Monday, January 31, 2011

Egypt in Crisis

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Egypt, a moderate Muslim state with pro west leanings by comparison to, say, Iran, the Palestinians, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most other Muslim nations.

Yet the west, following the leadership of none other than Barrack H. Obama, and the peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, is prepared to throw Mubarak under the bus in the name of regime change.

Okay, I get it. Just be prepared for the Muslim Brotherhood and extremist Islam taking hold in our prior ally.


Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Discussions @ Memeorandum
More @ Memeorandum

Taking it Easy...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Some fine jazz by Dave Brubeck. "Take Five" and get in the groove!

To the upcoming week with all its promise and tribulations. Relax, enjoy, and.... take five....

A Common Shared Vision.... Does the Vision Live Yet Today?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

George Washington, often called the Father of our country, and Thomas Jefferson, author of  The Declaration of Independence, were  fiercely patriotic men that shared the vision of an independent and free democratic republic. They were respectively the first and third Presidents of the United States of America. While sharing the same vision for America they had differing and conflicting views on how to achieve the same vision.

Washington became a staunch advocate for a strong central government, having suffered through eight years of the Revolutionary War as Commander in Chief  observing, and living the ineptitude of a weak decentralized Continental Congress. Jefferson on the other hand was an unshakable advocate for a limited federal government with more powers being reserved to the states.

From the earliest beginnings of the great American Experiment our founders held different and opposing views on the role government should play in our free and democratic republic. A government in which the people freely elected representatives to speak for them.

The enduring strength of our republic has been its ability to craft solutions to the common problems of its citizenry. The nation accomplished great things not through rancor and ideological purity, but rather by focusing on the common cause of America and its people.

For two and a third centuries our republic has been a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world to emulate. It has, at the same time, been the most benevolent nation in terms of aid to counties not as bountifully blessed as our own.

The American people are a unique and individualistic people. We are unlike any the world has ever witnessed, either before our glorious Revolution or since. Liberty and self governance is the ideal for which there is no equal. Our great nation has flourished on these very ideals.

Our people have always been unique among nations. This is because we have had the liberty to freely express our differences with the government we duly elect. Our experience(s) as a nation ought to be the guiding light if you will to our future. It has long been said those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. In as much as this is true, is it not also true that by failing to understand history we are also unable to recognize histories successes and build upon them?

History has always been a love of mine. It has alway fascinated me and lead me to vistas I otherwise would not have aspired to were it not for my love of history. And so you may ask, what is your point. A fair enough question as I have asked the same of myself many times over.

My point is just this.... If the man largely responsible for the very existence of our nation as we know it (if you doubt this please read Washington: A  Life), and the man who crafted our Declaration of Independence could work for a common cause greater than themselves then it stands to reason that today the proponents of a stronger central government and those advocating a more limited and less intrusive government out to be able  find the wherewith-all to work out their differences that result in strengthening our nation.

Espousing the benefits of a particular belief(s) or philosophy should be encouraged. Open and heated debate on the merits or lack thereof should be welcomed and accepted as the norm. Dissenting opinions ought be fertilized and watered so as to grow and take root should they merit further consideration.

Our nation was founded on the efforts of many who understood that heated, and often cantankerous debate was necessary to work through the many differences of opinion that existed in our unique American culture. Today we are again facing a huge divide in our differing opinions on how we ought to be governed going forward. It is indeed incumbent on this generation to work through and beyond our differences. The opportunity for our grandchildren to succeed may well depend on what we do today.

Is it not time we "get it together" for all concerned? Future generations are depending on us. Our founding fathers just might be waiting to see if  we make  the right decisions. On the final score (note) none of us can be sure. What we should all recognize is that respectful, open,  and honest debate on the issues is good and desirable.

Unfortunately it is true the words of  our nation's first President have likely been long ago forgotten ...

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. 

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. 

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole. 

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
Above from President Washington's farewell remarks to the nation.

It is perhaps also true with respect to the words of our third President.  Excerpt from his first inaugural address....
About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.
Full text of President Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address.

The differing political views were obvious in the late 1700's and early 1800's. They remain starkly obvious  and different today. The question to be answered is... Do we have the tenacity to overcome them and remain a unified nation.

Only time will tell. I remain hopeful.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Who's the "Bubble Head" Now?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

MSNBC's Chris Matthews, after deriding Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as two "bubble headed idiots" has recently shown himself to be, well, to say the very least an uniformed and perhaps delusion progressive.

It seems Mr. Matthews believes the Panama Canal is in Egypt. Note the one minute twenty second mark in the following video. Mr. Matthews, in his very own words, proclaims the Panama Canal is in Egypt. I guess bubble headed-ness is something  Chris know a lot about.

The Statement

More at theblogprof.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Archaeological Find!

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

via: e-mail

An archaeological team, digging in Washington DC, has uncovered 10, 000 year old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first Politician.

Too Funny!

h/t: eron63

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Chris "air brain" Mathews on Backmann

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Chris Mathews, another paragon of leftist progressive thought occasioned to hammer away at Rep. Michelle Blackman's statements with respect to slavery in early America. Lets take a look at what Mathew's issues are.

Chris Matthews was nearly apoplectic in his questioning of Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo on the topic of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and her controversial re-imagining of history where the founding fathers found a way to end slavery in their lifetime. Repeatedly calling Bachmann a “balloon head,” Matthews demanded to know why Russo and the Tea Party wanted Bachmann to give a response to the State of the Union address or, more generally, why they ever wanted her to open her mouth in the first place?

