist. Something the President of this capitalist nation was undoubtedly aware of.

It is also my considered view, and I acknowledge I could be mistaken, the President is likely aware of the following; taken from the DSoA preamble.

The globalization of capital requires a renewed vision and tactics. But the essence of the socialist vision--that people can freely and democratically control their community and society--remains central to the movement for radical democracy. Those who point to the collapse of communist regimes, for which the rhetoric of socialism became a cover for authoritarian rule, as proof that capitalism is the foundation of democracy, commit fraud on history. The struggle for mass democracy has always been led by the excluded -- workers, minorities, and women. The wealthy almost never join in unless their own economic freedom appears at stake. The equation of capitalism with democracy cannot survive scrutiny in a world where untrammeled capitalism means unrelenting poverty, disease, and unemployment.

In this new economic order where sweatshops and child labor are on the rise and capital is freed from historic national constraints, American movements for social justice must of necessity adopt the internationalism of the socialist tradition. Just as Eugene Debs said, "While there is a soul in prison, I am not free" and Martin Luther King proclaimed that, "A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," we must pledge to forge a new international solidarity based the spirit of the abolitionists and suffragists, the labor, peace, and civil rights movements, of modern feminism and environmentalism.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit...

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources...

Democratic socialists are dedicated to building truly international social movements - of unionists, environmentalists...

In the United States, we must fight for a humane public policies that will provide quality health care, education, and job training and that redirect public investment from the military to much-neglected urban housing and infrastructure. Such policies require the support of a majoritarian coalition of trade unionists, people of color, feminists, gays and lesbians and all other peoples committed to democratic change. Our greatest contribution as American socialists to global social justice is to build that coalition, which is key to transforming the power relations of global capitalism.

And there my fellow libertarians, classical liberals, rational conservatives, rational liberals, and all other Americans who understand that a true capitalist society, one that did exist in the USA was responsible for elevating the standard of living of this nation to the highest in the world. It was not socialism that did this, nor will it ever be a majoritarian democratically planned economy and social order that will achieve and maintain the greatest prosperity for the greatest number.

That is what worries me about this President. He seems at the very least to be sympathetic to the goals of the DSoA, if not outright supportive. I hope I am wrong about both.

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, May 28, 2012

Attack By a Right Wing Blogger...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Rational Nation has recently come under vicious attack. Because of the magnitude and viscous nature of the attacks this site has been forced to resort to comment moderation, a practice that heretofore I have been adamantly opposed to.

It has been difficult to determine the individual most likely responsible for these attacks because of 1) my trusting nature, and 2) my relative lack of computer savvy. However, following a weekend of investigative work and logical analysis of the evidence it appears to have been a "inside job", a attack plan designed to discredit me and destroy my integrity for the simple and only reason I dared to visit and comment on liberal blogs. In other words I "strayed off the rightist plantation" and therefore must be punished.

While I initially believed the individual harassing and stalking me was a left wing blogger (and it may be so) the evidence overwhelming points otherwise. So, I consider this a lesson hard learned. I shall never again grant posting or administrative authorization to anyone I DO NOT PERSONALLY KNOW. I suggest all bloggers, whether they be right or left leaning to exercise caution as well.

As unfortunate and difficult as it may be be for me to acknowledge this fact I now believe it true, just as Ayn Rand and Professor Leonard Piekoff said, the conservative movement has grown anti liberty, anti free speech, and are as grave a danger to this nation as the uber left is.

There is a reason I self identified as a independent conservative and classical liberal. You all now know why. Especially the conservatives and fundies.

While I had intended to post material I believed of great importance the attack on my site has left me just a bit unnerved. Therefore I shall simply wish all, especially the liberty minded liberals, libertarians, and true conservatives a good evening. I'll be back soon. VERY SOON.  I cannot and will not be intimidated by anyone. Whether they be from the extreme left or the extreme right. Both are a grave danger to our freedom and individual liberties and I shall stand firm against all forms of tyranny.

I should thank you, whoever you are for giving me greater impetus to fight even harder in the cause of liberty. Even if it means I'll be fighting against you.

"The Donald".... A Huge Liability For Romney

by Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



George Will hits the nail squarely on it's head.

ABC - This morning on “This Week,” ABC News’ George Will called Donald Trump a ”bloviating ignoramus,” questioning why presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is associating with the real estate mogul, who once again falsely questioned President Obama’s birthplace this week.

“I do not understand the cost benefit here,” Will said on the “This Week” roundtable. “The costs are clear. The benefit — what voter is gonna vote for him (Romney) because he is seen with Donald Trump? The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious it seems to me.

“Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics,” Will added. “Again, I don’t understand the benefit. What is Romney seeking?”

Fox Business Network anchor Liz Claman agreed, adding “it’s a dangerous game that Mitt Romney is playing here because Donald Trump doesn’t have a lot to lose by keeping this birther conversation alive…Mitt Romney and his people have to decide whether standing next to Donald Trump means more votes or fewer votes.” {Read More}

I'm not sure who is the bigger fool, Trump or Romney.

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, May 27, 2012

A Day Of Rememberance...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Tomorrow is Memorial Day and it is only fitting that we think about the concepts of Freedom and Liberty. Especially so with respect to political freedom and liberty as the United States of America was the first place to give birth to a nation wherein self government was given a fighting chance at success. The three branches of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial, with the checks and balances the founders built in was designed to insure that the Federal government itself was limited and would be held in check so the people would not become servants to a tyrannical ruling class. More on this later.

So as we honor those who have guarded our freedom and liberties, both past and present I leave you with the following to contemplate.

Freedom Select quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon - What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.

Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

ince knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.” Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument. (An example and symbol of this attitude is Galileo.)

It is from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds—from the intransigent innovators—that all of mankind’s knowledge and achievements have come. (See The Fountainhead.) It is to such minds that mankind owes its survival. (See Atlas Shrugged.)

Freedom and liberty can be seen as having interrelated yet different meanings. As such consider the following.

