Senator Rand Paul's Response to Obama... Right On!

by; Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservativism

Rand Paul gets no argument from this quarter. In fact he receives deservedly high marks for his reasoned response to President Obama's rationalizations for his decision to intervene in the Libyan civil war.



Senator Paul is looking awfully nuanced here. What say you?

Via: Memeorandum

The Eye Of "The Newt"

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Maybe this guy will just go away? Probably not. We in the real conservative/Libertarian movement couldn't be so lucky. The Newt will likely stick around awhile to stir up the ultra conservative religious right into a frenzy. I'm thinking this guy never really understood the founding fathers position with respect to religion mixing with politics.

Sure, I have done my share of offering rational warnings with respect to the dangers "Extreme Islam" presents our country. I stand by them and will continue to do my best to keep the issue open for rational discussion. Having said this I also clearly see the dangers in any irrational or extremist positions in any religion. And that includes Christianity. So yes, I am beginning to see danger points within the ultra conservative religious based Christian political movement. Something our founding fathers fully understood, and in fact took great efforts to avoid. Religion is personal. And it should be kept that way.

The Newt gives reason for pause.

From CNN:

Here’s what Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church on Sunday evening, according to Politico:

"I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

The former House Speaker held up his own faith (he converted to Catholicism two years ago) as proof of his undying patriotism. He lashed out at the college professors and mainstream media he says are seeking to wipe out the Founding Fathers' Christian values. And he targeted the judges who he charges are effectively re-writing the Constitution.

But Gingrich was mum on his own controversial past, one of martial indiscretions and divorces that have made courting religious conservatives a tall task as he nears a likely presidential run.

Gingrich’s church appearance comes amid a broader campaign to court religious conservatives.

More.

Via: Memeorandum

Obama's Intervention Justification Speech

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

As Obama rhetorically searches for ways to justify his interventionist policy with respect to the Libyan civil war he leaves the stage without having done so.

As POLITICO points out, he defined the "Obama Doctrine." Except...  for its glaring inconsistencies, it really isn't a Doctrine at all.

Just a President trying to "Look Presidential."

Excerpts from the article:

Obama admitted that he militarily intervened in Libya even though America was not at any risk. “There will be times…when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are,” he said.

And that is why we are fighting in Libya. Our interest is to have a stable world and our values are to promote democracy and to prevent a “massacre” in Libya and “violence on a horrific scale.”

“We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people,” Obama said.

Which you could call the Obama Doctrine, except we hold so few countries to it, including dictatorships that we not only do business with, but whom we also call friends and allies, that it doesn’t deserve that title.

Indeed, a weak argument for justifying his intervention into another country's civil war. A weak argument in justification for the American taxpayer to absorb yet additional costs for another unnecessary and unwarranted military action in a foreign land that presented no threat or danger to our vital security interests.

The rest of the article here.

Via: Memeorandum

Update:

Excepts from a report released by THE DANGER ROOM.

The mantra, from President Obama on down, is that ground forces are totally ruled out for Libya. After all, the United Nations Security Council Resolution authorizing the war explicitly rules out any “occupation” forces. But leave it to the top military officer of NATO, which takes over the war on Wednesday, to add an asterisk to that ban.

During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island asked Adm. James Stavridis about NATO putting forces into “post-Gadhafi” Libya to make sure the country doesn’t fall apart. Stavridis said he “wouldn’t say NATO’s considering it yet.” But because of NATO’s history of putting peacekeepers in the Balkans — as pictured above — “the possibility of a stabilization regime exists.”

So welcome to a new possible “endgame” for Libya. Western troops patrolling Libya’s cities during a a shaky transition after Moammar Gadhafi’s regime has fallen, however that’s supposed to happen. Thousands of NATO troops patrolled Bosnia and Kosovo’s tense streets for years. And Iraq and Afghanistan taught the U.S. and NATO very dearly that fierce insurgent conflict can follow the end of a brutal regime. In fact, it’s the moments after the regime falls that can be the most dangerous of all — especially if well-intentioned foreign troops become an object of local resentment.

In fact, Stavridis told Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma that he saw “flickers of intelligence” indicating “al-Qaeda [and] Hezbollah” have fighters amongst the Libyan rebels. The Supreme Allied Commander of NATO noted that the leadership of the rebels are “responsible men and women struggling against Col. Gadhafi” and couldn’t say if the terrorist element in the opposition is “significant.” But the U.S. knows precious little about who the Libyan rebels are.

Hup two three four Occupation GI Blues?

The Libyan situation ongoing, developing, and possibly into another quagmire for the west, {left}. Anyone else hear "boots on the ground." Perhaps it's just me. We'll wait and see.

More from THE DANGER ROOM.

The Coming Of The "Mahdi"

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

From CBN NEWS:

'Prophetic' Signs'

The ongoing upheavals in other Middle Eastern countries like Yemen and Egypt--including the rise of the Muslim Brotherood -- are also analyzed as prophetic signs that the Mahdi is near -- so is the current poor health of the king of Saudi Arabia, an Iranian rival.

"Isn't the presence of Abdullah, his illness, and his uncertain condition, great news for those anxious for the coming?" asks the narrator.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini, and Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah, are hailed as pivotal end times players, whose rise was predicted in Islamic scriptures.

The same goes for Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, who the video says will conquer Jerusalem prior to the Mahdi's coming.

"I think it's a very grave development," Mideast expert Joel Rosenberg, author of The Twelfth Imam, told CBN News, "because it gives you a window into the thinking of the Iranian leadership: that they believe the time for war with Israel may be even sooner than others had imagined."

Kahlili says The Coming is Near will soon be distributed by the Iranian regime throughout the Middle East. He explained that their goal is to instigate further uprisings in Arab countries.

Indeed the events in the Arab world are grave signs of human irrationality. Iran, a Persian Islamic {so called}Republic, ruled by a mad dictator and a group of fanatical mystics called mullahs, see the current uprisings in the region as the Islamic version of the end times. Lo and behold with the believed coming of the
"Mahdi" , the twelfth Imam., Iran is planning on stirring up more unrest to hasten the coming and the destruction of the state of Israel. Further the "Mahdi" will lead Muslims in the destruction of all non Muslims worldwide. Or so it is believed in Islam.