Given that Russo was eager to steer the topic away from what Bachmann does or does not know about slavery, the “interview” ended up being just Matthews berating Russo with questions like “do you know how little this woman knows about American history” and “what is she talking about?” Joan Walsh was also a guest for the segment, but there was a little time for her, since it was clearly much more entertaining watching Matthews scream at Russo “are you hypnotized – can you answer a question,” whenever Russo struggled to defend Bachmann.

Mathew's purpose was to do all he could to cast a shadow on not only on Bachmann but the Tea Party in general. Mathews is technically correct with his comments with respect to slavery. The founding fathers held slaves there is no question. It is also true that Washington and Jefferson, as well as others freed their slaves upon their death. It is also true that General Washington enlisted slaves into the American cause during the Revolutionary War. Their payment for serving... freedom. Other politicians and activists of the era did fight tirelessly to change the blight of slavery on our nation. So while Backmann may have over spoke a bit and stretched historical reality, it is also clear that "air brain" Mathews was only interested in focusing on a rather minor point. In doing so he was able to shut down debate on substantive matters he wished not heard because it favors the rational non progressive side of politics.

You heard Mr. Chris (air brain) Mathews. You, the educated and in touch readers of Rational Nation USA and the Left Coast Rebel be the final judge.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Discussions @ Memeorandum

The Ryan and Bachmann Rebuttals

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

The double barrel response to the Presidents SOTU address. First the official Republican response given by Rep. Paul Ryan followed by Tea Party favorite Rep. Michelle Bachmann.

Due to a technical nature of sorts you will notice Rep. Bachmann is continually looking to her right, your left. No small matter as it was picked up and commented on by Obama adviser David Axelrod. While mildly distracting it does not take away from her message.

There are some who believe the airing of both Paul Ryan's and Michelle Bachmann's comments tend to muddle the rebuttal message and even makes Republicans appear conflicted.

My thoughts are both responses highlight valid concerns with the President's agenda and vision as to how best right our ship. While the rebuttals are not long on specifics neither was the SOTU address by the President. But thinking about it the purpose of is not to be specific, but rather to arouse positive feelings and rally people to the "cause" is it not?

What say you?

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, January 24, 2011

SOTU Preview ... 2011

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear." --George Washington, Farewell Address

We are soon to hear the second SOTU address by President Barrack Obama. It will likely be longer on prose than on substance. While the President's teleprompter and oratorical skills are considered amongst the best, it remains a legitimate question as to whether his vision for America is of sound making. My personal thoughts are it is not.

Perusing the blogoshere this morning I picked up the following tidbits.
Politico - Obama’s speech comes at an ambiguous moment for him, the country and Congress, and his staff, led by senior adviser David Axelrod, who is leaving the West Wing on Friday, has been groping for something beyond a typical State of the Union — something grander and more like a second inaugural address than a programmatic laundry list or partisan pep rally.

Still, the event offers the president the largest audience he’ll get all year, one that rivals the viewership for the Academy Awards. Obama’s first State of the Union address, last year, drew 48 million viewers, and 52 million people watched his first speech to a joint session of Congress in February 2009. (Watch: Newsmakers preview SOTU)

The show of congressional unity will last about an hour. House Republicans will vote earlier in the day to cut the budget to 2008 levels, and the sustained attack on Obama’s record and presidency the GOP has in mind for the next two years will have only just begun. (See: Republicans eye costs, not uninsured)

“What we’re going to find out, beginning next week, is how much of this he really means,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on “Fox News Sunday....”

Read more here.

The Hill - When President Obama delivers his State of the Union address to Congress, it will mark the culmination of a transformation the White House hopes will lead to a second term in 2012.

Obama and his aides began positioning the president as more business-friendly and centrist months ago, and the White House intends to build on that effort when he addresses the country and a divided Congress on Tuesday.

Obama is expected to say that the economy has survived near-collapse and that Washington should now focus on growing jobs and increasing America's competitiveness in the global market. The president will call on the Republican House and a Senate still held by his own party to help him in that effort.

As measured by several polls, Obama has seen his political health strengthen since November, when his party suffered what the president described as a midterm shellacking by Republicans.

And Obama and his aides are clearly trying to seize on the momentum they're enjoying and what they feel is a strong State of the Union message.

Beyond the poll numbers, the White House also has seen measurable improvement in the economy, and hopes to use Tuesday's address as a pivot point to present itself as working with both parties to lower the nation's stubborn jobless rate, which remains the greatest danger to a second term for Obama.

In a message to supporters on Saturday, Obama gave a bit of a preview of the remarks Congress can expect at the State of the Union.

"An economy that was shrinking is now growing again," Obama said in the video. "We've created more than a million jobs over the last year. The stock market is back up and corporate profits are healthy again. So we've made progress, but as all of you know, from talking to friends and neighbors, seeing what's happening in your communicates, we've got a lot more work to do."

Obama also addressed the theme Friday in Schenectady, N.Y., where he announced General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt would lead a new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness....

Read more here

The Caucus - The State of the Union address President Obama will deliver on Tuesday was developed during months of deliberations with a small group of White House advisers who helped Mr. Obama channel his instincts as an author.

The speech, as it always is, has been the focus of intense lobbying by interest groups as they jockey to convince the president to mention their issues. And the policy pronouncements are the result of a back-and-forth vetting with officials in the executive branch agencies.

But how the president frames those policies and the words he chooses to speak derive from his style as a speechmaker. And in this way, Mr. Obama is very different from the previous Democratic president, Bill Clinton — Mr. Clinton is a talker; Mr. Obama is a writer.

Mr. Obama and a small circle of his advisers started preparing what he would say in Tuesday’s State of the Union address just days after the midterm elections last November.