Foggy metaphors, sloppy images, unfocused poetry, and equivocations—such as “A hungry man is not free”—do not alter the fact that only political power is the power of physical coercion.

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.

Freedom and liberty, while deeply interrelated and connected, do have different root meanings. The following represents what this writer views as liberty

Liberty Select quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon - The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshipping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history: they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries: the impotence of man’s mind and the damnation of this earth; they had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man’s metaphysical fate, they proclaimed man’s right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man’s proper existence, by the “unaided” power of their intellect.

The political philosophy of America’s Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentations on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered, not ritualistically repeated. It has to be rescued from the shameful barnacles of platitudes now hiding it. It has to be expanded—because it was only a magnificent beginning, not a completed job, it was only a political philosophy without a full philosophical and moral foundation, which the “conservatives” cannot provide.

The foregoing is a salutation to all the freedom loving and liberty minded individuals that have given so much, past and present to defend both our freedom and liberties. It is also meant as a resounding rebuke to the idea that the federal state (Leviathan) has the right or the constitutional power to decide for us our course of action and to play the role of the benevolent tyrannical and despotic answer to all of societies problems.

To the horde of statists who have swallowed the poison of progressivism hook line and sinker rest assured it WILL be your undoing. Another thing, the principles of freedom, liberty, property rights,and self government, as well as capitalism will not die or crawl under a rock.

Happy Memorial Day!

Via: The Bastiat Society- Ameritopia

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Laughing at the Absurdly Unimportant...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Heading into the long Memorial Day weekend as I scoured Memeorandum for some pertinent and pressing noteworthy news, of which there is little really, I thought what the hell just go for the most absurdly unimportant. Because I have little passion for writing commentary on the absurd (absurd IMO anyway) links rather than commentary is the order of the day.

A User's Guide To Smoking Pot With Barack Obama

Unions angry with Democrats over lack of help in Wisconsin governor's recall

Female Juror Flirts With John Edwards

Democrat compares Romney's “Latino problem” to alcoholism

Porn stars: Clinton called us over

Berlusconi party girl says masqueraded as Obama

Is the Constitution a Republican Plot?

Wisconsin recall: DNC's Debbie Wasserman Schultz sees no national impact if Democrats lose

Back to the important Sunday evening upon returning from a short break.

Via: Multiple Memeorandum Feeds - 1:20 AM ET, May 26, 2012

Friday, May 25, 2012

The Pot and the Kettle...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



It keeps getting more intriguing all the time. With only six months until the election this one could prove to be a real "barn burner" folks!
The Daily Caller - One of President Barack Obama’s top campaign spokesmen is a private equity manager whose firm has shut down several factories and laid off hundreds of people amid a stalled economy.


Federico Pena’s role at Vestar Capital Partners has emerged as Obama’s aides and deputies continue their effort to portray former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney‘s investment career as ruthless, job-destroying, profit-maximizing “vulture capitalism.” Pena has been a partner at Vestar since 2000.


Pena is a former mayor of Denver in swing-state Colorado, a former cabinet member for President Bill Clinton and one of 35 “national co-chairs “ of the president’s 2012 campaign.


The news will likely further undermine the Obama campaign’s effort to focus on Romney’s business practices, rather than Obama’s White House policies, and the resulting debt, deficits and unemployment. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Obama's Real Spending Record...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Spending has increased significantly during President Obama's tenure. To argue this reality is a exercise only the most partisan will engage in. But as one would expect that is exactly what the left has been doing.

The graph below displays the real percent growth in federal spending under each president beginning with Reagan.


It is a fact that numbers don't lie. Unfortunately liars dabble in numbers and the Obama supporters are quite adept at massaging the numbers to make Obama look as favorable as possible.

Rex Nutting writing for Market Watch gives a clear demonstration of exactly my point.


Reality is what it is, and rational people understand this. So while the numbers speak for themselves, and don't need massaging, the larger issue is... What are our elected officials (think Congress as they control the purse strings) going to do to straighten the mess out?

I might suggest Mr. President getting the best and the brightest together and after they make their studied recommendations use the bully pulpit to get the recommendations enacted through legislation.

Oh, that's right. You did that already and then largely ignored their work. I guess that is what you call effective management.

Via: MEMORANDUM

Thursday, May 24, 2012

The Entire John F Kennedy 'Secret Society' Speech' circa 1961

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Was feeling a bit nostalgic today, especially in light of the current political climate and the obvious dumbing down of our national politicians and their superficial rhetoric. Since I find myself underwhelmed by the shallowness of Mitt Romney's utterances, and scratching my head at Barrack Obama's audacity a stroll back in time to find a politician of substance just seemed to me what the doctor would order. And so I did.

Note the relevancy to today beginning at approximately the 7 minute mark.



Being old enough to remember JFK I recall having been impressed by him even at a young age. As I now reflect back on those days I wonder if America will ever see another President from either major party who will comport themselves with the dignity and stature JFK did. One with a vision that can take us to the moon and beyond.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Oh the Hypocrisy! What To Do With the Children?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Political hypocrisy has a long reach and is certainly not a lonely child.

Power Line - The Budget Control Act is the compromise on federal spending that the Republicans and Democrats entered into last summer, as part of the deal whereby the Republicans agreed to increase the federal debt limit. That increase was conditioned on spending restraint that was spelled out specifically in the BCA. Thus, for the current fiscal year, discretionary spending was capped at $1.047 trillion. That couldn’t be any clearer. But when Kent Conrad, outgoing Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, forwarded the Senate Appropriations Committee its spending authority, the number was higher by $14 billion–$1.061 trillion. This is a clear violation of the Budget Control Act.

But the Democrats’ number is by no means random. On the contrary, the $14 billion that Conrad added is enough to match the discretionary spending that was called for in President Obama’s proposed budget–the one that not a single Democratic Senator or Representative voted for. So here the Democrats are engaging in the ultimate hypocrisy. They vote against the President’s budget because they do not want to associate themselves with its profligacy, lest they pay a price with voters. But then they turn around and slide the appropriators enough extra money to match the budget that they just voted against, confident in the belief that budgetary matters are too complicated for voters to understand, and that their friends in the media won’t blow the whistle on them.