Video:



More unrest is most assuredly on the way. Aided and abetted by the Iranian regime. The west stands in ever increasing danger. Yet we remain blind to it and unprepared for it's likely fallout.

Indeed the next clash of civilizations may very well make the crusades look like a social gathering.

The full text here, and the full video at Kahlili's


Via: Memeorandum

For the Classic Car Lover

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

If you like cars you are gong to love this video!

Classic car lovers enjoy!



h/t: A loyal Rational Nation USA follower.

Exactly Who is Obama?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Shocking Admission. Or maybe Not:


Excerpts from American Thinker:

Unprompted, Ayers also noted that while Dreams deserves its praise, Obama's second opus, Audacity of Hope, is "more of a political hack book."

Not surprisingly, Ayers retreated into irony as he ended the session. "Yeah, yeah," he said after confirming again that he wrote Dreams, "And if you help me prove it, I'll split the royalties with you. Thank you very much."

With his final comment, the Ayers-friendly audience laughed in relief. The media will laugh nervously upon seeing the video as well. The White House will not.

You my fellow Patriotic Americans be the judge of our Presidents character and political compass.

Via: Memeorandum

Harry Reid and the Continuing Push for the Progressive One World Order

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism?

More from a sad excuse of a United States Senator. And yet this buffoon is the Senate  Majority Leader.

Consider the following excerpt from The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday urged Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to ditch members of the Tea Party and cut a deal with Democrats to avert a government shutdown.

Reid insisted it is those GOP internal divisions that are threatening to shut down the government after April 8, in less than two weeks.

“For the sake of our economy, it’s time for mainstream Republicans to stand up to the Tea Party and rejoin Democrats at the table to negotiate a responsible solution that cuts spending while protecting jobs," he said.

For sure the real, yet carefully disguised effort is to shut down any opposing big government and One World Order dissenting v\iews. Therefore I say... Tea Party Go For It!

Read the rest here.

View the video:


Religious and mystical overtones aside one has to wonder exactly what good ole Harry's motives are. As an independent conservative I do believe the answer is fairly obvious.

Vis: Memeorandum

Contrary To Progressive Thinking There is Wisdom From the Past

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplae of Independent Conservatism

The more things change the more they stay the same. Or so it seems. Thomas Paine, a common man and yet a great thinker seems to have had it about right. And just imagine, as far back as 1791.

"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an
advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting
itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the
multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues
and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without
tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791

Okay, go ahead progressives, refute the wisdom herein presented.

More From the Inconsistent Left... Just What Are Their Values?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

The hypocrisy of the left continues to amaze. From Bloomberg.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. won’t enter into the internal conflict in Syria the way it has in Libya.

“No,” Clinton said, when asked on the CBS “Face the Nation” program if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities yesterday after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country.

Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution -- are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”

“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” Clinton said, referring to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s attacks on the Libyan people, “than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
Unique Situations

“Each of these situations is unique,” Clinton said, referring to the Middle Eastern countries dealing with change and unrest, a list that now includes Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Syria and Bahrain.

Yup, the liberal hypocrisy of it all. No principles, no values, no consistency. Just fly by the seat of your pants progressivism.

Wonderful! And these are are current and no doubt future leaders? Glad I will be gone soon.

Read the rest of the story.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

England Gone Irrational

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservativism

The world is indeed upside down. The reliance on government to do everything for the people, even that which they ought to be doing for themselves, has become such a part of the modern English culture it has turned violent.

As can be seen in the following video clip the the once proud and reserved English have seemed to have lost their ability to reason. I guess once addicted to the candy store of Leviathan government and it's socialist handouts it is difficult to face a different and stark reality.

h/t The Telegraph:


Could the United States be next? Being somewhat a realist I would say there is a good possibility we will. Only time will tell.

More coverage on the uprising over governments budget cuts in Briton.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

A Classic Jazz Tune

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Again I find myself on a late Saturday night, following a fine dinning experience and an incredibly good Portuguese wine, contemplating the political events of this past week. The exercise at best has me scratching my balding head. For there is no rational explanation for Barrack Hussein Obama, Newt Gingrich, or the rest of the political hacks be they republican or democrat.

So I hope you will forgive me for my momentary inability to offer my usual political insight and reasoned independent conservative commentary. In its place I offer an American Jazz Classic performed by Miles Davis in his 1958 rendition of the Gershwin tune Summertime.



Listening to great jazz sure beats politics! Well, sometimes anyway.

Reconsidering Modern Realities... or Not

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

I am first and foremost an avowed believer in the American Capitalist system as it once was. A system responsible for creating the greatest wealth the modern world has ever known. A system that created a nation of wealth (the USA)able to assist Europe and Japan in rebuilding their devastated infrastructure following the close of World War III. A nation responsible for the outpouring of the greatest foreign aid globally than ever seen bore in the annals of human civilization. A system that Ayn Rand understood needed to be unfettered by government interference or by business seeking special consideration either through subsidies or special tax "considerations" or favorable treatment. In other words in a true capitalist economy there would exist no such term as "to big to fail." The very fact our national leaders have accepted, and pushed this misguided notion on the American people should give all thinking Americans reason to pause and question what is really happening to our nation and its once vaulted economic system.

I am an independent conservative. Which means essentially that I favor change when experience, and or rational judgment, based on modern realities warrant it. Nothing in this dynamic world of ours remains static forever, save certain ethical principals of morality.

It is difficult, to say the least, for an independent conservative (see my Conservative Manifesto) to side with a known progressive. However, when said progressive presents an essentially sound argument based in reason and logic it requires their position be considered. And considered with an open mind unfettered by preconceived notions and beliefs. Only following additional research and consideration of the opposing viewpoint does it make sense to discard it to the recycle bin.