Aides said the process began with an extended “download” from the president as he sat in the Oval Office surrounded by his top speechwriter, Jon Favreau; David Axelrod, his senior adviser; and other top White House officials.

Mr. Obama discussed what he wanted to say while Mr. Favreau typed furiously into his laptop computer, capturing not only the president’s broad policy goals but Mr. Obama’s phrasing and tone....

Read more here

CNN - It is a Washington ritual at the State of the Union address. The president honors special guests by inviting them to sit alongside the first lady in her reserved box in the House chamber.

This year the special guests will include at least one of the heroes from the tragic Tucson shooting. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro tells CNN Daniel Hernandez, the intern who assisted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords after she was shot in the Safeway parking lot, will join First Lady Michelle Obama for the speech.

According to a senior White House official, Capt. Mark Kelly, husband of Rep. Giffords, was also invited but is unlikely to attend because of the Congresswoman's ongoing treatment and rehabilitation at a Houston, Texas hospital. The rest of the guest list has not yet been announced.

Traditionally, the special guest list can be about two dozen people, ranging from guests who exemplify extreme valor and courage to those who represent the president's political agenda.

The rest here.

It looks like the evening will be as anticipated. Long, often boring, and will keep the viewer looking to find something of substance.

Just a thought. I wonder if the President will get around to something as important as our national debt and its eventually devastating effect on our children and grandchildren's generation. President George Washington recognized the {potential} dangers we are now facing over 200 years ago. But I suppose we have long grown past worrying about basic economic and financial principals.

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, January 23, 2011

National Date Night 2011

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

As the upcoming SOTU address approaches, and Republicans and Democrats are reaching across the aisle and pairing up to sit next to each other,  pundits are having a ball with it all. Even calling it "Date Night."

The SOTU is a serious evening for the American people, or at least it ought to be. What we are witnessing however, at least from some politicians and political pundits, is what amounts to a negative {or frivolous} slant on efforts of a number of legislators that have decided to present the appearance at least of bipartisanship.

So just what the h*ll is wrong with that? True bipartisanship can be a good thing for the nation. The American people actually expect their representatives and senators to represent them, hammer out the best solutions, and in the end get things done to strengthen the nation. If "Date Night" were to actually accomplish the above it would be welcomed by most of the American people.

Perhaps what is bothering me is the realization that there are those who really do not want any resolution to problems, other than solutions that fit the product of their cherished paradigm(s). Please understand that I spread the criticism to both the conservatives and the progressives. Conservatives scoff at the idea of bipartisanship and mixed seating openly. Progressives on the other hand will use the idea to paint conservatives {those that don't go along}as being partisan and unyielding. Yet progressives are just as guilty, if not more so, of fierce partisanship.

So America, welcome to "Date Night" 2011. Let the political dance and the charade continue. For in reality they began a very long time ago. Really.

I just wish the media, the politicians, and the pundits { I am an amateur one}, would finally agree to drop the BS and get to solving the nations problems.

As a firm advocate of... limiting government to the greatest degree possible, insuring a strong national defense without the interventionist policies we have been following since WW II, strengthening our nation's infrastructure, creating a business environment that is conducive to business growth in America rather than off shore, supporting America's middle class , recognizing that unions do not have to be the opponents of business but rather their partners, remaining true to our constitutional principals and founding vision, and putting America first once again I am pretty sure there is plenty of conservatives, libertarians, and even liberals who could find common ground and agreement. If they would only seriously make the attempt. That and start to think outside the box.

Via: Memeorandum

The Good/Evil of a Free Press

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

The following quote, short as it may be, is instructive in its truth.
"To get the inestimable good that freedom of the press assures one must know how to submit to the inevitable evil it gives rise to." --Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

A free nation, in order to remain free, must forever preserve and protect a press unencumbered by government regulation or oversight. This, by necessity, must include the internet.

On the other hand to remain a free people requires members of a free society remain ever informed and vigilant. The dangers in a free press rest in the fact there are those who do not report the news {truth} but rather their interpretation {twisting} of the news {facts} in order to further their own agenda. The evil of which Alexis de Tocqueville spoke lies in in the foregoing statement.

Opinions developed by one after analyzing a set of facts is the responsibility of each individual in a free society. Given that facts can be interpreted differently by different {and intelligent} individuals, based on their experience and biases is why we have diverse opinions and views on all issues.

The point I suppose is to read and digest information from all sources and viewpoints. Conservative, moderate, and progressive. Then honestly evaluate and decide for yourself what makes sense.

Conservative, moderate, and progressive reporters of the news have all been guilty at one time or another of editorial excess. Sorting out the truth requires work and a desire to remain free to enjoy the liberties given us by our founding documents.

In this independent conservatives view that is how one "submit(s) to the inevitable evil it gives rise to."

You may be interested in this informative article. You the thinker be the judge.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Discussions @ Memeorandum

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Beck Under Fire

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Glenn Beck is under rhetorical "fire" {how's that for PC?} from the left. This is of course common fare as he -- being a staunch conservative advocate of our founding principals and the Constitution as written -- is anathema to the most liberal element of our society. Note I did not say all liberals. There are liberal that while disagreeing with his views do not see him as the "devil in disguise" as some liberals do.

Beck is certainly opinionated. Who isn't? In fact some of the most opinionated personalities can be found on the left. As stated in recent posts at Rational Nation USA, expressing one's opinion respectfully should be welcomed and encouraged.

I do not always agree with Beck. In fact I seldom watch his show as I am usually occupied with other more important activities at that hour. However, I have had the opportunity to catch a few of his shows recently I have found him to be measured in his rhetoric and clear on his denunciation of incivility in general and violence in particular.