How will the Democrats make the numbers add up? If they bother to try to hide what they have done, it will be by using one of the dishonest budget tricks that would have been outlawed by the Republicans’ Honest Budget Act, which was proposed last year, but which Harry Reid killed in the Senate. {Read More}

It comes as no surprise really.

Via: Memeorandum

Freedom of Speech and Possible Unintended Consequences...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Societal norms, and our understanding of the meaning of words have changed since the Bill of Rights amended our Constitution. One vivid example is our modern understanding of the first amendment which guarantees freedom of political speech, most specifically that which is the minority view. In other words it gave the people of the United States the iron clad right to speak, via their own mouth whatever political views may be on their mind.

Of course as we all know modern society has expanded the right to freedom of speech and it's meaning to include freedom of expression, whatever that expression may be in so long as it does not slander or result in physical injury to someone. In a free society, governed by the rule of law this is as it should be. It is in fact precisely how our founding fathers, as well as all American patriots in 1776 intended it to be.

South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt recently enjoyed the extension of these first amendment rights as she engaged in a smack down of Nikki Haley, Republican Governor of South Carolina. What I find amusing is the national AFL-CIO questioning whether they could get the YouTube video pulled.

Free-Times - A video posted online that shows a former union leader in South Carolina smashing a piƱata effigy of Gov. Nikki Haley has riled the national office of the AFL-CIO, which wants it taken down.

“Do you think we can get this video pulled,” asked a national AFL-CIO official in an email to Palmetto State union sources.

The author of the email also worried the video might get “picked up by tea partiers, maybe even Haley herself, to attack labor again.”

The footage was shot at the South Carolina Progressive Network’s 2012 spring gathering May 19, at the CWA Hall in West Columbia.

Well Ms. Dewitt and representatives of the national AFL-CIO, perhaps the concept and reality of unintended consequences somehow escaped you in forethought?

LMAO...

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

The "Dumbing Down" of Congressional and Presidential Speech...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Interestingly enough we have new studies out that rank not only congressional speaking levels but Presidential speaking levels as well. I am quite certain the conclusions drawn from both studies will be disputed by many on either side of the political spectrum as they rush to put some sort of spin on the results that are unflattering to them. After all no one wants to be considered in the class perceived as being the most "dumbed down." Do they?

Rather than attempting to summarize each study, which would likely carry some personal bias no matter how much I tried to avoid it, I will leave you with a couple of teasers. First the study on Congressional speech followed by the Presidential study. The rest is up to you to sort out and draw your own conclusions.

Sunlight Foundation, The changing complexity of congressional speech - Congress now speaks at almost a full grade level lower than it did just seven years ago, with the most conservative members of Congress speaking on average at the lowest grade level, according to a new Sunlight Foundation analysis of the Congressional Record using Capitol Words.

Of course, what some might interpret as a dumbing down of Congress, others will see as more effective communications. And lawmakers of both parties still speak above the heads of the average American, who reads at between an 8th and 9th grade level.

Today’s Congress speaks at about a 10.6 grade level, down from 11.5 in 2005. By comparison, the U.S. Constitution is written at a 17.8 grade level, the Federalist Papers at a 17.1 grade level, and the Declaration of Independence at a 15.1 grade level. The Gettysburg Address comes in at an 11.2 grade level and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is at a 9.4 grade level. Most major newspapers are written at between an 11th and 14th grade level. (You can find more comparisons here)

Skip

Overall, the complexity of speech in the Congressional Record has declined steadily since 2005, with the drop among Republicans slightly outpacing that for Democrats (see Figure 1). Through April 25, 2012, this year's Congressional Record clocks in at a 10.6 grade level, down from 11.5 in 2005.

Between 1996 and 2005, Republicans overall spoke at consistently 2/10ths of a grade level higher than Democrats, except for 2001, when a rare moment of national unity also seems to have extended to speaking at the same grade level. But following 2005, something happened, and Congressional speech has been on the decline since. For Republicans as a whole, the decline was from an 11.6 grade level to a 10.3 grade level in 2011 (up slightly to 10.4 in 2012 so far). For Democrats, it was a decline from 11.4 to 10.6 in 2011 (also up slightly to 10.8 in 2012 so far.) {Read the Full Study}

The Washington Free Beacon, House GOP Speaks at Higher Level than Obama - A new study conducted by a non-profit organization reveals that House Republicans speak at a higher grade level than President Barack Obama.

Liberals, including MSNBC host Martin Bashir, reveled in a Sunlight Foundation study that found that Republicans spoke at lower reading levels than congressional Democrats. The GOP’s 10th grade speech level ranks two grades higher than Obama’s rhetoric.

The Washington Free Beacon assessed dozens of Obama speeches from different stages of his career using the Flesch-Kincaid method and found that the pattern of simple speeches did not start with his reelection campaign.

Since taking office, Obama has routinely spoken to the American people in a more simplistic manner than his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama’s State of the Union addresses peaked at a 10th grade level in 2009 and declined to an eighth-grade level by 2012. Bush, on the other hand, scored consistently above the 10th grade level with his State of the Union addresses, including a high of 11.84 for his 2005 address. {Read More}

If nothing else the exercise, should you decide to pursue it, will likely prove to be fun, and enlightening. For some anyway.

US: State of the Union Registers at 8th Grade Reading Level


Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, May 20, 2012

European Debt Crisis Discussed At Camp David...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


As President Obama is hosting a summit with G8 leaders at Camp David this weekend to discuss nothing less than "economic growth" I couldn't help feeling just a bit cynical. it's probably just me, nonetheless being the skeptic has become normal for me over the last eight years.