With this in mind Rational Nation USA asks its readership to consider the following comment from an independent small business owner left on one of my posts.. Having worked for both small business and Multi Nationals in managerial capacities I can relate to, and understand his concerns.

Capitalism as it should and could be is the ideal. However, this ideal has been bastardized by both corporations and the government over many years. We as a nation are seeing the results of this today. So we have a choice. Continuing to do the same that brought us to this economic crossroads and fail. Or reconsider what "true capitalism" means and make a sharp course change to correct our ship. THE CHOICE REMAINS OURS.

Consider the following if you will with an open and unfettered mind. Then, and only then decide for yourself the right path to take. For if we become so compartmentalized that we cannot honestly consider opposing, and potentially valid views from our own cherished beliefs we are indeed lost.

Here then the comment from a reader of this independent conservative and rational sight.

TAO said...

 I am pro business because I own a business and have been in business for over 25 years now.

Not real sure how this competition ideal of yours would work in an economic system where "too big to fail" is just another term for monopoly.

So, pull the government out of the economy and let business compete! Tell me, are you going to break up these mega monster corporations before you do away with government? In case you have not noticed but during this "recession" we witnessing the greatest period of consolidation this nation has ever seen in banking and healthcare.

The only competition there could possbily be would be between small companies and large companies and lets be romantic...the small companies are losing their ass...

Our mega corporations have gotten so big that they have even taken over our government....and everyone on the right wants to make government smaller and let corporations compete!

I would advise all would be capitalists to read John Kenneth Galbraith if your goal is to save capitalism....

As a small businessman let me tell you, taxes are secondary right now inregards to jobs creation....what small business people need to create jobs is CAPITAL....and you can't get it from a bank anymore....trust me, I know that for a fact.

This progressive, and small independent business owner's comments certainly deserve consideration. While I may not agree with 100% of his views {and I certainly don't} their is, at least in this independent conservatives view enough to give serious consideration.

As an independent conservative I have no agenda other than to seek the truth. The result of which I fervently hope will be America finding it's way back to the track from which it has been derailed by its own doings.

It is time American political dialogue returns to the traditional principals defined by the best of our founding fathers. And for those that are enamored by the current crop of GOP/Tea Party activists I recommend revisiting your history. That includes Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin. James Madison et al. You may be surprised at the revisiting.


Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Libyan Rebel Fighters Have Links to al Qaeda

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Having made my position clear the Obama administrations interventionist policy with respect to Libya was wrong on ethical grounds, new information confirming the leader of the so called "rebel" forces spent time in Afghanistan fighting against the U.S.A. gives additional reasons to question Obama's decision. In fact I believe it gives reason to question his sanity.

Reporting in The Telegraph:

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".


Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".


His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".

I am sure his fighters are patriots. Patriots in the cause of  establishing an Islamic Theocracy. If  Iran is any indication the new regime will be as repressive, and deny human and civil rights just as the current government does. It will quite likely provide more safe haven's for the murderous al-Qaeda.

More:

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.

Doesn't it strike you as very strange that the President of the United States would make a decision to support rebels who had fought against our troops, and worse in so doing essentially support al Qaeda who is supporting the Libyan uprising? One can not help but wonder what the Presidents end game is.

Obama's intervention made no sense before, it makes even less sense now. this whole affair looks to be headed to a bad end. At the end of the day if it does we'll just chalk it up to another Obama FAIL.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum 

G.E Turns a 14.2 Billion Dollar Profit... Claims a 3.2 Billion Dollar Tax Credit!

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

I am all for business organizations turning a healthy profit. We should all be in favor of this because profitable businesses generally create jobs that employ people, thus enriching lives.

A case can be made that profitable organizations ought to pay a "fair" share of their profits (gross revenue less legitimate business and operating expenses) to help support the infrastructure and financial stability of the country they call home.

It is just a tad disturbing {even for an avowed capitalist like myself} when I read about the phenomenal profits of G.E., 14.2 billion dollars, and at the same time find out they claimed a 3.2 billion dollar tax credit!

There is something very wrong with this picture. It reeks of special privilege secured by very aggressive lobbying tactics, and a tax code that is antiquated, burdensome, and is rife with loopholes and unjustified tax breaks for corporations and the very wealthy.

Now don't misread or misinterpret what I just said. I'm not talking about redistributing wealth. I am however talking about the need to revise the tax code and regulatory maize so as to make sense both for the individual taxpayers and businesses alike. For those who may be interested in my take on a simplified and more just tax code it can be found at, An Independent Conservatives View on Limited Government, an Objective Tax Code, and Regulatory Overreach.

Back to G.E.

N.Y. Times - Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

I presume knowing very influential people in high places doth have its advantages as well.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

The Hearing On Muslim Extremists and Protecting Civil Rights

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservative

House Republicans under the leadership of Representative Peter King (R-NY) held the first in what he anticipates to be a series of hearings examining the potential dangers of radical Islam and radicalized American Muslims. The hearings are a prudent and necessary activity given the realities of our modern world.

In response to the hearings being held by the House of Representatives Senate Democrats are responding with meetings of their own following their return from a ten day vacation recess. The Senate meetings will focus on what is perceived to be a spoke in anti Muslim bigotry, and to examine Muslim's civil rights.

The debate about exactly what constitutes Anti Muslim bigotry, as well as the debate on the impact radicalized Muslims residing in American have on our society and it's wellbeing is worth having. This nation must come to terms with how to handle radical Islam on our shores as well as insuring the civil rights of all peaceful and law abiding Muslims are protected.

So lets have an honest and open discourse. Let the constitutional principals that were put in place by the founding fathers be our guide. But let us not ignore the very real danger of extreme Islam nor be wary of taking decisive action to quell it. The same must be true for any other extremist and dangerous organizations (be they religious or secular) that pose a potential threat to civil society.

The most recent FBI statistical data available {2009} shows Anti Islamic hate crimes at 9.3%, of the total 1376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded. Anti Semitic hate crimes accounted for 70.1%.