There are some on the left that see it otherwise. In my opinion such individuals and organizations are really just concerned with shutting down conservative pundits for the sake of shutting down opposing views. This is indeed unfortunate as both liberal and conservative views need to be heard for people to make informed decisions.

I had no intention and certainly no desire of posting on Beck until I saw the following from today's The Washington Monthly by Steve Benen.

WHEN BECK'S MINIONS GET THE MESSAGE.... Glenn Beck doesn't just rail against perceived enemies, whom he considers dangerous villains who must be stopped; he also chooses obscure enemies he considers worthy of his rage.

It's one of the many oddities of Beck's bizarre message. The condemnations of President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are predictable, but Beck sees imaginary patterns and conspiracies involving figures most Americans neither know nor care about: Van Jones, Frances Fox Piven, George Soros, Saul Alinsky, the Tides Foundation, etc.

In Beck's unhealthy imagination, each are nefarious players in a plot to destroy you and everything you hold dear. Sane people don't see the danger, Beck says, but that only proves the point -- the mentally healthy are probably in on it.

The problem, of course, is Beck's minions take all of this seriously, and consider Beck's perceived enemies their perceived enemies.

Read the rest of here.

First: Beck has never advocated violence against anyone and rhetorical political comments do not constitute threats. Second: Beck ties quotes and information relative to the subject matter he is speaking on to the people who are responsible for the quotes.

Apparently some do not understand it is not the person per se that he is taking issue with, rather it is their philosophy or ideology. His sole purpose is to expose his viewing and listening audience to views he considers {often rightly} to be wrong-headed.

Glenn is not a news caster, although he and his staff do the research necessary to gather facts for his program. He is a television op-ed personality. He presents the data on the subject matter and then gives his opinion on the subject. While he can be tedious at times he has a useful and important place in our political dialogue. Just as Olbermann, Maddow, and Schultz have.

I can't help but wonder what the left is really fearful of.... On second thought I know.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel and Political Integrity Now

Via: Memeorandum

DeMint Foregoing CPAC

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

As I again go out on a limb....Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is the most recent "prominent" GOP legislator who has opted out of attending CPAC because of the inclusion of GOProud, a gay conservative group. In addition to his apparent concern over gays in the GOP he also has a problem with what he views as an increased libertarian tilt within CPAC.

While opting out of this year's gathering his spokesperson stated that he hopes to attend a unified event next year. One cannot help but presume he really means to attend -- only if GOProud and libertarians somehow just disappear.

This from Politico:
South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint will skip this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, making him the most prominent conservative figure yet to express objections to what critics see as a pro-gay, libertarian tilt to the 38-year-old event.

"With leading conservatives organizations not participating this year, Sen. DeMint will not be attending. He hopes to attend a unified CPAC next year," DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said in an e-mail.

Prominent social conservatives have dropped out of the event and criticized it for its inclusion of the gay conservative group GOProud. Rep. Jim Jordan, who heads the House's Republican Study Committee, also has
joined the boycott.

Libertarians and gays ain't going away. Nor should they. It seems only logical that if conservative republicans want to GROW the party its prominent members might well consider shedding their narrow and restricting dogma thereby expanding the party's tent. There are many conservative libertarians as well as gays. To shun an organization based on Mr. DeMint's reasoning just doesn't make sense. At least not to this independent conservative.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, January 21, 2011

Civility and Politics

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Okay... I go out on a limb once again. I am all for civility in discourse. I can even understand the thought process behind breaking tradition and doing the mixed seating during the State of the Union Address. Disagreement does not have to turn into incivility. Even while holding different political views we should all be able to agree we are Americans, and in that we are United.

Political discourse has never been all that polite in American politics. The examples in US history are numerous if one chooses to look. The freedom to express differing political philosophies has insured, for over 234 years robust passionately heated debates. In America this is as it has always been. It is as it must be, if we desire a free and open society for our posterity.

I see where Rep. Paul Brown (R-GA) is opposed to the mixed seating idea put forth by Sen. Mark Udall (D-C0) calling it a trap. Really? How so? Here is his explanation and response to a caller....
BROUN: Well, I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, I'm talking to members of Congress. Our leadership said you do whatever you want to do. If you wanna sit with the Democrats, you can. If you wanna sit with Republicans, that you can. We're going to have a conference next week and I'm gonna bring that up there. I already believe very firmly that it is a trap and a ruse that Democrats are proposing. They don't want civility. They want silence from the Republicans. And the sitting together being kissy-kissy is just another way to try to silence Republicans, and also to show — to keep the American people from seeing how few of them there are in the U.S. House now. Then when people stand up to — what the Democrats are going to be doing when Barack Obama spews out all his venom, then, um, if they're scattered throughout all the Republicans, then it won't be as noticeable as if we're sitting apart. So it is a ruse and I'm not in favor of it and I'm talking about it and I hope other members of the Republican conference in the House will not take the bait.

I guess I fail to see the big deal. As a body, the Congress of the Untied States of America by its very design will always have opposing views. Often diametrically opposed. The opportunity for the politicians to debate their opposing views and hammer away at convincing  their colleagues on "the other side of the aisle" will always be there. As it should be.

Mixed seating at the State of the Union address (if) to demonstrate solidarity as Americans is not a bad thing. No one should, nor likely will they, take it as a capitulation to democratic "liberalism" or an "acknowledgement" the current democratic administration is doing a good job.

Civility, which is mutually respectful {and often heated}debate is good. Without it our republic will cease to exist as we have known it for 2.33 centuries. Let us not confuse the issues.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Repealing ObamaCare

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

The rhetoric from the progressives over efforts to repeal Obamacare are, as expected, heating up. It matters not to the true believers that the so called healthcare reform is opposed by a majority of Americans. While few disagree with the notion that healthcare costs as well as the afford-ability of insurance,should be improved, most realize the road mapped out by ObamaCare is seriously flawed and perhaps more than anything benefits the large pharmaceuticals.