I mean there are these, just a few select examples from yesterday's The New York Tines...
Leaders of the world’s richest countries banded together on Saturday to press Germany to back more pro-growth policies to halt the deepening debt crisis in Europe, as President Obama for the first time gained widespread support for his argument that Europe, and the United States by extension, cannot afford Chancellor Angela Merkel’s one-size-fits-all approach emphasizing austerity.
So, what the other leaders are really going to do is to pressure Germany's Chancellor to fully adopt the Keynesian economics that apparently all socialist counties, including the USA accept as the best world economic view. I may be off base here but it seems to me this is just a brick being lain in the building of the foundation for a one world economic and government order.
The leaders did concede somewhat to Ms. Merkel’s position on austerity, acknowledging that national budget deficits had to be addressed. But they added that spending cuts must “take into account countries’ evolving economic conditions and underpin confidence and economy recovery,” a recognition of how much the austerity packages have dampened consumer and political confidence in Europe.
This I suspect amounts to "throwing Chancellor Merkel a bone", just enough to get her to accept their view of "the bigger picture" and what they consider as the correct remedial approach to the worlds economic woes. I do find it quite interesting the nation that spawned Karl Marx is the nation most inclined to less government in the present. At least from a world or global view.
... While Greece is not part of the Group of 8 — the club is made up of the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia — the political and economic crisis facing Athens hovered over the meeting. Greece has been unable to form a government after voters, angry over austerity measures, brought down the last government, and there is now talk of bringing back the drachma and abandoning the euro.
One would think with the experiences of Greece and the problems it's pathetic socialist government is responsible for causing all other nation's and their governments would gain a clearer picture of the dangers of ever greater dependency on leviathan. Apparently not so.
With his own re-election bid tied to a fragile American economic recovery that could easily reverse if Europe’s economy takes another turn for the worse, Mr. Obama was pushing hard on Saturday for a euro-zone growth package. American officials said they hoped that after the full-court press this weekend at Camp David, Ms. Merkel would be more amenable to the pro-growth argument when she meets with European leaders this week at a summit to come up with specific steps to fight rising debt while spurring the economy.
Ah, could President Obama's primary motivation be to save his political skin? Of course it is. Rational, or in the President's case irrational self interest at work, just as it ultimately is for everyone, whether rational or irrational.
In comments to reporters afterward, Mr. Obama said that the group needed to discuss “a responsible approach to fiscal consolidation that is coupled with a strong growth agenda.”

“If a company is forced to cut back in Paris or Madrid, that might mean less business for workers in Pittsburgh or Milwaukee,” Mr. Obama said to explain why the European crisis matters to the United States. He said that while Europe’s predicament is “more complicated” since it requires coordination among multiple governments, steps his own government took to blunt the impact of the American financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, including the stimulus, can stand as an example for Europe.
It should be clear the President is hitting on two of his overriding themes here: A) Increased government involvement in the economies of both European nations as well as increased influence and intervention by Leviathan in America's business sector, and B) His narcissistic belief in his own intelligence, importance, and that his policies have actually worked wonders when clearly they have not.

As I said my skepticism has grown considerably over the past eight years. As I see more movement towards increasing the size of Leviathan in our United States of America, the growing trend towards accepting the idea of a One World Economic, Social, and Government Order {ex: European Union} my skepticism continues to grow. Perhaps it's just me, however as I think about it I suspect there are others who share my concerns.

Now, The New York Times article in full.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, May 19, 2012

David Brooks Nails It,...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Moderates seem to have a particular balanced sense of reality that is often lacking in the hard left or right. David Brooks is one of those reasoned moderate journalists that while not always agreeing with his positions I do find him often making lots of sense.

His recent New York Times article entitled The Age of Innocence is a statement on current political realities and how far we have regressed from our founders vision. Following are what I consider to be the highlights of his article. I also note that where you see ... indicates references to Europe have been omitted, temporarily.

The people who pioneered democracy in... the United States had a low but pretty accurate view of human nature. They knew that if we get the chance, most of us will try to get something for nothing. They knew that people generally prize short-term goodies over long-term prosperity. So, in centuries past, the democratic pioneers built a series of checks to make sure their nations wouldn’t be ruined by their own frailties.
For nearly 125 years the foresight of these pioneers, our founding fathers held the nation and its government pretty much in check, and balance.
The American founders did this by decentralizing power. They built checks and balances to frustrate and detain the popular will. They also dispersed power to encourage active citizenship, hoping that as people became more involved in local government, they would develop a sense of restraint and responsibility.
Unfortunately in the early days of the 19th century the forces of European socialism began to take root in the progressive movement in America and the resulting movement away from restraint and decentralized power.
James Madison put it well: “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind, which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”

But, over the years, this balanced wisdom was lost. Leaders today do not believe their job is to restrain popular will. Their job is to flatter and satisfy it. A gigantic polling apparatus has developed to help leaders anticipate and respond to popular whims. Democratic politicians adopt the mind-set of marketing executives. Give the customer what he wants. The customer is always right.

Having lost a sense of their own frailty, many voters have come to regard their desires as entitlements...
Boy isn't that a real mouthful of truth? Many Americans are certainly in line with hands outstretched to take whatever they can get from Leviathan. Without considering the ultimate costs or the nations inability to sustain some the "entitlements" they have grown used to and demand on a ever increasing trend.
The consequences of this shift are now obvious. In... America, governments have made promises they can’t afford to fulfill. At the same time, the decision-making machinery is breaking down. America... still have the structures inherited from the past, but without the self-restraining ethos that made them function.

The American decentralized system of checks and balances has transmogrified into a fragmented system that scatters responsibility. Congress is capable of passing laws that give people benefits with borrowed money, but it gridlocks when it tries to impose self-restraint.

The Obama campaign issues its famous “Julia” ad, which perfectly embodies the vision of government as a national Sugar Daddy, delivering free money and goodies up and down the life cycle. The Citizens United case gives well-financed interests tremendous power to preserve or acquire tax breaks and regulatory deals. American senior citizens receive health benefits that cost many times more than the contributions they put into the system.
Mr.Brooks really nails it here. Our system has certainly become dysfunctional. With the Obama Presidency we see a accelerated pace down the very path that has been in large part responsible for our continuing fiscal insanity and growing dependance on Leviathan government.