As we look at this often divisive issue, lets do so with an open and unbiased approach. But also let us not back away from dealing with the very real and growing issue of Islamic extremism.

From Inside Politics.

Via: Memeorandum

Majority of Americans Support Military Intervention

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

It's official. Americans, by a 68% majority favor our nation acting irrationally and irresponsibly. The overwhelming support for our  unjustified and unethical interventionist military action against the sovereign state of Libya is most troubling. It puts us in a third theater of war and increases the likelihood of fostering ever greater hatred by the Arab world for the Untied States. Make no mistake, when Arabs die because of an errant bomb, or missile, or whatever, we will get all the blame the wackos in the Arab world can throw at us. History can be a great indicator of future possibilities.

First it would be advisable to consider what constitutes an ethical and moral justification for military action. The sort answer is... The only justification for the use of military force by one nation against another is in response to an unprovoked act of aggression. In considering the decision for our actions in Libya the foregoing obviously did not cross the minds of the misguided  U.S. decision makers. Ultimately that of course would be the President. Like Bush and Clinton before him Obama made his decision on bad advice and flim flam reasoning.

Further,  conditions in Libya at the time the decision was made to intervene militarily posed no threat to our national security or well being. It is unlikely that following Qaddafi's regaining full control of Libya that the country would have posed any national security risk for our country either.

Additionally, at a time of  great fiscal uncertainty, with an ever growing debt obligation that will, if not addressed, break this nation we can ill afford unnecessary, irrational, and unethical military interventions such as the one occurring in Libya today and those that occurred in prior years  like Iraq, Bosnia,or Yugoslavia. Regional unrest should be dealt with by the people of the region. Until such time as an act of aggression has been committed against our people and nation, or there is a clear and certain national security threat  present, it is best to pursue a non interventionist hands off policy.

But then again, there is no money to be made by the MIC if our nation isn't engages militarily somewhere, in some significant way, for some reason. Apparently the reason is of no real consequence to our leaders.

The argument that we have a responsibility to support and give aid to so called "rebels" in the name of liberty and or humanitarian considerations is bogus. Those claims are nothing more than a touchy feel good attempt to somehow allow us to feel as though we are "doing the right thing." Somehow making the world a better place. So, if this is the rationale then would it not make sense to expend our efforts making our nation financially solvent, building our infrastructure, improving the opportunities for millions of our own people, and making this nation the economic powerhouse it once was with the greatest middle class the world has ever seen.

You can read the article that ran with the above chart at CBS NEWS, POLITICAL HOTSHEET.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memorandum

Ex SEUI Official Reveals Secret Plan to Destabilize the US Economy

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

It is shocking the degree some inside the leftist SEUIU would apparently go to in an attempt to destabilize the American economy and crash financial markets. And all for for the purpose of redistributing wealth. The hatred the progressive left has for American capitalism, without understanding, or even attempting to understand its power for good and to create economic growth, is astounding. Rather than attempting to destroy capitalism unions ought to be working to reform American capitalism into a true Randian capitalist model.

Excerpts from Business Insider:

A former official of one of the country's most-powerful unions, SEIU, has a secret plan to "destabilize" the country.

The plan is designed to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street's grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.

The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks. Many Americans will undoubtely sympathize with and support them. Still, the "destabilization" plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.

Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore--the redistribution of wealth and the return of "$17 trillion" stolen from the middle class by Wall Street--is to "destabilize the country."

Lerner's plan is to organize a mass, coordinated "strike" on mortgage, student loan, and local government debt payments--thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.

Lerner's plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.

Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations.

Lerner was ousted from SEIU last November, reportedly for spending millions of the union's dollars trying to pursue a plan like the one he details here. It is not clear what, if any, power and influence he currently wields. His main message--that Wall Street won the financial crisis, that inequality in this country is hitting record levels, and that there appears to be no other way to stop the trend--will almost certainly resonate.

If ever there was doubt as to the real motives of the SEIU and the community organizers they groom there can be none now. The goal to advance a Hugo Chavez style banana republic should be obvious. Unfortunately, many otherwise well meaning progressives have bought into the cr*p and will work tirelessly to advance the SEUI's and other leftist organizations misguided agenda.

Continue to the full transcript of Lerner's reported remarks.

Audio of Lerner's reported remarks. h/t The Blaze.




Full version of the discussion.




Remarkable, dangerous, and misguided IMHO. What's yours?

Via: Memeorandum

And We Have Forgotten What?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Something from a more enlightened and intellectual past.

"If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms
of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may
bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or
indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding
their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior."
--James Madison, Federalist No. 39

The True Anti War Advocates

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

As an independent conservative the Editor in Chief of Rational Nation USA believes it is past time to revisit the origins of the "anti war" movement in America. As we move forward keep in mind it was the Conservatives of prior era's that were the true anti war advocates.

 During the Vietnam War era of American history the progressives, recognizing the American public sentiment against the Vietnam war, belatedly jumped on board. Every since the 1960s the progressives have, disingenuously , been claiming the anti war mantra as their own.

To be a true conservative today, which put another way is to say a classical liberal in the vein of our founding fathers, is to be opposed to interventionist foreign policy. And make now mistake, the incursion into Libyan's domestic affairs is exactly an act of interventionist policy that our founding fathers would have been adamantly opposed, irrespective of what the Neo ons might have you believe.

During my early research I happened across an article published at the Encyclopedia Britannica Blog. It is, at least  IMHO, a well written and accurate representation of the true, disingenuous  (and clueless) progressive movement. Excerpt from the article below.

Maybe antiwar organizers assumed that they had elected the man who would stop the war. After all, Barack Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after two years in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars.

In October 2007, Obama proclaimed, “I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.” Speaking of Iraq in February 2008, candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.” The following month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, “I was opposed to this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”

Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic nomination, he also proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when we ended a war.”

Today, however, he has tripled President Bush’s troop levels in Afghanistan, and we have been fighting there for more than nine years. The Pentagon has declared “the official end to Operation Iraqi Freedom and combat operations by United States forces in Iraq,” but we still have 50,000 troops there, hardly what Senator Obama promised .

Progressives such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson have been responsible for the majority of the wars Americans were engaged in during the 20th century. Dwight D. Eisenhower I remind you refused aid the the French in their conflict the Vietnamese rebels. It was only during the later year of his administration that he authorized "technical support." Future progressive Democratic presidents,chose to escalate the war that ultimately resulted in over 50 thousand American soldiers losing their live for a cause that today remains \remains at best questionable.

Now for some historical background. In the interest of time I shall highlight pertinent data on Rational Nation USA and link back to the source for full informational disclosure.

Prior to World War I

Wilson advanced rapidly as a conservative young professor of political science and became president of Princeton in 1902.

His growing national reputation led some conservative Democrats to consider him Presidential timber. First they persuaded him to run for Governor of New Jersey in 1910. In the campaign he asserted his independence of the conservatives and of the machine that had nominated him, endorsing a progressive platform, which he pursued as governor.

He was nominated for President at the 1912 Democratic Convention and campaigned on a program called the New Freedom, which stressed individualism and states' rights. In the three-way election he received only 42 percent of the popular vote but an overwhelming electoral vote. (Click here to read Wilson's 1913 inauguration speech.)

Wilson manoeuvred through Congress three major pieces of legislation. The first was a lower tariff, the Underwood Act; attached to the measure was a graduated Federal income tax. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act provided the Nation with the more elastic money supply it badly needed. In 1914 antitrust legislation established a Federal Trade Commission to prohibit unfair business practices.

Another burst of legislation followed in 1916. One new law prohibited child labour; another limited railroad workers to an eight-hour day. By virtue of this legislation and the slogan "he kept us out of war," Wilson narrowly won re-election. (Click here to read Wilson's 1917 inauguration speech.)

But after the election Wilson concluded that America could not remain neutral in the World War. On April 2, 1917, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany. (Click here to read Wilson's conscription proclamation of May 1917)

In looking back we can easily see it was the "progressive" that got the best of Wilson and involved the US in a European war in which we had no business. And it was the "progressive" in him that established the first institutionalized concept of "A One World Order."

Read the full text.

Prior to World War II:

In fact, given that many of these attacks came from some of the vanguards of 1940s liberalism, they often tend to sound strangely similar to those which Senator Joseph McCarthy would employ against his opponents in the early 1950s. The Nation, for example, called Taft and his allies in Congress "super-appeasers" whose policies "should set the bells ringing in the Kremlin," while Averell Harriman claimed that "Taft would execute the foreign policy of Stalin." Schlesinger agreed, noting with satisfaction how Taft’s opposition to the North Atlantic Treaty was met "with cordial approval by Andrei Vyshinski."

It was not until the 1960s and 1970s, when many historians became disillusioned by the American experience in Vietnam, that Taft’s foreign policy came up for serious reevaluation. That reappraisal began with Henry W. Berger, a Cold War revisionist who in 1967 rejected the idea that Taft was an "isolationist." Taft was rather a "conservative nationalist at odds with the struggling attempts of liberal American policy-makers to fashion a program in the postwar years." Newspaper columnist Nicholas von Hoffman agreed, calling Taft’s policies "a way to defend the country without destroying it, a way to be part of the world without running it," while historian Ronald Radosh called him a "prophet on the Right." Russell Kirk and James McClellan in 1967 praised him as well, arguing that he consistently pursued "the principle of national interest."

What, then, were the underlying philosophical principles behind Taft’s foreign policy? Was Taft misunderstood and underappreciated by his contemporaries, or were later historians misguided in attempting to rehabilitate him? The following essay will attempt to answer these questions by examining precisely what it was that Taft hoped to achieve through foreign policy, and what measures he took to do so.

Foremost among the principles that guided Taft’s foreign policy was a strong faith in the exceptionalism of America and its people. Although he was educated at Yale and Harvard, Taft’s belief in basic American values was one that he shared with most Midwesterners of his time, particularly those of his native Cincinnati. Like them, he was convinced that the United States was based on certain noble ideas that placed the nation far above the rest of the world. Of these ideas, individual liberty was for him the most important; indeed, he proclaimed early and often that the "principal purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to maintain the liberty of our people." He held that there were three fundamental requirements for the maintenance of such liberty-an economic system based on free enterprise, a political system based on democracy, and national independence and sovereignty. All three, he feared, might be destroyed in a war, or even by extensive preparations for war.

Perhaps the best example of his belief in individual liberty was his consistent opposition to the draft. Taft believed that the keys to success in life were "persistence and thoroughness," but that the draft "cruelly cuts into a young man’s career, deprives him of his freedom of choice, leaves him behind in the competitive struggle with his fellows, and turns society into a garrison state." 6

Taft, unlike many of his contemporaries, was always quick to point out the costs to economic and personal freedom involved in any particular course of action. "Every policy," he claimed, "should be studied in the light of the regulations which it may involve, and in the light of its cost in taxation." War by its very nature tended to concentrate power in the hands of the central state, and thus threatened the cherished American ideals of limited government and separation of powers." In 1939 he made the dour prediction that war would lead to "an immediate demand for arbitrary power, unlimited control of wages, prices, and agriculture, and complete confiscation of private property." In the months before Pearl Harbor, he repeated his belief that if the U.S. entered World War II, "before we get through with that war the rights of private property in the United States will be to a large extent destroyed."

Not unlike the Tea Party of today the above confirms the true patriotism of an American Conservative Icon, Senator Robert Taft, a believer in the founding ideals of this nation and the Constitution of the United States. He was right then. He remains right today.

Read the full text.

Today:

Here we are in the third day of precisely the sort of military intervention the Left used to describe as a crime against the Constitution, the American people, international order, or humanity itself. The people who rewrote George Bush’s months of painstaking buildup to the invasion of Iraq as a “rush to war” just watched the most liberal President in modern history go from zero to “weapons free” in a matter of days. The American people were not consulted, or even addressed. The President was living it up in Brazil when the operation began, and has made a point of avoiding questions from the media.


Of course there will be collateral damage, strategically exaggerated by the enemy. American forces are in harm’s way, and there may be casualties. No clear objectives have been stated by our political leadership – the only straight talk we’re getting is from the military brass, which the MoveOn.org Left has long denounced as liars, or even traitors, when they answered to a Republican Commander-In-Chief. We’re enter the early stages of an expensive commitment that could last for years, as “no fly zones” usually do. If Operation Odyssey Dawn transitions to a full-on offensive aimed at regime change, after all the robust assurances it will not do so, President Obama will have “lied us into war.”


How’s the anti-war movement taking all this? So far, we’ve heard only a few meaningless chirps from hardcore types like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader, who have called for the impeachment of President Obama, much as they wanted to impeach President Bush. Kucinich has a printout of Obama’s 2007 declaration that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation” clutched in a white-knuckled grip. As Captain Kirk once observed of the villainous Khan, at least they’re consistent.


The rest of the Left is dealing with extreme cognitive dissonance by using their favorite coping mechanism: displacement. Michael Moore spent the weekend Tweeting insults at George W. Bush. A dejected Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic has taken to blaming Hillary Clinton and John McCain. There were a few anti-war rallies over the weekend, but attendance was sparse, and media coverage virtually nonexistent.


Many liberals understand their vicious opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy was an empty, hypocritical tactic, deployed as a weapon in a larger political struggle. They’ll feel no need to remain intellectually consistent. Not all of them can pivot on a dime, however, and some on the Left were already unhappy with Obama. As Operation Odyssey Dawn continues, it will be too much for them to endure in silence.


That will move Obama’s political fate into the hands of the media, which will have to decide if it wants to cover for him by taking down the antiwar movement. In addition to minimal coverage, the press can also refuse to do its part in constructing a mythology of antiwar protests as an idealistic, grassroots movement, something they worked very hard to do during the Bush years.

Read the full text here.

The history of anti war sentiment can be traced back to conservative roots. To individuals that understood the intellectual integrity of our founding fathers as well as their wisdom. The founders understood the need for a strong national defense against possible foreign aggression. They equally understood the dangers of foreign entanglements that did not serve the best interests of our nation.

Today because there is little to no difference between the RINO Republican party {GWB}, and the progressive Democratic party {BHO} this nation appears on a perpetual road to a war of some kind, with someone, for issues which are none none of our rightful concern or business.

Real conservatives have the opportunity to once again claim the high road against interventionist foreign policy. A road easily defended when based on a rational understanding of of what constitutes the justification for the use if military force. Whether we conservatives will or not is questionable. When the so called conservative republican party has nothing better to offer than this..:

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona was critical of the president’s timetable for action in Libya, but said he is confident the American military will succeed.

“He (President Obama) waited too long, there is no doubt in my mind about it. But now, it is what it is,” McCain said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” taped Friday. “We need now to support him and the efforts that our military are going to make. And I regret that it didn’t – we didn’t act much more quickly, and we could have.

... we should know we are in deep trouble.

Via: Memeorandum

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) - Another Idiot

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Here is just one more reason why Speaker of The House Boehner has to go. A RINO, and a full bona fide member of the one World Order Mentality, as well as a supporter of the Military Industrial Complex, he is in full support of the intervention into Libya's internal affairs. At a huge cost to the already bankrupt American Treasury and taxpayer.

So much for conservative bona fides.

Read his statement below.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the situation in Libya:

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.

“The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”

I suspect he will support American "troops on the ground", and the resulting loss of American life, when it is determined by a clueless Congress and Obama administration {and it likely will be} that it is the next appropriate yet irrational step to take in this nations alleged vital self interest.

The only justification for military action is in response to an act of aggression by one nation and it's peopkle against the people of another independent and sovereign nation by

Okay, just the belief of one. You, "We the People" of America be the judge.

Via: Memeorandum

To the Idiots of the Arab League From Rational Nation - Piss Off!!

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Perhaps if we were a rational nation {world} we would tell the entire Arab world to go piss off! First the idiots ask for the help of the west {which we have no business providing in Libya in the first place} and then they criticize the very help they ask for. DUH! I guess they have another agenda in mind. Perhaps one day we in the west will figure it out.

The story as reported by The Associated Press:

The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.

The Arab League's support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed.

Moussa has told reporters Sunday that "what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives." He says "what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."

U.S. and European strikes overnight targeted mainly air defenses, the U.S. military said. Libya says 48 people were killed, including civilians.

There is no understanding the mentality of the Arab world. But then again, there is no understanding the irrational mentality of the west at times either.

Libya is a civil war. Properly dealt with by the people of Libya or others in the region. The west ought not to have gotten involved in the fist place. Now they ought to pick up their toys of war and go home. Leaving the Libyan people and the region to deal with their own damn problems. We have enough of our own!

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

A Rational and Ethical Outlook on the Libyan Situation

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

2011, and once again we see a progressive President Obama, with the help I might add of many RINO conservatives like Senator McCain et all, willing to pursue an interventionist policy towards the state of Libya. A decision which is inconsistent with conservative principles. Principles based on the founding fathers wisdom of "avoiding foreign entanglements", and extolled by conservatives such as Senator Robert Taft of an earlier era when conservatives were conservatives..

I could go on about the only justification for military action being an act of aggression against a nation and its people yet once again. However, fellow blogger and friend Wes Messamore who blogs at The Humble Libertarian put out the following video/audio on the subject. His presentation is spot on. I am certain he won't mind my sharing it with the readers of Rational Nation USA.

View It Here:


Conservative have a historic opportunity to align themselves with the right side of modern history. Given the RINO Republicans and Neo Cons that seem to dominate the Conservative movement I must question whether we will once again squander the opportunity to take the rational and ethical high ground.

More Conservative and Libertarian links with commentary on the "Libyan Crisis."

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

The Libertarian Patriot

Pundit & Pundette

The Last Tradition

And imagine, even Michael Moore, the biggest gasbag of progressivism one can find is at odds with our Interventionist President Obama.

Via: Memeorandum

France Strikes Libya; U.S. Prepared to Launch Missile Attack

by the Left Coast Rebel

I awoke this morning to news reels spinning with images of a downed fighter jet in Libya. Shot straight out of the sky, one can clearly see the pilot eject as the fighter jet explodes into a giant fireball, smashing into the ground. As I wiped the sleep from my eyes, I didn't know if it was a coalition war plane or Libyan and the context involved.

It was Qadaffi's:

Things moved quickly in Libya overnight with France launching the initial strike and America prepping for a missile launch as well. Just what we need right now, another war, right?

The New York Times is reporting:

PARIS — American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international military intervention in the Arab world since the invasion of Iraq on Saturday, in an effort to stop Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s war on the Libyan opposition.

Leaders meeting in Paris on Saturday afternoon said direct strikes against Libyan government forces, as approved by the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, would begin within hours. And President Nicolas Sarkozy said French warplanes had already begun enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya, conducting reconnaissance missions and preparing to intercept any Libyan military aircraft.

Despite an ultimatum from Western powers demanding that Colonel Qaddafi keep a cease-fire, reports of heavy bombardment and fighting came from the main rebel-held city in eastern Libya, Benghazi. Witnesses there reported heavy artillery strikes and that government tanks and ground troops were moving throughout the city. And a steady stream of vehicles, some bearing rebel flags, was seen pouring out to the east.

American involvement in Qadaffi's mess -- in my opinion -- should be in providing the 15,000-pound "Daisy Cutter" bomb to blow his palace (or tent) to smithereens. Should American lives be put at risk in the region? No way, but they will be anyway.

Even the New York Times now is acknowledging Obama's mismanagement of the (multiple) crises in the Middle East:

WASHINGTON — In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya.

Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.

Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day. On Thursday, during an hour-and-a -half meeting, Mr. Obama signed off on allowing American pilots to join Europeans and Arabs in military strikes against the Libyan government.

Dissapointed, but obviously still smitten, Colonel Qadaffi sends a message to "his son", Barack Hussein Obama:

(TOI) — Calling Barack Obama as “our son”, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sent a message to the US President defending his decision to attack the rebels fighting to overthrow him.

Gaddafi (68) also wrote a letter to the French and British leaders, and the UN Secretary General, saying the Security Council resolution was “void” and violated the UN charter, warning them that they would “regret” any intervention. . . .

Details of Gaddafi’s letters were released by the Libyan government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli.

Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, “Al-Qaida is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example.”

Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, “To our son, his excellency, Mr Barack Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed.”

In his letter to Nikolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and Ban Ki Moon, Gaddafi said, “Libya is not yours, Libya is for the Libyans. The security council, their resolution is void because it is not according to the charter to interfere with the internal affairs of the country.”

You have no right. You will regret if you get involved in this, our country. We can never shoot a single bullet on our people, it is al-Qaida organisation.”

What a world. Obama dithering; France taking the lead; Qadaffi calling Obama his "son" as America prepares for another war; the United Nations (of all entities) essentially declaring war; Japan reeling from the worst disaster since WWII; the American Federal government spending $4 billion in debt per diam...

One positive note I can think of from the Libyan situation: I can't wait to see pictures of Qadaffi's dead, bloated corpse, à la Uday and Qusay Hussein in 2003.

More libertarian and conservative perspectives on the developing story in Libya and the ramifications, political and otherwise:

• "Questions About Libya" at Pundit and Pundette,

• "Hillary Will be the Fall Guy if Things go Badly in Libya" at Legal Insurrection,

• "Libya and the Interventionists" at the Humble Libertarian,

• "Libya: Is War Imminent" at Rational Nation

• "Middle East Turmoil Messes up Progressive Foreign Policy" at American Power.

Cross-posted to LCR.

Ron Paul Telling It Like It Is

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) again making the case to get the hell out of Afghanistan. When GWB took us into Afghanistan following the attack'a of 911 he was justified in doing so. Ten years later, with additional loss of American live and nearly a trillion dollars spent, there is no justification for the United States military to be in Afghanistan any longer.

The only justification for war is an unprovoked act of aggression against a nation and it's people. GWB responded to such an attack on our people on American soil after 911. We are there now for... well, I cannot think of even one rational reason.

Ron Paul rightfully mocks the so called fiscal conservatives in congress for their rapid actions to defund NPR which may save 10 million dollars. Now don't get me wrong, I am all for the defunding of NPR. The federal government has no business funding any news outlet. Rep. Paul's point however is the conservatives will puff out their chests and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. All the while having spend upwards of a trillion dollars in Afghanistan. And willing to spend millions more.

An excerpt of  Paul's remarks from Business Insider:

There's a serious question of whether [defunding NPR] will even cut one penny, but at least the fiscal conservatives are going to be overwhelmingly in support of slashing NPR, go home and brag about how they're such great fiscal conservatives! And the very most they might save is $10 million. And that's their claim to fame for slashing the budget. At the same time they won't consider for (a) minute cutting a real significant amount of money.

In the end the House voted to defund NPR and rejected an immediate Afghanistan pullout.

Video:


It is time to bring our troops home. It is time to discontinue our interventionist policies world wide. We are have lost enough lives in undeclared wars. We are broke and becoming more so with each passing day.

Oh. I almost forgot. There is money to be made in war. President Dwight David Eisenhower pointed this out in 1961 when he spoke of an emerging Military Industrial Complex in his farewell address to the nation. As he said at that time, it is one of the greatest threats to our liberties there is. This is true, in more ways than one.

Via: Memeorandum

Locomotive Breath and the Obama Train Wreck

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

After a long hard night at the plant I decided to listen to Jethro Tull, one of my all time favorite artists to relax and contemplate the weekend. When Locomotive Breath, a favorite of mine back in "69" and "70" came on I found myself thinking that it was somewhat prophetic. Mind you I said somewhat, and in a fiscal sense.

Without further ado I present for your listening pleasure (or not) Locomotive Breath.



Reminds me of Obama with his freight train of spending.... WAY out of control.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Heather Higginbottom, Obama's OMB Nominee Acknowledges Obama's 2012 Budget Doesn't Reduce Debt

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

President Obama's nominee for the position of deputy director of the OMB buckled under questioning by Senator Sessions (R-AL) during the Senate Budget committee hearings this past Thursday. Unable to defend statements by Obama and OMB Director Jacob Lew she acknowledged that the President's 2012 budget in fact does not pay down our nation's debt.

From The Daily Caller:

President Obama’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) tried, but failed to defend the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 in a Senate Budget Committee hearing Thursday afternoon.

Obama’s nominee, Heather Higginbottom, crumbled under questioning from Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, ranking member of the committee, about the accuracy of statements the president and OMB Director Jacob Lew have made that the proposed budget will not add to the national debt.

The more than six-minute long questioning consisted of numerous exchanges that saw Higginbottom trying to dodge direct questions regarding the impact the president’s budget would have on the national debt:

Sessions: Did Mr. Lew or the President of the United States, when they made that statement “we will not be adding to the debt,” did they say, “by the way American people, what we really mean is some arcane idea about not counting interest payments the United States must make as part of our debt?” Did they say that?

Higginbottom: I’m not sure exactly what they did say.

Sessions: Well if they didn’t say that, would that be an accurate statement?

Higginbottom: The interest costs on what we’re borrowing add to the debt…

A few minutes later:

Sessions: You’re saying that what the president really meant but that he didn’t say, is that one year or so, that you calculate, if you don’t count the interest… then we can tell the American people we’re not adding to our debt?

Do you think that’s a legitimate way to discuss with the American people the debt crisis we now face?

Higginbottom: …It puts us on a path to stabilize the debt as a percentage of our economy, which is a very important first step in eventually being able to able to pay it down, which is the large task in front of us.

Sessions goes on to ask Higginbottom if she knows the last three years of the president’s ten-year budget proposal all have rising deficits. Higginbottom – the president’s nominee for the second highest position at the OMB — replied with, “I don’t have the deficit table in front of me.”

Sessions’ questioning ends with him pointing out that the president’s proposed budget for FY2012 does not have one year where the deficit falls below $600 billion.

“That is correct,” Higginbottom confirms.

Video of the exchange:


Via: Memeorandum

Libya : Is War Imminent?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Following  weeks of dithering on just what to do in response to Muammar al-Qaddafi's crackdown on Libyan rebels, President Obama appears to be gearing up for war. Now that the United Nation Security Council has passed a resolution giving the green light to the use of military force to protect Libyan civilians Obama apparently feels he has the cover he needs to respond militarily.

Excerpts from FP:

Several administration officials held a classified briefing for all senators on Thursday afternoon in the bowels of the Capitol building, leaving lawmakers convinced President Barack Obama is ready to attack Libya but wondering if it isn't too late to help the rebels there.

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns led the briefing and was accompanied by Alan Pino, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, Gen. John Landry, National Intelligence Officer for Military Issues, Nate Tuchrello, National Intelligence Manager for Near East, Rear Adm. Michael Rogers, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Rear Admiral Kurt Tidd, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Several senators emerged from the briefing convinced that the administration was intent on beginning military action against the forces of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi within the next few days and that such action would include both a no-fly zone as well as a "no-drive zone" to prevent Qaddafi from crushing the rebel forces, especially those now concentrated in Benghazi.

"It looks like we have Arab countries ready to participate in a no-fly and no-drive endeavor," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters after the briefing.

Asked what he learned from the briefing, Graham said, "I learned that it's not too late, that the opposition forces are under siege but they are holding, and that with a timely intervention, a no-fly zone and no-drive zone, we can turn this thing around."

Asked exactly what the first wave of attacks would look like, Graham said, "We ground his aircraft and some tanks start getting blown up that are headed toward the opposition forces."

As for when the attacks would start, he said "We're talking days, not weeks, and I'm hoping hours, not days," adding that he was told the U.N. Security Council resolution would be crafted to give the international community the authority to be "outcome determinant" and "do whatever's necessary."

This may sound cold, perhaps to some maybe even cruel. The fact is this is not our problem, it is a problem for the people of Libya and the nations of the region. In other words let the nation states in the region react to this problem. After all it is in their sphere of influence.

It is time the leaders of this country recognize first, this issue is none of our business, and second, we are BROKE. Other than benefiting the Leviathan Military Industrial Complex we stand nothing to gain in the short term, and much to lose in the long term.

President Obama I am sure has his reasons for considering military action. Just as his predecessor had in Iraq. Iraq, as it turns out was a mistake. Military action in Libya will as well.

Read the entire article here.

Via: Memorandum


Update:

I just caught an article in The Daily Dish entitled The Imperial Presidency . A must read  for those who question President Obama's misguided judgement with respect to the Libyan situation. The author makes a strong practical case for a congressional vote on the matter.

Excerpt from the article.

But it seems clear enough: exactly the same alliance that gave us Iraq is giving us Libya: the neocons who want to see the US military deployed across the globe in the defense of freedom and the liberal interventionists who believe that the US should intervene whenever atrocities are occurring. What these two groups have in common is an unrelenting focus on the reason for intervention along with indifference to the vast array of unintended consequences their moralism could lead us into. I do not doubt their good intentions and motives. No human being can easily watch a massacre and stand by. Yet we did so with Iran; and we are doing so in Yemen and Bahrain as we speak, and have done so for decades because we rightly make judgments based on more than feeling.

A congressional vote is also important to rein in the imperial presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height then even Bush. No plane should lift off, no bomb released, until the Congress has voted. I don't see why Obama should oppose this. He needs some Congressional support in an open-ended military commitment to ensure the protection of civilians in Libya.

Indeed we must reign in the Imperial design this President apparently has for himself.

More of The Imperial Presidency.