While the ultimate outcome of a House repeal of ObamaCare may yield nothing more than a symbolic win {as it is likely not to be brought to the floor of the Senate} it keeps the issue alive as a 2012 campaign issue. This in and of itself is reason for the House to push hard for repeal.

It is always entertaining to listen, and consider the remarks/arguments from the progressives on healthcare. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee provides the opportunity for just such an entertaining moment.

"Frankly, I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important; we created jobs," Jackson Lee said. "But even the title of their legislation, H.R. 2, 'job-killing' — this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill."

"So I would argue that my good friends, some of them are new and I appreciate their newness, I appreciate their desire to keep a commitment to constituents — but when you come to the Congress, you have to govern, you have to look at the whole of America," Jackson Lee said in her floor speech. "And therefore, looking at the whole of America, you need to look at the crux; the crux is saving lives."
Aside from the the obvious tug on the "heart strings" Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee fails to provide any concrete specifics as to the alleged wonders the flawed ObamaCare will provide. Perhaps this is due in part to the shear complexity of the legislation and the fact she knows it is not the panacea progressives have tried so hard to convince Americans to believe it is. 

The debate on healthcare should continue. The current legislation was rammed through the Congress, its provisions were little understood by lawmakers, the American people were told by then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi the bill had to pass so we could see what was in it, and sure as I am an independent conservative the unintended consequences of the bill passage were not considered, let alone understood.

So... let the repeal succeed in the House. Even if it is only symbolic as this point in time. Results in 2012 could be determined in part by revisiting ObamaCare.

Via: Memeorandum


By: Bastiatarian

Although some people may find this statement a bit far-fetched, there is life outside blogging, and life right now dictates that I take a bit of a hiatus from my own blogging (which has been rather sparse recently anyway). While I realize that there are some who would like it to be a permanent absence (particularly those who--try as they might--can never produce a valid rebuttal to clear statements of the principles of liberty), I do plan on coming back when other priorities are taken care of. Kind words and encouragement from a number of people have convinced me to take a shorter break than I had originally planned.

I'll be lurking on occasion in the meantime, and may even throw out a comment or two when I get a chance.

Monday, January 17, 2011

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves." --John Dickinson; Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 1775
Hmm... Is it possible that in the minds of some, or the many, we may be approaching the issue of which was spoken in the above words?

Just saying.

Great Blues!

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

There is nothing like a great blues tune to lift the spirits. This one won't disappoint!

Have a great upcoming week all!

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Governor Chris Christie... A Man for Our Nation's Future

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Governor Christie is a man with integrity. An individual who, unlike Sara Palin, is committed to serving his full term as Governor.

He appears, at least at  present, to be a man that understands his primary goal is to serve the state of New Jersey and the people who elected him Governor.

This is a man we can respect. Not only for the principals of governance he holds as proper, but for his integrity as well.

Governor Chris Christie is a bright and shining star if you will for the future of national politics. He may very well be the best the future holds in store for America.

Below his comments on a Presidential run in 2012 and his thoughts as to the future. As reported by The Hill.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) brushed off a Zogby poll from earlier this month that showed him leading a pack of hypothetical GOP 2012 contenders, adamantly stressing that's not in his plans.

"The president can rest easy because the only guy who beats him in that poll isn't running," Christie said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I have a commitment to my state," he said, adding that he'd only been governor for a year and New Jersey's problems still need fixing.

"You have to believe in your heart that you're personally ready to be president and I'm not there," Christie said. "I am not arrogant enough to believe that after one year as governor ... that I am ready to be president of the United States."

"So I'm not going to run," the governor said.

According to that poll, Christie would beat President Obama 43 percent to 40 percent, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would run even with Obama. In the poll, the president would beat Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.

Christie never said never, though.

"If I were ever to do it I want to make sure in my heart I feel ready," he said.
A man with principle. A man this nation certainly could use on the national stage in 2016 or 2020.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

Civil Discourse

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
 Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

As an independent conservative I want discourse between the left and the right as much as the next guy or gal. By this I mean true and comprehensive discourse. You know, the kind of meaningful discussions that actually leads to something getting done. The kind of "something" that actually results in a stronger and more unified United America.

I dream on.

The stark reality is America is facing the choice between a vibrant and sound country based on the founding principals of this nation or one that shall lead us even further down the philosophical journey towards evermore dependence on federal government dictates. The choice which direction we take, at least at this point in history rests with us, the electorate.

As I see it we the people have a great opportunity, as well as a great responsibility, to determine the future course of our nation. Not only for our generation, but in setting the stage for positive discourse and a productive direction for future generations.

I, as well as many many others of the independent conservative mindset find the current state of political discourse lacking, even distasteful. The terminology most often bantered about is the need for "civil discourse." Usually this is heard from the left, and for reasons that are frankly, at least in this writers opinion, disingenuous. I say this because the reason lies in the "modern" left's desire to control political and philosophical debate based on political correct terminology as defined by none other than the modern left.

As I stated earlier, I recognize the desirability, as well as need for honest, open, and sometimes heated and passionate debate between the differing views of the conservative and liberal elements of our society. Is it not time we all recognize that for us to continue to be a vibrant, strong, and free society that we constructively work out our differences in a way that results in a stronger nation. After all, is that not precisely what our founding fathers did in 1787 when drafting the Constitution of these United States of America?