Now for the connection to Europe and the socialist mindset so prevalent in European nations.
In Europe, workers across the Continent want great lifestyles without long work hours. They want dynamic capitalism but also personal security. European welfare states go broke trying to deliver these impossibilities.

The European ruling classes once had their power checked through daily contact with the tumble of national politics. But now those ruling classes have built a technocratic apparatus, the European Union, operating far above popular scrutiny. Decisions that reshape the destinies of families and nations are being made at some mysterious, transnational level. Few Europeans can tell who is making decisions or who is to blame if they go wrong, so, of course, they feel powerless and distrustful.
See the parallels that exist with European socialism and the path American is trending? In reality our nation is only several years behind the situation Europeans find themselves in. Isn't time to consider the consequences of our actions and begin to hold ourselves responsible and accountable?

Read Mr. Brooks entire article here.

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Shall We Live Free Or Oppresed? The Choice Is Ultimately Ours...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny





I found myself thinking about Leviathan (government) and oppression today. Confusing to me so I'm guessing it is the same for most working Americans trying to support their family in the immediate as well as formulating plans to achieve their dreams for a better tomorrow and ultimate retirement. Pretty common thoughts for most Americans don't you think?

Once upon a time, say approximately 235 years ago, Americans believed in self reliance, hard work, and that if you kept your nose to the grindstone anything was possible. Sometime later the aforementioned ethic became known as the Horatio Alger, Jr. theory. . The American spirit and work ethic that gave rise to the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth has somehow come under attack. An attack from two fronts. Both the progressive left as well as the reactionary right preach a dogma that carried out to their natural logical ends will result in oppression of mind and spirit to the dictates of an all powerful state.

Oppression of the people is easily achieved by a powerful state (central Leviathan government) when it is able to strike fear into the hearts of it's citizens. Propaganda, used by both the progressive left and reactionary right is the methodology employed to lure an uneducated populace into willing compliance. Whichever the ideology the tactics are the same.

Today America is more divided than ever in it's history, with the exception of our American Civil War. While it is easy to point the finger of blame to the President, the truth of the matter is both the party of the President and the opposition Republican party share the blame to one degree or the other.

As a Objectivist and advocate for laissez faire constitutional capitalism I have many difference with the progressive movement, most specifically in the area of fiscal responsibility and proper governance. However, having said this I realize for any society and economy as large as ours (the worlds largest) requires close scrutiny and political as well as business cooperation to insure that it continues thrive and expand. Only by continued economic expansion can a nation provide the infrastructure that will support its growing population and provide for the needs of its elderly.

The progressive left believes the way to achieve this is through gutting the military and increasing social spending and thus creating a deeper and expanded dependency on government. The reactionary right believes that the nation should increase the military budget in order to maintain worldwide dominance while starving the domestic programs in order to achieve this.

Both views are fundamentally incorrect, and both views will ultimately lead to the oppressive Leviathan government I have depicted in the graphics preceding this commentary.

My purpose for this post is NOT to convince anyone as to what the right or wrong approach is. Nor is it to criticize any particular view as I've certainly done so in the past and likely will do so in the future, as will many of those who take the time to read these comments. So be it. That is the point really.

The real take-away is this; educate yourself on the issues, formulate your own views based on the data available to you, question with boldness everything the progressive left as well as the reactionary right presents, accept nothing at face value, and ultimately vote your principles and your conscience. Because if you don't it is certain the two party system, which is really interested only in perpetuating it's control and power over us all, will use the weapon of public apathy and or ignorance to oppress us all.

That's my view. I welcome yours...

Via: Thought/Thinking

As the Nation Changes...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Our American culture is changing, has been for some time. With the newest data showing "minorities" are becoming the new majority the political landscape of our nation will be forever changed.

The Washington Post - For the first time in U.S. history, most of the nation’s babies are members of minority groups, according to new census figures that signal the dawn of an era in which whites no longer will be in the majority.

Population estimates show that 50.4 percent of children younger than 1 last year were Hispanic, black, Asian American or in other minority groups. That’s almost a full percentage point higher than the 49.5 percent of minority babies counted when the decennial census was taken in April 2010. Census Bureau demographers said the tipping point came three months later, in July.

The latest estimates, which gauge changes since the last census, are a reflection of an immigration wave that began four decades ago. The transformation of the country’s racial and ethnic makeup has gathered steam as the white population grows collectively older, especially compared with Hispanics.

The census has forecast that non-Hispanic whites will be outnumbered in the United States by 2042, and social scientists consider that current status among infants a harbinger of the change.

“This is a watershed moment,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University who specializes in family issues. “It shows us how multicultural we’ve become.”

Although minorities make up about 37 percent of the U.S. population, the District and four states are majority minority — California, Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas.

Metropolitan Washington, where whites are in the minority, is far ahead of the curve. Among children younger than 5, there are more minorities than whites in virtually every jurisdiction except Arlington and Loudoun counties. Statewide, Virginia has just barely more white children under age 1 than minorities, but they are on the verge of falling below half. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

On Capitalism and a Proper Morality...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny




Ayn Rand Lexicon - Theory: Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

The Objectivist Ethics: The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.”

What Is Capitalism?” - The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival . . . .

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of living—and of thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive activity.

For those who understand and embrace capitalism nothing more need be said.

Those who chose to denounce capitalism rather than embrace it because of their fear of individual responsibility and accountability nothing that could be said will change their myopic view of reality.

To those who are open to a greater understanding of capitalism and the immense societal benefits that capitalism has bestowed on us I recommend visiting the following websites. The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: Capitalism, The Ayn Rand Institute, Objectivism, and Understanding a proper morality (my words.)



Via: Atlas Shrugged

As President Obama Continues His Descent Into Obsurity...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



The Washington Times:

President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

"A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office," Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.