When we talk about discourse we all need to focus on what it means to facilitate "respectful discourse". All discourse, as well as honest disagreement, is good as long as it is based on mutual respect. Only when discourse disintegrates into name calling and disrespect towards the opposing view is it "bad"

In a nutshell, as long as discourse or debate is respectful, and directed towards the honest resolution of common problems, it is good, even when the rhetoric sometimes becomes heated. Throughout our nation's history there has been significant differences of opinion, beginning with the the framing of our Constitution. In 1787 a group of opinionated and passionate men, sometimes having deep divisions, were able to craft one of the worlds most remarkable and enduring documents. It is to their everlasting credit and legacy they were able to do so.

And so today, as liberals, center, and conservatives debate the issues, let us not attempt to shut down dissenting views through the insidious use of PC approved rhetoric. Rather let us remain at all times respectful, civil, and judge only the politics or philosophy and not the person(s).

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Food for Thought

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Consider the following quotes food for thought. The reasoning underlying them all is sound.

It is true that judgement can be subjective. This is especially so when judgement fails to be based on reason..
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." –James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, 1792

"It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It [the Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on a National Bank, 1791 
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

Sarah Palin's Use of the Term Blood Libel Defended by Alan Dershowitz

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

It is good to see there are still some liberals left with a modicum of intellectual honesty. Alan Dershowitz is obviously among them. No doubt he will take a lot of heat from the majority of the left , as well as from some of his Jewish brethren for his defense of Sarah Palin's use of the term blood libel.

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

Mr. Dershowitz is to be applauded for his defense of Sarah's use of the term.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, January 10, 2011

Liberal Assault On Reason

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

It is lamentable, at least to me that anyone could print garbage such as the following from the leftist blog The Daily KOS. It is becoming increasingly clear the lunatic that was responsible for Saturday's horrific events was possessed of an incoherent and irrational hodgepodge of political fantasies. Yet the left continues its attacks on anyone it perceived to be on  the "right" using selective quotes and incoherent logic to attack them.

by Jed Lewison
Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 12:40:04 PM PST

Now that Sarah Palin has decided to communicate through Glenn Beck's radio show, we get to hear pearls of wisdom like this:

"But please look into protection for your family. An attempt on you could bring the republic down."

-- Glenn Beck, giving advice to Sarah Palin in the aftermath of the Arizona shootings.

If Palin needs security, she should get it, but it's pretty remarkable that Glenn Beck believes the fate of the Republic hangs in the balance. We do not presently face an existential crisis nor will we anytime soon, and the fact that Glenn Beck says that we are on the cusp of such a crisis is emblematic of his strange combination of cynicism and delusion. That Fox and Clear Channel give him a platform from which to spew his paranoid nonsense on a daily basis is wildly irresponsible.
The obvious attempt  by The Daily KOS to further politicize this past weekend's tragic event and place blame by inference on those who dare to have differing political beliefs than their own is in the very least, disgusting.

The rest of  their communication, as available at this time on the web from Therightscoop

I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence. Thanks for all you do to send the message of truth and love and God as the answer. -Sarah

The video:

Indeed, those who use the tragic events of this past Saturday as a means to further their political ideology by blaming those who have no responsibility for the event I say this.... Your lack of logic, reason, and rationality is both saddening and repugnant.

Further you pose a great threat to the vary concept embodied within the First Amendment to our Constitution. Those who espouse leftist ideology, as the lunatic who was responsible for this past weekend occasionally did, often pose the greatest threat to the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

While I recognize the need and the reason for toning down the political vitriol I cannot keep my views silent when it is increasingly obvious there are those who will use any crisis to attempt to gain political capital and advantage.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

The Shooting in Tucson

By: Bastiatarian

Well, since the incident happened only about 5 miles away from my home, and the shooter went to the same high school as my kids, I guess I should post something on it.

First of all, anybody that has learned about Jared Loughner's history, watched his videos, and read his other rantings, and still thinks that his acts were the result of adherence to either conservative or liberal ideology, is simply a moron.

Jared Loughner is nothing more nor less than a lunatic who was led by his psychological disorder to commit an evil act.

If one bothers to learn a little bit about him, it is easy to see that he hasn't been quite right for some years. There is no coherency in his ideology, which is nothing more than a mish-mash of things pulled from left, right, and everywhere else. He's a fan of totalitarian collectivists (Marx and Hitler), but he complains about governmental tyranny. He accuses residents of Arizona's 8th Congressional District of being illiterate, but seems himself to have no ability to construct a sentence that is not permeated by spelling and grammatical errors. Speaking of grammar, he believes that the government is brainwashing people by controlling grammar. He claims to be a "conscience dreamer." He's a Truther who loves Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

One tendency of his seems quite clear. Many people, young and old, have an inclination toward the extreme, the bizarre, and the fringe. Part of this comes from the natural adolescent desire to break free, often resulting in a romanticization of "revolution" and things such as being weird for weirdness' sake. Adolescents that do not mature past that, but are otherwise basically sane, typically become part of some type of leftist movement as adults, holding for dear life to the idea that revolution is a virtue, and that "The Man" is always out to get them. They do a lot of stupid things, and make a lot of destructive policies, but they don't go around shooting people in front of grocery stores.

The point is that there are people who have a deep craving for things outside the mainstream, and when that craving is combined with a serious psychological disorder, it will always lead to something horrible. Jared Loughner's stated interests and ideologies are a chaotic collection of things outside the mainstream; the political or philosophical persuasion is irrelevant.