The White House has held its proposal out as a "balanced approach" to beginning to rein in deficits. It calls for tax increases to begin to offset higher spending, and would begin to level off debt as a percentage of the economy by 2022. It would produce $6.4 trillion in new deficits over that time.

By contrast the chief Republican alternative from the House GOP would notch just $3.1 trillion in deficits, and three Senate Republican alternatives would all come in below $2 trillion.

The Senate is holding votes Wednesday on Mr. Obama's budget, the House GOP's budget and the three Senate Republican alternatives. None was expected to gain the 50 votes needed to pass the chamber. {Read More}

Indeed Mr. President. You may be laughing at your failure as a leader. The rest of the country is taking note. November 2012 is approaching rapidly as the national descent continues.

Via: Memeorandum

Let the Familial Fireworks Begin!

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


It seems there is a "family feud" going on in the Obama clan. On the one hand we have President Obama, and on the other we have his cousin Milton Wolf, MD. Everything I have heard or read leads me to believe the President's cousin has the upper hand in recognizing objective reality.



While the inquiring (and objective) mind waits for Milton's upcoming Daily Caller series much more can be found at Milton's website, the Wolf Files.

h/t: Left Coast Rebel

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Stacking the Decades

The left has been playing games with income inequality FOR DECADES. a) The income that they talk about is always of the pre-tax variety. The wealthy pay the bulk of federal and state income tax and local property tax. The actual disposable income is obviously considerably less. b) The income at the bottom rung is almost always calculated absent the plethora of transfer payments that the poor in this country frequently receive. When you factor in the value of the food stamps, the housing and energy assistance, the earned income tax credit, etc., the disparity once again is lessened. c) The left almost always cites statistics relative to household income. This is highly deceptive in that the number of workers per household in the upper quintile is roughly 4 times the number of that which exists for the lowest quintile (an average of 2 earners per family in the upper quintile and .5 in the lowest quintile). Obviously they're going to have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher household income. d) The majority of households in the bottom quintile of earners DO NOT have even one full-time year-round worker. These households are comprised predominantly of single mothers on welfare, Social Security recipients (retirees or those on disability), and people who work part-time and/or sporadically (as I pointed out in a previous thread, 97.5% of people who work full-time/ year-round are NOT below the poverty level). e) The left rarely, if ever, brings up the concept of social mobility. According the IRS's very own numbers, more than half of the people in the top 1% in 1996 WEREN'T there within a decade. Add to that the fact that 58% of the people in the bottom quintile in 1996 had moved out of their situation by 2006 and it really does underscore the reality that America is in fact an opportunity society....................................................................................................Look, I'm not saying here that being poor is any sort of cakewalk. It obviously isn't. And nobody who I know (even my most conservative colleagues) is even remotely saying that we should do away with the social safety net. But the level of the hand-wringing from the progressive left has really reached a tipping-point, in my opinion.You work, you make money. You work hard (and, yes, staying in school is helpful, too), you make more money. You sit behind a keyboard and bitch.......

Senator Coburn Talks Turkey...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla, who served on the Simpson-Bowles commission, and is a member of the Gang of Six has a new book out entitled The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America . Senator Coburn recently was interviewed by Ezra Klein of The Washington Post To discuss the nation's growing debt and economic growth problems. The following excerpts are from the first of what is to be a two part series. The second part will be coming out later this week. For those truly interested in solutions to our crushing fiscal problems this is a series you will want to follow. While you may not agree with everything the Senator has to say it is difficult to find a more reasonable, and reasoned voice amidst today's super heated rhetoric.

Ezra Klein: So ‘taxmageddon’ is coming at the end of the year. Depending on how you look at it, it’s an opportunity for Congress to trigger a massive and unnecessary fiscal crisis, or to actually get some serious legislating done on our long-term fiscal issues. Are you optimistic about the outcome?

Tom Coburn: No. But it depends on what the mix is. If President Obama is still president and we’re in control of the Senate, I think you’ll see significant attempts to get something done. But I don’t think they’ll be much more successful than what we saw in August. And I wouldn’t consider that very successful. If Romney wins and we win control in the Senate, we have to send a signal that we’re going to fix it in order to take away all that potential risk to the economy. You have to say we’ll work all over the Christmas holidays to get it fixed.

EK: When you look at the Romney scenario, it seems Republicans have spent a few years now learning how to take tough votes on the budget, particularly on the Ryan plan. So if Republicans control the House and Senate, it seems to me that you’d see quite dramatic action on those issues, as they can be passed with 51 votes through budget reconciliation.

TC: Well, you can. Ryan has a good plan. I don’t think it goes fast enough. But the fact is he’s got a plan. The president won’t put out a plan. The Senate Democrats won’t put out a plan. It’s kind of like boxing with a shadow. You can’t ever hit it. But it doesn’t matter if you’re Democrat or Republican. The pain will get worse every year we don’t fix these things. And there will come a time when it won’t matter if you’re a Republican or Democrat. And I don’t have much faith right now that we’re up to the task of coming to agreement to fix this.

EK: I want to come back to the question of the plans in a second,. But your book opens by imagining a very dire fiscal crisis in 2014. And this goes to your contention that Ryan’s plan doesn’t bring down the debt fast enough. Where do you get the urgency of your schedule? I look at Treasuries and they’re selling with very low yields. So you can say that’s just the Federal Reserve manipulating prices. So then I look at credit default swaps on the United States, and there are no alarm bells there, either. I look at countries like Japan and England that have carried on with very high debt levels for a very long time. We’ve seen other countries that control their own currency manage very high debt levels throughout the 20th Century.

TC: Well, you need to go study Japan. They’re going to crash.

EK: People have been saying that for 20 years.

TC: You have two things coming together. This is the first year they’ll be a net issuer of debt outside their country. They’ve totally financed all their debt internally. We haven’t. That’s one big difference. They also have a much lower birth rate. Seven births for every 1,000 people. So their population is shrinking and their demographic shift is much worse than ours. And this year, the postal system there that runs all their retirement accounts will not be buying any government debt. Zero. So the Japanese government, for the first time, is going into the international market. And the yen’s value is going to decline against every major currency. Whether that happens this year or next year or in three years, it’s going to happen. And they’ve now had almost two decades of no real GDP growth. So Japan isn’t going to make it. The reason they haven’t had any problems is they haven’t asked anyone else in the world to buy their debt. Now they’re going to have to.

The same thing ultimately will happen to us, but we’ll be the last person it happens to. The world still views this as the safest place. You see Greece, which will probably be out of the euro by the end of this year. Then you look at Spain and Italy and Portugal and Ireland. Europe is going to print money just like Ben Bernanke is printing money. And what’s the end result of that? Inflation.

EK Well, it depends how you manage it.

TC: How do you sterilize $3 trillion worth of debt?

EK: The difficulty for me when you say that is I’m a market-oriented guy. I trust the markets, more or less. And if you look at the market’s inflation expectations, they’re not high. They don’t think what the Fed has done will lead to inflation.

TC: They don’t now. But nobody ever does when you print money like that. If you study [Carmen] Reinhart and [Kenneth] Rogoff and what they said, they know what’s coming. Every country that’s ever been with a debt crisis and has printed money has ended up with an intentional inflation problem. Think for a minute that you’re Ben Bernanke. You’re trying to control inflation, jumpstart the economy, and improve the unemployment rate. What do you think his long-term answer for this is?

EK: At the moment, I don’t think he has one.

TC: His long-term answer is inflation.

EK: Not only do I think that would be an okay answer, but Reinhart and Rogoff do, too. Rogoff has been arguing for higher inflation for a long time. But Bernanke says he won’t permit that. And I don’t see a reason he would allow inflation later but oppose it now, when it could really help. In fact, what he’s been saying is he won’t do the monetary stimulus many want now specifically because he doesn’t want to deanchor inflation expectations later.

TC: But 10 years from now, our bonds won’t be two percent. So what percentage of the total budget do interest costs become if you normalize back to the historical average? If you do that today, you add $650 billion to our annual interest costs. How long do you think he can keep two percent inflation? If he does, then we’ll continue to have two percent growth. In other words, if we start getting the growth, then we’ll see the inflation. The reason there’s no inflation now is there’s no velocity to the money. We’ve got $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines with corporations in this country. Another few trillion in personal bank accounts. And the reason is no one has confidence in the future. And it’s not so much the details of the plan to fix it as the psychological confidence it will get fixed. And that’s why I voted for Bowles-Simpson.

EK: When Bowles-Simpson went before the House, it was rejected by a huge bipartisan majority. Do you see there as being any possibility that one outcome of the taxmageddon period could, be a grand bargain in the Gang of Six/Simpson-Bowles vein?

TC: I don’t know the answer to that, frankly. My hope would be we reach a grand compromise. But the vote in the House proves what I said in the book. You had a vote in the House on a plan that could solve our problems and the Democrats didn’t vote for it because it touches Social Security and Republicans vote against it because of revenues. Both sides accentuated their differences rather than sending a signal to the international community that we could get together and cut $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Which raises the question: Why are they here? If you’re here just to get reelected, you’re worthless to the country.

EK: You’re searingly critical of Congress in the book. So let me ask you: How do you fix the Senate?

TC: Let the Senate operate the way it’s supposed to. put stuff through committees. bring it up in regular order. Have an open amendment process. I’m the number one amendment offerer in the Senate in the last few years.

EK: Congratulations. {Read More}

One thing is for certain, we either address the debt issue or it WILL bring this once great and powerful economic Goliath to his knees. Watch for the second installment.

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

President Obama, Just Another Pandering Politician...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -
vs- Tyranny

Yeah, Right, fer Sure- Not

When Obama changes his mind it's evolving. Whenever anybody else does it's flip-flopping. At least that is how the left sees it.

Yahoo News - Scooping up dollars for his campaign at a New York fundraiser, President Barack Obama told supporters on Monday that "the American people are on our side" when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage.

The president spoke at an event hosted by openly gay singer Ricky Martin, the LGBT Leadership Council and the Futuro Fund, where he tied his announced support for gay marriage last week to past civil rights struggles.

"We have never gone wrong when we expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody," the president said to cheers from the audience. "That doesn't weaken families, that strengthens families. It's the right thing to do."

His comments came after presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney told graduating students at Liberty University, a school founded by the late conservative televangelist Jerry Falwell, that marriage is between "one man and one woman."

"The good news is, I think the American people are on our side on this," Obama said at the New York event. Polls show that Americans are deeply divided on gay marriage. Younger Americans -- a key part of the president's history-making 2008 coalition -- tend to be more supportive.

The embattled Democrat, his ambitions for a second term weighed down by the still-struggling economy, also took a turn as a slogan-writer of sorts for Romney and his fellow Republicans. "Their message is going to be very simple, you know what: 'You're frustrated, you're dissatisfied and it's Obama's fault.' You can boil down the message," Obama said. "And they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to drill that home. "

Republicans have been pounding away at the president over stubbornly high unemployment rates and accusing him of making the recession longer and more painful with his policies.

Obama also warned his supporters not to be complacent.

"Nobody should be taking this for granted. Especially when I come to New York, sometimes, you know, people go around and say, 'I don't know anybody who's not supporting you, Barack.' I say, 'You live in Manhattan, man.' This is going to be a challenging race, but we can win."

Diversionary tactics will now be the order of the Obama campaign. Having a dismal record on the economy, unemployment, and the largest increase in the national debt ever by a first term president "The Man" will distract, evade, and play the American public as fools.