As horrible as it was, Saturday's incident was, in a sense, inevitable. Loughner's psychosis would have shown up in similar form somewhere, sometime. Gabrielle Giffords was just unfortunate enough to have been the one that Loughner latched onto a few years ago and picked for his further step into the fringe, and the other victims were just unfortunate enough to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If Loughner's crime had been at "Tea Party hit" as has been suggested by some of the more imbecilic commentators, the selection of Gabrielle Giffords would not make sense. I'm not going to fawn all over her like so many are doing. She was bad for Arizona and bad for the United States, but when it comes right down to it, she was nothing more than a moderately dishonest former local TV personality with really stupid ideas, who was definitely not the worst Democrat around. That distinction would go to Raul Grijalva, the representative of the other Tucson-area district. Grijalva is a corrupt, racist, Marxist thug, who has worked actively against the liberty of the American people and the safety and sovereignty of our country. Targeting Giffords would make no sense if Loughner were an "extreme right-winger."

But, crazy people don't make decisions based on what makes sense. Why did Loughner pick Giffords? It's not clear at this point, but it appears that it was, at least in part, because Giffords did not give him the type of response that he wanted when he confronted her with his grammar issue at a meeting in 2007. Maybe it was that, or maybe it was just coincidence that he saw the opportunity when his insanity had reached critical mass. Maybe he was influenced by a possible second individual. Maybe he had a dream. Maybe he saw a vision in a burrito. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Jared Lee Loughner shot and killed 6 people and injured 13 others because he was crazy and/or evil. We often forget that many of the bad things that happen in the world happen because there are crazy and/or evil people in the world. Often, that's the only reason they need.

We live in that kind of world, with that kind of people. So, I will continue to carry always and practice often. My safety and the safety of my family are primarily my responsibility.

Maybe the fact that the shooting happened outside Safeway will teach us that it's time to stop being naive regarding the evil in the world. Evil exists, and it can do its work without any political ideology.

Cross-posted at Old-fashioned Clarity.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

America Weeps with Arizona

By: Pamela D. Hart

The power of the press has never been more prominent than it is now with cell phones and texting, Twitter, Facebook, and yes, even blogging. We can get our news instantaneously, 24/7. Devastating news, like the shooting yesterday in Tucson, Arizona of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and at least a dozen others, leaving a 9 year old child dead, has spread through the waves in short order.

Along with the devastating news, we have political pundits and their predictions without facts. The gunman, Jared Lee Laughner, was a right-wing loon who listened to talk-radio; he was a Palin follower who saw her map with the bull’s eyes and decided to take violent action; and of course, any time there is a shooting spree, we must repeal the second amendment, or at least have stricter gun control laws, because guns kill!

I suppose it’s only natural for people to assume this is political in nature considering a politician has been shot and now lies in ICU. I also assume it’s normal for people to jump to conclusions considering six people died yesterday, one being an innocent 9 year old girl, Christina Taylor Green, which leaves most people emotionally distressed. And for many, when emotions are running high, it doesn’t leave much room for rationale or logic.

We’ve also been in a highly charged political climate of late with our elected officials bickering and telling us that the other side is the “enemy” (and shame on them for using such rhetoric), or the “opposition” is bad, evil in some cases, so is it any wonder the American people look upon anyone with a differing opinion as the adversary? Is it any wonder people suspect any type of violence upon a politician as a Right-wing conspiracy when it is common knowledge that the Right is known for its belief in smaller government? But is that a good enough reason to blame someone else rather than the lunatic who actually committed the murder? Or in this case, the Domestic Terrorism?

I realize it’s easy to cast blame on O’Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh and Palin. After all, they are public figures who monopolize our airwaves and a lot of people take what they say as gospel, never once questioning their words or researching on their own what these public figures say. But to blame these people for the actions of others is taking it a bit far, in my opinion. That’s like saying a gun killed, when in fact, it was the person holding the gun who did the actual killing. Oh, yes, I know, O’Reilly, Beck, Palin, et al. promote violence with their WORDS—but do they, REALLY? Or are they only voicing THEIR beliefs, which don’t mesh with everyone, therefore vilifying them with those that don’t agree, or even hate them? What will happen if one day someone from the Left shoots and kills one of THEM? Will the Right then come out and blame the Left for promoting violence? It will be a no -win situation with a bunch of dead people. Violence and hatred only beget violence and hatred.

So, WHO is the REAL villain? The Right? The Left? The Government? The Public? Or this Jared Lee Loughner, a disturbed individual who decided one day to go on a shooting spree because he is a lunatic and killing six people and injuring a dozen more fit into his fanatical agenda?

I’ll NEVER understand Loughner and his ilk. Nor do I want to. I don’t want to know what’s going on in the mind of a killer. I only know I never want to be in a situation where I have to make a split second decision that could save me from a bullet. And if I do, I hope I’m fast enough.

My heart goes out to the families of the injured and the deceased of this horrific tragedy. May Gabrielle Giffords survive and fully recover. May sweet Christina Taylor Green rest in peace and may her parents one day find solace. And may we, as a country, find our compassion, dignity, and common sense.

A Tragic Weekend... Our Condolences to the Families of Those Who Lost Their Lives... Our Hope for a Complete and Speedy Recovery by Congresswomen Gifford and Others Who Were Injured

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

I, as well as the nation, continue to be horrified by the psychotic, deranged, and violent act of the gunman who critically shot Congresswomen Gifford and in the process of his psychotic rampage took the lives of six innocent souls and inflicted injury on many more.

Our condolences go out to the families of those affected by this senseless act of violence. We wish Congresswomen Gifford a complete and speedy recovery, as we do all those recovering from the wounds inflicted on them yesterday.

While it is not the time to point fingers and place blame for these horrific events that is precisely, and almost immediately, what has began to happen. Many, particularly on the left, have found it an opportunity to place blame on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, The Tea Party, and whomever else they find distasteful. The mantra they base their claims on is of course the rhetoric of the aforementioned.

In short these people have by design, and presumably in the hopes of gaining some perverse political advantage, are attempting to politicize the horrible events of Saturday. The responsibility for the horrific acts of this deranged and pathetic person rests solely, and completely on his shoulders. The attempt to hold others responsible, which is exactly what some on the left are doing, is reprehensible and irrational.

Rational people with healthy minds, and a respect for each individual's right to their life, liberty,and happiness understand political rhetoric is just political rhetoric. Political rhetoric meant to make and punctuate a political point. Neither Sarah Palin nor Glenn Beck is responsible for Saturday's violent events nor is The Tea Party in general responsible. The proper course is to allow the investigation to proceed until there develops a rational basis, based on facts, as to what the motivations were for these horrific acts, and who, if any organization or another person had any impact on these events.

While there will be {and indeed should be}an appropriate time to discuss proper political dialogue and reducing the vitriol from both sides of the political aisle now is not the time. Good sense dictates a time of healing precede the dialog that must ultimately take place in our national body politic.

Please visit the following for examples of what RN USA is talking about.




Markos Moulitsas

The New York Times (Paul Grugman)

The Moderate Voice

As always we leave it to the fine readership of Rational Nation USA and the Left Coast Rebel to decide.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, January 7, 2011

Tom McClintock: The Prosperity Congress

by the Left Coast Rebel

After you are mind-numbed by the daily assault on our liberty -- especially in the state California -- a voice for the way things should be goes unnoticed. Sometimes a politician that is actually good, a patriot and one that is looking out for the best interests of this nation and it's people gets lost in the fog of Mordor on the Potomac.

Simply said, when we come across a politician that is a true patriot and limited government advocate, we need to stand up and applaud such an individual.

California representative Tom McClintock is one such person.

Congressman Tom McClintock is one of a few rare breed in the GOP that never saw capitulation to Democrat statism as acceptable for the Republican party. The guy even voted against "popular" legislation like the Cash for Clunkers program and has stood by the Goldwater/Reagan vision even as the credo waxed and waned in the past.

In fact - if you didn't know it - McClintock provided the inspiration for LCR's motto, "Freedom, Abundance, Responsibility" in a speech that he gave a couple of years ago. You can read the McClintock-inspired post here.

Yesterday Congressman Tom McClintock gave a speech on the House floor that moved me, albeit not as much as the magnum opus referenced above. Listen to his words:

M. Speaker:

I rise to express the hope that historians will look back on the 112th Congress as the session that restored American prosperity – and to express my strong agreement with the new leaders of this House who have declared that every action of this body must be measured against this goal.

We speak of “jobs, jobs, jobs,” but jobs are a product of prosperity. And prosperity is the product of freedom.

Government does not create jobs or wealth – it merely redistributes them. Jobs and wealth can only be created through the free exchange of goods and services in a free market. Government’s role is to create and protect the conditions which promote prosperity.

If I give you a dollar for a cup of coffee, what’s going on in that transaction? I’m telling you that your cup of coffee is worth more to me than my dollar. And at the same time, you’re telling me that my dollar is worth more to you than your cup of coffee. We make that exchange and both of us go away with something of greater value than we took in – each of us goes away richer.

That is the freedom that creates prosperity. That simple exchange – whether for a cup of coffee or for a multi-billion dollar acquisition – is what creates wealth.

But now suppose some third party butts its nose into this transaction. “The coffee must be between 110 and 130 degrees; it has to include a swizzle stick; it must be covered if it is to be consumed more than 25 feet from the point of sale” – and on and on. Every one of these restrictions reduces the value of that exchange for one or both of us.

That’s the fundamental problem that we face today. Our government has not only failed to protect the freedom that creates prosperity, but it has become destructive of that freedom.

To create jobs we must restore prosperity and to restore prosperity we must restore freedom.

We must restore the freedom of choice that gives consumers the ultimate say over the output of our economy. In a free and prosperous society, consumers vote every day with their own dollars on what kind of light-bulbs they prefer, on how they wish to get to work, on what foods they like, on how much water they want in their toilets, on what kind of cars they want or on what kind of housing they desire. These consumer choices signal – every day – what things are actually worth and what our economy will actually produce. Government is destroying the elegant simplicity of this process, and this Congress must reverse that destruction.

We must restore the freedom of individuals to enjoy the fruit of their own labor so that they can make these decisions for themselves once again.

That’s why excessive government spending is so destructive to prosperity – it destroys the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions over what to spend and where to invest their own money. It robs them of both the ability and incentive to create prosperity.

Presidents like Coolidge, Truman, Reagan and Clinton who have reduced government spending relative to GDP all produced dramatic increases in productivity, prosperity and the general welfare of our nation.

And Presidents like Hoover, Roosevelt, Bush and Obama who have increased government spending relative to GDP all produced or prolonged or deepened periods of economic recession, hardship and malaise.

Our government is embarked on the latter course, and this Congress must reverse that direction.

Government has an important role to play in the marketplace. It is there to assure that representations are accurate and that contracts are enforced – in other words, you have to tell the truth and you have to keep your promises. Government exists to assure that the currency is stable and reliable and that property rights are secure.

When it fulfills this fundamental role, it maximizes the freedom that a buyer and a seller have to assess their own needs and resources and to make those exchanges that allow both to go away better off than they were. When it steps beyond this role, it destroys the conditions that maximize prosperity.

M. Speaker, let us together revive and restore the freedom and prosperity of this nation and fulfill that sacred command inscribed on our Liberty Bell: “To proclaim liberty throughout ALL the land, and unto ALL the inhabitants there of.”

Cross posted to LCR.