Of course all this can be avoided if the media gives equal attention to Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for the presidency AND individuals across the nation educate themselves on Gary Johnson's record, political philosophy, and principles.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Shades of Black Success

 The discrimination theory relative to African-American underachievement is an exceedingly flawed one, and all that you really need to do to see this is to look at just how well that West Indian blacks (who were also the victims of slavery) and African immigrants do by comparison.....................................................................................................I mean, think about it here. For the discrimination theory to be even remotely logical, the following in fact would have to take place: A West Indian black or an African immigrant goes into into a company and applies for a job. The white manager sees the dark-skinned person come onto the room and right off the bat starts thinking to himself, "Alright, this is a dark-skinned person. I'm going to have to try to give him the 1,2,3,4 and get him the hell out of here." But THEN the dark-skinned person speaks and once the white manager hears that the individual speaks with an accent, his mental process rapidly shifts to one of, "Oh, wait a minute, this dude has an accent and this probably means that he's in fact one of the good ones. I will definitely have to give this fellow a fair shake."............................................................................................................You see what I'm saying here? It's absurd. There has to be something above and beyond simple discrimination that's driving this issue; a cultural/familial component, a disincentive component, a government component, an educational component, etc.. There has to be, and we have to figure it out quickly.

Rethinking the Issue of Gay Marriage...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


There is a lot of attention being given to the issue of gay marriage. Why I didn't really understand, until today.

Sure, I did a post at RN USA that was published in the Daily Caller in 2010. Certainly the DC is far from a liberal publication, nevertheless they ran my article.

My article was essentially in support of the rights of LGBT individuals to be treated equally. The basis of my arguments can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. Positions that I now hold with even stronger convictions.

However, until today I argued that same sex unions should not be considered marriages. Like so many I felt that marriage was between one man and one women, the traditional concept of marriage.

So you may be asking, what made this day different enough to change your position? Really it is quite simple. I was wrong.

After talking with a friend today that happens to have a daughter that is lesbian I saw a perspective I had not witnessed before much less considered. While I know many gay people, and have daily business as well as casual social relationships with them I never fully appreciated the frustrations that gay and lesbian people feel. Today, I got a glimpse through the eyes of my friend, the mother of a normal and healthy young women what the issue is really all about.

For me, a individual that holds freedom and individual liberties at a very high premium, the highest actually, it occurred to me (with the help of my wife and the aforementioned friend) that the issue is really about those concepts that I hold most dear. Freedom and individual liberties. Individuals that are gay are not gay because they choose to be. They are gay because just like heterosexuals it is just the way it is. Like heterosexuals they simply want to be who they are. They have that right and they should be free to love, live with, and or marry whom they choose

While I am certain to take my share of criticism for "flip flopping" I frankly do not care. People do indeed evolve. When such evolution occurs because of a honest intellectual thought process, one that upon close examination is correct then such evolution is good. And society is made better.

We need not fear the LGBT community with whom we work with and live. Rather we should fear the boogieman that keeps us from allowing people that are not "straight" from living their lives as they see fit. Because if we don't, that same boogieman may morph into something that might prevent each and everyone of us from living the life we choose. Assuming that life does not harm another.

A respected Republican Pollster, Jan R. van Lohuizen lays out the reasons the GOP, the socons, and conservatives in general need to reconsider their views and opinions. Not only for practical political reasons but because it is the right thing to do.

Being comfortable in ones own skin makes it by far easier to consider positions once felt to be taboo.

Via: Memorandum

Friday, May 11, 2012

The Key To Continued Freedom and Individual Liberties...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


President Obama and the Occupy Wall Street crowd has succeeded in turning the nation's focus increasingly to the idea of wealth redistribution. This of course is allegedly to make things a bit more "fair", to use one of my favorite anti-concepts.

Recently thinking about this my mind turned to the concept of property rights. While I knew the framers of our Constitution were advocates for individual property rights and set themselves to the task of insuring their protection I went searching for some on line reference material to help put things in proper perspective. I found it at the National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Below is from the Center's front page. I encourage everyone concerned with the present day trend towards wealth redistribution and its cousin, collectivism to visit the Center. Protecting individual property rights is critical to protecting freedom and individual liberties.

Private Property Rights

A basic Premise Of America's Constitution

Tired of having the fruits of their labors confiscated by an overpowering British government, America's Founders declared themselves free and independent.

Most American schoolchildren can recite their claim that ". all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Less familiar, however, are these lines from their Declaration of Independence:

"He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance .... He has combined with others to subject us, ... imposing taxes on us without our consent."

What, then, did the Founders consider to be the real cornerstone of man's liberty and happiness? On what basic premise did they devise their Constitution? Let them speak for themselves:

John Adams

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST"



James Madison

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

Their guiding principle was that people come together to form governments in order to SECURE their rights to property - not to create an entity which wilt, itself, "take from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned." What was wrong for individual citizens to do to one another, they believed, was equally wrong for government to do to them.

The right to own property and to keep the rewards of individual labor opened the floodgates of progress for the benefit of the entire human race. Millions have fled other countries to participate in the Miracle of America.

We the People, in order to continue to enjoy the freedom and liberties guaranteed us by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution of the United States of America, must remain vigilant in our understanding the connection individual property rights has with our freedom and individual liberties.

Via: Memeorandum

Fun Facts...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Submitted by a regular visitor the following "fum facts" or "trivia", however you view them, are telling.

There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second explains a lot.

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.


Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18


Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

And now for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?

U.S. NO

England YES

Canada YES

Check this last set of statistics:

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is --a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.


T. Roosevelt.................... 38%

Taft............................ 40%

Wilson ........................ 52%

Harding......................... 49%

Coolidge........................ 48%

Hoover.......................... 42%

F. Roosevelt.................... 50%

Truman.......................... 50%

Eisenhower...................... 57%

Kennedy......................... 30%

Johnson......................... 47%

Nixon........................... 53%

Ford............................ 42%

Carter.......................... 32%

Reagan.......................... 56%

GH Bush......................... 51%

Clinton ........................ 39%

GW Bush......................... 55%

Obama........................... 8%


This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration, only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!

That's right! Only eight percent, the least by far of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

Doubtful we'll EVER see these facts in the main stream media.

A fun way to end a very fun evening...

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails