Friday, September 30, 2011

Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett: It's the Governments Job to Provide People With a Livelihood

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

Those of us who have read the constitution realize nowhere does it say the government's job is to provide a livelihood for people so they can support their families. It was not the intention of the founders OR the people that government insure them a livelihood.

Government is to protect the property rights of the individual, provide for the common defense of the nation, and maintain a justice system that enforces criminal and civil law. Congress is charged with transacting all other business as the people whom they represent direct.

The government produces nothing, nada. Therefore, government must get its "revenue" by taking (at the point of a gun held to ones head) from the people so it can then distribute it according to congressional dictate. As Leviathan grows ever more gargantuan it must steal even more from the people who do produce so it can then redistribute to those deemed less fortunate. I guess this is what the progressives call the fairness doctrine, or some other such nonsense.

I'm sure the person(s) following the above thread to its logical conclusion recognize the irrationality as well as the fallacy of Ms. Jarrett's remark.

Video from THEBLAZE:

Obama's Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett: from Naked Emperor News on Vimeo.

Ms. Jarrett is a senior adviser to President Obama. He has surrounded himself with others that are of the same intellect. Therefore one can only conclude Mr. Obama is of the same mindset as those who advise him.

Much work remains to be done between now and November of 2012 if we are to "keep the republic."

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, September 29, 2011

The "Palin Take"

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

It's late, and having just arrived home from work there isn't time to fully analyze the following video before hitting the sack for some much needed sleep. However, after listening to Greta Van Susteren's interview with Sarah Palin my impression was favorable and Sarah made some good points.

Somebody ought to run a nationwide poll in the attempt to define who makes up the 19% who are satisfied with the government. The results would be quite interesting, and perhaps not exacty what one might expect.

Good night all.

Read the preliminary transcripts here.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

" America Live" Host Meygn Kelly Setting the Record Straight

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

One of my favorite Fox News programs, "America Live" with Megyn Kelly, again illuminated the lack of clarity and rational thought {as well as hypocrisy} emanating from the minds of many progressives. Including Vice President Joe (the gaffe) Biden.

Tuesday Megyn took the time to set the record straight and respond to a question "The View" co-host Joy Behar asked the V.P. with respect to the audience booing when a gay soldier asked a question about gay rights.

Fox News Insider - On Tuesday’s episode of the talk show “The View,” co-host Joy Behar asked guest Vice President Joe Biden about “booing” that went on during the Fox News/Google Debate when a gay soldier asked a question on gay rights. Behar said she was aghast at how none of the Fox News Channel panelists chastised the audience over the response; Biden agreed, calling the audience reaction reprehensible.

Megyn Kelly, one of the panelists during the debate, took a moment on today’s America Live to respond, saying there were a total of two “boos” in an auditorium of over 5,000 people. She also contended that the noise was heard only after the soldier completed asking his question, not after he revealed his homosexuality.

Megyn then played the clip in question, asking viewers to decide for themselves.

Watch the video:

Yes indeed, Megyn, always fair and balanced effectively points out, in in her view it is not the panelists responsibility to chastise the views of attendees. Unless the attendees are disruptive. Which they were not.

Isn't one attribute of a totalitarian or police state mentality to squash any opposing opinions or views that differ from those in power?

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Class Warfare--Here We Go Again

By: Pamela D. Hart
Where do people like Rep. Jan Schakowsky get the belief that we do not deserve to keep what we earn?

In my opinion there is no question as to whether I deserve MY earnings. There also isn’t a question of whether I should support my government or not…of course I should. The question is HOW much is ENOUGH? I suppose if I had the answer to THAT, I’d be one famous woman!

We also have people, such as Elizabeth Warren, who said no one in this country has ever gotten rich on his own. That your goods were moved to market on roads paid for by someone else; that your workers were educated in public schools supported by someone else; that your business or factory is safe because the police force is paid for by, yep, you guessed it… someone else!

Doesn’t Ms. Warren realize that even business owner’s pay taxes? Not only do they have local, state and federal taxes, they also have employer taxes. PLUS there are multiple business taxes, licenses and insurances!

I don’t think anyone will argue that people get rich solo. I do believe that people will tell you if they get rich it’s despite what our government imposes UPON them and they do it all under the eye of big brother in some form or another.

So, alone or all on our own…of course not.

It sure is a victory, though, when, after all the money is distributed, and all the legislative hands are filled, we can still achieve success!

**Cross-posted @ The Oracular Opinion**

Sunday, September 25, 2011

A New Oppurtunity for Progressives and Leviathan

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

I am again wondering, as I often do... Really, this "wondering affliction" is a curse. Perhaps the psychological association, the sociological association, the AMA, and Leviathan might find a way to push, and ultimately pass legislation that will grant privileged special class status to those suffering from said affliction. Of course this would allow for special consideration (employment and otherwise) for those so afflicted by this damaging psychological/medical affliction. Naturally much of the cost would be at tax payers expense. But I digress.

Being a strong advocate of the right of peaceable assembly I shall take the liberty of assuming the majority of American citizens are also advocates of peaceable assembly for the redress of grievances.

Being a strong advocate of orderly conduct when in the pursuit of protesting perceived grievances I must ask the following. Given what you see in the forthcoming video {perhaps altered} is what you see an infringement on the right to peaceably assemble or is it a proper response in the effort to maintain civil order?

I have my opinion but leave it to my fine readership to make the defining call on what may very well be another defining moment in how modern America defines liberty.

Via: Memeorandum

Wisdom From a More "Enlightened" Age

"There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy, so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 5,1788

How far we have fallen...

Ayn Rand... Why Progressives Hate Her and How Conervatives Intentionally Misrepresent and Use Her

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

Ayn Rand

Almost thirty years after Ayn Rand's death she remains as controversial today as she did during her lifetime. Best known for her epic novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which defined her individualism, ethics, and politics, she actually left a much larger body of work than is generally realized.

Rand, born in Russia under the bolshevik regime of terror escaped to America when she was a young women in her twenties. Having witnessed first hand the life sapping evils of progressive collectivism she became one of the 20th century's strongest advocate of  liberty, self reliance, and capitalism.

Ayn Rand believed Aristotle was one of, if not the greatest philosopher the world has ever known. In her view Aristotelian logic trumped the philosophies of Hegel, Kant, Engels, Marx, and a host of lesser known philosophers. Plainly put Rand believed logic and reason trumped emotionalism and or mysticism. A is A therefore A cannot be B. Something is what it is and therefor cannot be something else.

From her springboard of Aristotelian logic Rand developed her unique and non contradictory philosophy she named Objectivism. A dry read, as most books on philosophy are, it is however well worth the effort for those who have an interest in philosophy and believe Kant and Marx got it wrong.

Rand's interest were far reaching and she wrote {as well as spoke} much on subjects such as ethics, racism, altruism, fascism, collectivism, socialism, atheism, rational self interest, productive achievement, welfare, self reliance, capitalism... the list goes on and on. A good start for those who have little knowledge of Rand is to read The Ayn Rand Lexicon. It give a good, as well as brief overview on how she viewed concepts.

Rand, while having hundred of thousands who advocated her views, had as many, and perhaps more detractors. While the "you love Rand or you hate Rand" phenomenon encompasses a number of reasons perhaps the most notable are: 1) her atheism, 2)  those in the progressive movement, aka academia  worked to undermine any objective understanding of her views, 3) her fierce individualism, 4) her bold and vocal denunciation of any and all forms of collectivism, 4) her belief that man should work on behalf of his own rational self interest, 5) that a person should not sacrifice a higher value to a lessor value, 6) that altruism is a means to ultimately destroy the importance of the self, and 7) her staunch advocacy of true capitalism as opposed to socialism or the mixed capitalism the U.S has labored under for the past 120 years or so.

I started by saying Ayn Rand is as controversial today as she was during her lifetime. If one takes note of just the seven reasons highlighted above it is relatively easy to understand why this is. Simply put, her ideas were, and remains yet today, feared by progressives, collectivists, fascists, mixed market advocates, and modern conservatives and businessmen as well as  any other group that depends on the far reaching hands of government to provide them with special favors so that they may survive.

Anyone who properly understands and  practices Objectivist philosophy has concern for their own rational self interest, sees themselves as an individual possessing a strong sense of self, and believes self reliance is a virtue. Therefore they will have no need for a statist government to insure their well being and success. Be it progressive, collectivist, fascist, or any other form of liberty sapping social engineering Leviathan. In short they cannot be emotionally, intellectually, or physically controlled by another individual, or a group of thugs.

People who understand the preceding also live with the knowledge that liberty and freedom demands great personal responsibility. Which is... To respect the liberty and freedoms of all other individuals while asking nothing from them in return other than to respond in kind. As Rand would say, and I paraphrase... The only justification for the use of force is in response to the acts of an aggressor. To which I add, whether they be acts of physical or financial aggression.

Rand, were she alive today would be appalled by what she would suffer to witness. As much as she was opposed to Leviathan socialist collectivist government she would be equally as appalled by the crony capitalism, corporatism, pull peddling lobbyists, and Wall Street thieves suckling with great delight at the government's teat.

What amazes, and I am quite certain Ayn Rand would agree,  is what once was a nation built on hard work, self reliance, personal responsibility, innovative ideas, an attitude of  government get out of the way and let the competent doers get to work innovating and producing,  has turned into a nation of wimps and whiners. A montage if you will of individuals and groups that  EXPECT  government favors, subsidies, and special protections. In a nutshell to insure they succeed in whatever it is they do, or don't do.

Perhaps most puzzling is the fact that liberals ought to be the ones holding  Ayn Rand's philosophy and ethics up as examples of  how one should lead their lives. The reason they don't is quite rudimentary.  Progressives are really only interested in control. Control over your lives and your livelihood. Such power is the only thing that will satisfies the progressives insatiable power lust.

Which of course explains the progressives cultist obsession with destroying Ayn Rand the person as well as her philosophy.

Anyone, feel free to disagree with some or all I have written. By all means indulge in taking me to task and ask I support further that which  I have written. It shall be a delight to do so. For you see, I am tired of the progressives blowing smoke up everyone's a*ses by taking snippets of Rand's writings, quoting them out of context, and then twisting her words to support their fallacious accusations with respect to her character and works.

By the same token I am equally as puzzled by republicans and so called conservatives holding Rand up as a shining example, without understanding her philosophy, to support that which they are selling as the flavor of the month big government  remedy {Perry & Romney come to mind} for our nation's ills. I've got news for ya buckos, Rand is on record as being just as vehemently opposed to your brand of statism as she was to socialism and collectivism.

Here is what she said about conservatism...

Footnote: For those who may be interested in a deeper understanding of Rand's philosophy, ethics, and politics the following links will lead to what I believe would put your feet on the path to understanding the meanings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as our Founders understood them.

1) Anthem, 2) We the Living, 3) The Fountainhead, 4) Atlas Shrugged, 5) Objectivism, 6) For The New Intellectual, 7) The Virtue of Selfishness, 8) Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 9) Return of the Primitive, 10) The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

Further information may be found at The Ayn Rand Institute.

Cross posted  to the Left Coast Rebel.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, September 24, 2011

How's "Hope and Change" Working for America? Not Well it Seems...

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

Obama Tracking as Expected

It's a terrible job, but somebody many of us have to do it. That would be exposing our President for his marginal performance and then seeing him slide into what is arguably the most ineffective and confused presidency of the modern age since... Man this is going to be a tough one!

Taking a stab at it I'd say, um, since Jimmy Carter.

No, maybe it would be, wait... no, I think it must be, no, hold on... George W. Bush.

I should have known not to wade into this one. Couldn't resit however. The similarities between these three unlikely and unfortunate pols are as glaring {IMO}as their obvious differences.

Having made the above observation I will now leave it at that. Anyone interested in further insight can, well, just Google it!

Before sending you off on your way to Google here is some tidbits of info. with respect to the President's {the current one} sliding poll numbers.

Economist/YouGov Poll - ... bad news for President Barack Obama. The frontrunners for the GOP nomination in the 2012 contest are pulling very close to him in head-to-head matchups, and his approval rating has been at or near the lowest levels of his Presidency for the last few weeks. And the worrisome economy keeps it there: this week just 36% approve of the way he is handing his job overall, the lowest rating ever in the two and a half years of his Presidency. 

More than half the public — 56% — disapproves of the President’s performance.

There are several other indications in the poll of how opinion about the President has changed over time. Well over half the country has concerns about what the President says. 57% believes most of what he says is what he wants people to hear, and not what he really believes. That is one point short of the highest percentage recorded on this question in this poll.

Even Democrats are hesitant to describe the President as “effective.” Only 28% of them would. And the number of Democratic voters who would like someone to challenge the President to be their party’s nominee has risen this week. 20% would like to see someone else as the nominee, compared to 15% last week. {Read More}


Even when compared to GWB's debt accelerating presidency and his unneccessay Iraq war, as well as Jimmy Carter's long gas lines, high interest rates, national malaise, and the Iran hostage affair our current President is well on his way to perhaps exceeding his predecessors poor performance records.

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, September 23, 2011

Today's Top Ten Decisions

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

I've decided the following... 1} That being an individual with the desire to achieve things in life based only on my efforts and merit is stupid, 2} that maintaining a strong sense of personal responsibility for my failures as well as my successes is by far too stressful, 3} that the individual is better served when a collective tells him or her what to think and value, 4] it is much better to allow the government to control my money than it is for me to maintain control, 5) that it is by far better to be concerned with the interests of everyone else than it is to be concerned with my own rational self interest, 6] that the concept of liberty is too old fashioned and therefore irrelevant to modern realities, after all... freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose... 7} that objective and rational thinking is much to tedious, emotionalism driven by a heightened sense of altruism should become the new order in America, 8} that reason no longer has a place in modern society, rather mysticism and a belief in the unknowable will provide by far better answers, if we just believe, 9} that the real conceptual meaning of the word minority today is... the smallest mob with the most political pull, 10} That believing in any, or all of the above is confirmation that the individual has ceased to exist and chosen the death of the self.

Anyone other than me see where progressive thought ultimately and logically leads to? Perhaps it is just late. Or perhaps it's just me...

Also posted @ the  Left Coast Rebel

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Another Reason (Of Many) That RINO Hacks John Boehner and Eric Cantor Need to Go

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

The Washington Post has it that "GOP Leaders Rebuked on Spending;" Politico has it that "Vote shows Boehner's Lack of Control."

Per usual, the lamestream press is missing the point.

I'll put it simply here: John Boehner and Eric Cantor think that they can "get along" with the Democrats, quietly pushing through destructive legislation that aids and abets the statist agenda.

They don't even put up a fight.

They just roll over and expect conservatives in the House and the Tea Party grassroots to go along.

No. And they must go.

CNS News has the real reasons behind House conservatives voting down the Boehner/Cantor continuing resolution (a fancy way of saying short-term) budget:

( - The Republican leadership tried to pass a continuing resolution through the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon that would have permitted funding for Obamacare implementation, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Palestinian Authority to continue in the new federal fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.

The bill was defeated 195 to 230 when 48 House conservatives joined with 182 House Democrats in voting against it.
Sweet. Attaboy for standing by your principles, House conservatives.

Republican leadership is known for saying one thing and doing the precise opposite. Limited government! Taxes! Ooohh, those wascally Democrats!

Then, they don't even put up a fight. How's this for throwing social conservatives under the bus:

An analysis of the CR published by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, said that it “continues funding for the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency known for its involvement in China’s brutal one-child policy. It also continues $300 million in annual funding to the Title X family planning program, which is a prime funding source for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
And fiscal conservatives, too:

The failed CR, promoted by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), was a temporary measure designed to fund the entire government through Nov. 18.

During that time, it would have funded the government at an annualized rate just $7 billion less than the level of federal spending for fiscal 2011--but $24 billion more than the Republican-controlled House approved in the budget resolution they passed earlier this year.

How about throwing all limited-government conservatives, independents, libertarians et al. under the bus?

Obamacare -- the same Obamacare that Boehner/Cantor rode into House majority status with, promising to repeal/replace/de-fund gets funded in Boehner/Cantor budget:

“Some conservatives may be concerned that the legislation does not block funding for Obamacare during the period covered by the legislation,” said the study-committee analysis.
Imagine that there isn't anyone railing against this abomination over at Memeorandum. "Conservative" bloggers and talking heads are too busy waving their 'R' red-white-and-blue flags to consider that they are being used and bamboozled by the very leadership that they put into power positions November of last year in the first place.

Boehner and Cantor have no interest in promoting or furthering the righting of our financial ship. Can we afford that right now?

Another question: What happens when we have a President Rick Perry or Mitt Romney and these two guys are still the leaders in the House?

Think about it.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Food for Thought...

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

As a staunch advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism specifically, as well as her view of morality and the ethics of rational self interest generally, I am quite sure my astute readership knows where I stand on the following discussion.

Nevertheless, in the interest of an open and thoughtful exchange of ideas Rational Nation USA presents the following for your consideration. As always the Editor leaves it to each individual to ultimately decide for themselves the validity of premises presented.

Please visit the link to view segment 2-5. I attempted to post all 5 segments here, however after the initial posting when refreshed only segment 5 posted. Five times.

The search for knowledge is universal. However, the search for a one right, universally accepted rational and objective knowledge may allude mankind forever.

Perhaps this is as it should be... But then again, for the advocate of Objectivism and rationality the preceding premise is difficult, if not impossible to accept.

There Comes a Time...

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

American Bald Eagle - Emblematic Sign of Freedom

There is a time to kiss a*s, and there is a time to kick a*s.

This sight was started with the belief those who really understand the meaning of liberty and the exercise of free will, as well as the individual IE: personal responsibility that both require would find themselves "brothers and sisters" in arms fighting the tyranny that both parties represent.

Sadly I was mistaken.

It has become by far more important to "follow the party line" and march in lockstep with the "party establishment" than it is to recognize and speak the truth.

Truth in politics has sadly become more a matter of how an individual "perceives" national realities (as spoon fed by the political elite in both parties) rather than what the actual facts of any perceived "realities" in fact are. Which is to say most people freely choose to accept precisely what they have been conditioned to believe by the "elite and talking heads" rather than question the validity of any said premise.

We can thank modern day progressives such as TAO and Jersey McJones, to name just two, for most of today's societal ills.

Individuals who subscribe to, and practice "Classical Liberalism", IE: those whose values are based on a rational system founded in logic, objectivity, and the constitution, rather than raw emotionalism hold the key to our nations future and the ultimate survival of our Republic.

I opened this post by saying "there is a time to kiss a*s, and there is a time to kick a*s. I for one have kissed by far too much a*s in the name of "bipartisanship" in the misguided hope of finding common ground with those who know not the meaning of "common ground." Nor do they care to find common ground.

So my dear readers I ask, has the time come to kick some a*s?

What say you?

Monday, September 19, 2011

Open a Book Yourself, Kemosabe

Chris Matthews loves to make fun of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for their their obvious lack of historical acumen; the fact that Bachmann said that the founding fathers "worked tirelessly" to get rid of slavery, the fact that Palin said that Paul Revere was actually trying to warn the British that the British were coming, etc.. He pretty much does it constantly and, while, yeah, it is in fact humorous at times, it's also getting a little sanctimonious, too....................................................................................................And, plus, it isn't like Matthews himself never errs. Just the other night, for example, he throw out that old hackneyed and now thoroughly discredited bromide that Herbert Hoover "did nothing to try and end the depression". If Mr. Matthews actually DID know his history, he'd have known that President Hoover - a) worked with the Chamber of Commerce to set up the National Business Survey Conference (an entity that sought to obtain pledges from business that they maintain wages/undertake new investments), b) set up a new division in the Commerce Department to speed up federal construction projects (infrastructure, Rachel Maddow), c) pushed through a temporary tax reduction, d) worked with Congress to increase, by 400 million (probably a lot of money for back then), public works expenditures (yes, Rachel Maddow, MORE infrastructure!), e) authorized the establishment of the Federal Farm Board (this, to make low interest loans and to purchase grain when prices were falling), f) advocated for and signed (bone-headedly, in the opinion of most economists) the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, and g) established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (the attempt being to stabilize the banking system).......................................................................................................Now, this isn't to say that what Mr. Hoover did was either a) effective and/or b) sufficient (conservatives tend to think that he did too much, liberals not enough). It's simply an attempt to show that even somebody as supposedly smart (not to mention, smarmy and self righteous) as Matthews probably shouldn't be casting dispersions by the trailer-load.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Why Obama Should Withdraw... Or Should He???

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

Returning late from a visit with family in upstate New York this weekend my first stop was to visit the Left Coast Rebel, something I highly recommend to all who frequent Rational Nation USA.

As usual LCR cut to the chase exposing the current occupant of the oval office for the dismal failure {not unlike GWB} he has turned out to be.

The mega Leviathan socialistic cures he has applied to the problems of the USA's economy in the hope of curing it's ills have proven to be abject failures. Failures not unlike the those witnessed by many socialist countries.

It goes without further commentary that on the field of economics and business management Barrack Hussein Obama has the intelligence, experience, and ability of a Fidel Castro, Mao Tse Tung, or Hugo Chavez. Which is quite disconcerting to say the least.

The foregoing aside the real issue of most urgency, and the one LCR addresses, is whether BHO ought to save the nation from another tortuous campaign and withdraw allowing some other democrat {presumably better equipped to handle the nations economic woes} to emerge and carry the democrats banner.

Certainly there is viable rationale as to the benefits of the POTUS making such a decision. From the Chicago Tribune...
His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.


But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That might be the sensible thing to do. It's hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn't, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

It's not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, "Second-Term Blues," that "their second terms did not measure up to their first."


If he runs for re-election, Obama may find that the only fate worse than losing is winning. But he might arrange things so it will be Clinton who has the unenviable job of reviving the economy, balancing the budget, getting out of Afghanistan and grappling with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Obama, meanwhile, will be on a Hawaiian beach, wrestling the cap off a Corona. {Read the Full Story}

Given the above one thought comes to mind. Those of us who believe in limited effective Constitutional government ought to be 1) supporting the candidate that best exemplifies a true understanding of our constitution and the benefits of limited government, and 2) hope that the failure that has occupied the Oval Office for the past thirty two months decides to try his hand at failing again.

2012 may well be the opportunity of a generation to reform government in the mold intended by our founding fathers. Whether the nation succeeds in grasping this historic opportunity rests entirely on who the country selects as the next president, as well as who it elects to the next congress.

I assure you neither Rick Perry nor Mittens Romney are leaders who understand and believe in limited constitutional government. If this nation is to return to the rational principle of limited constitutional government it must reject both the current occupant of the Oval Office as well as the big government GOP candidates that merely offer a different, yet just as dangerous a Leviathan as the Dems offer the nation.

There are choices. Americans must focus on the candidate(s) that truly represent an understanding of limited constitutional government and have a track record which demonstrates their commitment to these principles.

Failing that prepare for different variations of the same big brother/sister Leviathan that has us in the shape we are in today.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Will Rick Perry's TARP Lies Fall on Deaf Ears?

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

Rick Perry's caught himself in another Texas-size-pile-o'-the-steamin'-stinky again.

And no, this time it's not an executive HPV order causing alarm, rather it's his support of the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of 2008.

The same TARP that played a big part in forming today's Tea Party Movement.

Today Perry was questioned by a certain Rebekah Maxwell (of about his TARP backing.

"No, Ma'am,'' is all the pistol-packing Texas governor had to say (audio here).

Unfortunately the facts prove otherwise.

Perry -- along with then West Virginia governor Joe Manchin -- authored a 2008 pro-TARP letter after the bill's first-run historic defeat. Read it for yourself, it's pretty clear that Perry supported TARP.

These two videos tell the story as well:

Why does all of this matter, you say? Why should we care? After all, politicians are politicians. Even the best have to lie and do what is expedient, now and then, right? Rick Perry looks presidential! He says the right things...

Open your eyes. It's a matter of character and trustworthiness in limited government issues and Rick Perry (and Mittens Romney for that matter) are both sorely lacking.

Limited government and limited governance, executive and otherwise are the most pressing issues of our age and generation.

If we nominate -- and elect -- someone lacking the integrity and intestinal fortitude to carry the limited government torch -- through good times and perilous as they were in 2008 and likely will be again -- then we have won a Pyrrhic victory that will haunt us forever.

Because we will have "won" but truly lost that which matters -- principles, ideas and the future of this nation.

On this note, Joseph Ashby writing at American Thinker:

No matter how competent and well-meaning an elected official may be, an incompetent and malevolent leader will eventually and inevitably follow. To dramatically increase government power based on the supposed skill of a temporary office holder is a sentence of bureaucratic imprisonment in the not too distant future.

Certainly Perry and Romney are not Barack Obama when it comes to growing government, but both have shown a willingness disregard or hedge on their free-market principles in when under intense political pressure. Voters would be well served to ask themselves if their preferred candidate will make the right decision when future TARPs inevitably come.

What say you, Rick Perry? And you too, Mitt Romney? How about you, dear reader?

Via Memeorandum.

As the Economy Continues to Falter Obama's Approval Rating Continues to Drop

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

Due to America's fervent belief in Obama's "Hope and Change" mantra America is now reaping that which she sowed.

CBS News - As concerns about the struggling U.S. economy grow, a new CBS News/New York poll finds that President Obama's overall approval rating has dropped to 43 percent, the lowest so far of his presidency in CBS News polling. In addition, his disapproval rating has reached an all-time high of 50 percent.


Except for a notable spike in approval after the killing of Osama bin Laden in May, President Obama's approval rating has been below 50 percent since the spring of 2010.

Not surprisingly, the down economy has had a clear impact on Mr. Obama's approval rating.

The poll also found that 39 percent of Americans say the economy is fairly bad, and another 47 percent say the economy is very bad - the highest percentage since April 2009. Meanwhile, 13 percent say the economy is fairly good and just one percent say it is very good.

In addition, 72 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track -- the highest percentage so far since the president took office. Just 23 percent think the country is currently in the right direction.

As for Mr. Obama's rating on the economy, just 34 percent approve of the way he has handled the economy, with 57 disapproving. And on the issue of job creation, 40 percent approve and 53 percent disapprove.


In addition, for the first time, more Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the president than a favorable one - 39 percent have a favorable opinion, while 42 percent view him unfavorably. Eighteen percent are undecided. {More Here}

Indeed. Irrespective of the notion held by progressives that the President is doing a great job the majority of Americans now know otherwise.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Weasel Zippers

Friday, September 16, 2011

Nearly Two Thirds Believe Boeing Should Be Allowed to Operate Plant in South Carolina

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


It comes as no surprise really. A substantial majority of Americans understand businesses exist for one primary purpose. To make money {profit} on the product and or services they provide. It's really as elementary as that.

The American people also understand that for any business to remain viable requires it to maintain a positive cash flow and balance sheet. Remaining competitive is an essential component for any business wishing to achieve long term success.

Rasmussen Reports - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) may be upset with Boeing’s plan to operate a non-union plant in South Carolina, but most Americans think it should be allowed to.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll finds that 64% think Boeing has the right to open the plant in South Carolina while just 21% disagree. When respondents are told that the NLRB believes that opening the plant is an act of retaliation against the union, the numbers barely move. Only 17% think the agency has the right to prevent Boeing from opening the new facility while 64% disagree.

The House is expected to approve a bill barring the NLRB from getting involved with Boeing’s operation of a $750 million aircraft assembly line in South Carolina – a right-to-work state -- instead of Washington State. In April, the labor board filed a complaint against Boeing for opening the plant, claiming they did so in order to retaliate against unionized workers in Washington State for participating in numerous strikes. Boeing attributes low costs for the plant’s location.

Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly side with Boeing on the issue while Democrats are more evenly divided.

While more than 7-out-of-10 private sector workers believe Boeing should be allowed to operate a new, non-union, facility in South Carolina, only 54% of government employees agree.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of union members agree that Boeing should be allowed to operate the South Carolina production plant. {Read More}

As the foregoing clearly highlights, the spirit of capitalism, albeit in its mixed form, is yet alive in American. It is however interesting the smallest percentage {54%} of workers siding with Boeing are Government employees. Although it is not surprising.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, September 15, 2011

America Is Ready For a Viable Third Party Candidate that Would Reduce Federal Spending

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

America is a center right nation. A nation of hard working people who by and large act responsibly and manage their financial affairs in a reasonably conservative fashion.

Given that the above premise is one I've held to be true for as long as I can remember I read the recent Rasmussen Report with a particular sense of satisfaction.

Some people think there is room for a radical centrist presidential candidate who would hold views somewhere between the views of President Obama and whoever the Republicans nominate to oppose him.

However, a solid plurality of voters nationwide say that if there’s a third-party candidate, they’d like to see someone who proposes less government spending than both the president and the Republican challenger. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters hold this view.

Only 11% would want to see a third-party candidate who proposed spending more than both the current president and the GOP nominee. Twenty-nine percent (29%) would like to see the radical centrist who proposes spending in the middle - between the two major party contenders.

Among those who think it’s a good time to consider a third-party candidate, the numbers are even more dramatic. Most (55%) of those longing for a third option are hoping for someone who would propose spending less than both the Republican and Democratic nominees.

Voters see little chance of a third-party candidate being elected president next year, but 53% believe it’s at least somewhat likely that a third-party candidate could win the presidency in the next 10 to 12 years.

Not surprisingly, there are partisan differences on this question. If there is to be a third-party candidate, 68% of Republicans think it should be someone who proposes less federal spending than the major party candidates. A solid plurality (45%) of unaffiliated voters share this view. However, a plurality of Democrats (35%) would prefer a third-party candidate who might propose spending levels in the middle.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of union members would prefer a third-party option who proposes less spending than Obama and his GOP challenger. Another 34% would prefer a third option in between the major party candidates.

Among swing voters, 48% would like to see a more fiscally conservative option, while 35% would prefer someone in the middle. {Read More}

Progressives are likely gnashing their teeth over this report. For the majority of Americans it comes as no surprise. Perhaps someday the Modern Progressives will awake to find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The CPC Introduce Jobs Plan To The Left Of Obama’s…

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

Here cometh the CPC {Congressional Progressive Caucus} with an even more socially progressive and fiscally unsound plan than President Obama's for creating jobs.

The Utopian belief that government can {and therefor should} create jobs has always been the delusional belief of the progressives.

It matters not to the CPC and their supporters that history has shown central planning by the government has been nothing but a dismal failure wherever it has been tried.

But let not such considerations stand in the way of the emotionally driven anti business and pro Leviathan mentality.

Here, straight from the pages of that limp liberal rag The Daily Kos, for your reading amusement.

Through the summer, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus listened to what people had to say about the need for jobs. Now, the CPC has unveiled a jobs creation framework of its own, providing President Obama with a much-needed left flank on jobs:

"We expect [Republicans] to be opposed," [Rep. Keith] Ellison said at a press conference. "But we've got faith in the American people to rise up and demand that Congress pass a jobs bill. So we're fundamentally optimistic, but we're also realistic. ... We do expect the American people are going to bring pressure to bear."


The CPC's Rebuild the American Dream Framework "outlines six areas of focus for immediate and long term job creation: Make it in America Again, Rebuild America, Lead the Green Industrial Revolution, Jobs for the Next Generation, Not Just Jobs—Good Jobs, and Fair Taxes—Shared Sacrifice." These are broad principles, but ones that translate directly to specific proposals:

The framework includes a $227 billion jobs bill sponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) that aims to create 2.2 million jobs through funding for school improvement, police and firefighter services, local healthcare providers, the Early Head Start program and park-improvement services.

And of course the CPC plan, in furtherance of the class warfare progressives always fall back on managed to fit it into their plan nicely.

Schakowsky’s proposal would be funded by separate legislation, also sponsored by her, that raises taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

No, it won't pass in this Congress. But it lays the groundwork for better policy and politics, giving voters and constituents another vision for what a responsible jobs policy could look like, demonstrating that as good as many of President Obama's proposals are, they aren't the ceiling on what could be done to benefit America's workers and economy.

For those of us who see government, aka Leviathan, as the larger part of the problem rather than part of the solution this is a call to arms... oops, I mean a call to meet our obligation. The obligation to defend the framework of our Constitution and the limited government it was crafted to insure.

As a reminder. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry is in fact nothing more than statist of a different color. One who will grow Leviathan in equally as offensive a manner as Obama, and or the CPC.

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Why Perry the Phony Fears Ron Paul...

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

Whoa! Finally, a short concise article by Brent Budowsky explaining why Rick Perry, is, and ought to be afraid of Ron Paul. Perry is a phony. A big government pay to play fraud. He is, as I pointed out in a prior post, nothing more than a red statist. Which is only a matter of degrees different than a blue statist. After all, a statist is a statist, whether they be red or blue.

Anyone who wants to see a true conservative/libertarian calling the shots should think twice and hard about supporting Perry. For those conservatives/libertarians who realize GWB was really no fiscal conservative at all, and in fact in many ways encroached on the liberties of all Americans {the Patriot Act comes to mind} should realize that Perry very likely will offer up more of the same. In a nut shell... Leviathan under a Perry presidency would continue it's glutenous feast at the taxpayers expense.

Enough of my opinion, here is Brent Budowsky's take...

One of the cardinal rules of politics is "never attack down,” meaning a front-runner should never attack or respond to an opponent who is far behind. Yet that is what Rick Perry is doing. He is intimidated by Ron Paul, and responding to Ron Paul. Why? The answer is that Ron Paul is a true libertarian and a true conservative, while the latest version of Rick Perry, the man who once championed Al Gore, is a phony conservative and can't even pretend to be a phony libertarian.

As I have written repeatedly, Rick Perry is the ultimate pay-for-play government man, the exact opposite of a true conservative and a true libertarian. Ron Paul, whether one agrees with him or not, is the true libertarian and a genuine conservative in ways that Rick Perry can never be. That is why Rick Perry fears Ron Paul.


For now it is fascinating to watch Ron Paul get under Rick Perry's skin, and into Rick Perry's head.

Rick Perry is afraid of Ron Paul.

Rick Perry should be afraid of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's very presence reveals what a polyester impersonation of a conservative Rick Perry actually is.

Indeed. There are candidates that are by far more conservative as well as libertarian in the republican race.

I will only add the following for those contemplating supporting Rick Perry; "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing."

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, September 11, 2011

The Similarities Between Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Classical Liberalism

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

Eugène Delacroix - La liberté guidant le peuple (1830)

As a conservative/libertarian site Rational Nation USA has taken flak from conservative purists as well as progressive socialists. Being the introspective personality the Editor in Chief of Rational Nation is this required the interesting factor, IE: being reviled by both the left and right at the same time, be given serious introspection and research.

Following the research and several days reflecting on the values of freedom, liberty, self determination, individual rights as opposed to the assumed rights of the collective, limited and proper governmental authority over the people as opposed to total governmental control over all aspect of the life of the individual, and the reasons why this nation ultimately became a beacon and symbol of enlightened thought, freedom, liberty, and hope for the world lead to what, at least to this writer, are obvious conclusions.

Our politicians, elected officials, the MSM, academia, the business sector, and the general voting population has, over time, completely lost an objective understanding of our Constitution and the foundation on which our republic was built.

Our lack of understanding, as well as the nation's failure to adhere to Constitutional principles is directly related to our current economic and social difficulties.

Forgive the length of the following. It is necessary in order to get from from point A to point Z and ultimately arrive at a more thorough understanding of our past, present, and the direction we ought to be heading in the future.

Conservapedia - There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist and, as in Europe, socialistic. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into corruption.

For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are almost in cahoots with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the re-election campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown more Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal, by a ratio of 2-1. A  liberal , as do many conservatives and libertarians, (emphasis mine) generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

  • Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
  • Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events (This RN USA agrees with)
  • Support for gun control
  • Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right
  • Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
  • Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care
  • Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
  • The denial of inherent gender differences (RN USA supports the rights of gay and lesbian couples to civil unions)
  • Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the military (RN USA agrees with this in so long as the individual is capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job)
  • Legalized same-sex marriage (RN USA supports civil unions)
  • Tax and spend
  • Trying to impede the freedoms of others
  • Implementation of affirmative action
  • Political correctness, the opposition of free speech
  • Support of labor unions (RN USA does not see this as problematic. Rather if viewed correctly, on a partnership basis of mutual respect  self interest can improve dramatically the dynamics of shared  management and labor success.
  • Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex (RN USA sees this as vague and somewhat hyperbolic)
  • A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
  • Government programs to rehabilitate criminals (RN USA views this as a logical step... first and one time only)
  • Abolition of the death penalty

  • Serial killer John Wayne Gacy was a Democratic Party activist who had his picture taken with First Lady Rosalynn Carter in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was bisexual and "very liberal".(RN USA - Not sure of relevancy here... more hyperbole)

  • Environmentalism
  • Disarmament treaties
  • Globalism
  • Opposition to the Bible and God. (RN USA supports the individuals right to self choose religion over atheism and vice versa)
  • Opposition to full private property rights
  • Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
  • In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World. (Again, the theory of evolution is based on scientific evidence... atheism is the choice of the individual. Not all supporters of Darwin's scientific theory are atheists)
  • Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act (RN USA finds this a tough one, on balance the arguments of liberals are based on sound classical liberal premises)
  • Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). (RN USA thinks this is more hyperbole... thus meaningless)
  • Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism. (RN USA - Or perhaps the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history... after Vietnam)
  • Withholds support to our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms. (RN USA - Hyperbole without a doubt, just look at the record)
  • Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.
  • Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles. (RN USA asks, who is the judge and on what criteria?)
  • Supports financially irresponsible policies.
  • Following policies which are proven to be incorrect.
  • Do not support a free-market economy and support regulation of business.
  • "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...." (RN USA - As are the stories of conservative support for corrupt regimes that denied basic human and individual right for their citizens... More hyperbole)
  • Support of leftist ideologies such as socialism and Nazism (RN USA - On this one liberals truly have a blind spot)
  • Encouragement of global warming alarmism.

The real point of this post is to highlight the truth that classical liberalism, rational self interest, libertarianism, and conservatism are closely aligned and can work together for the benefit of our nation.

It is the far lefts ideology, as well as the far rights ideology, that is in opposition to the principles our founding fathers built as a foundation and framework on which the nation was to stand and thrive.

So, it is up to each patriotic individual to stand up and take a stand for right. A stand based on objective reasoning, logical analysis, the long term view, and to do so without the clouded lens of emotionalism coupled with feelings of guilt for ones success.

Obama TRAPPED in Keynesian Twilight Zone

Brought to you by Rational Nation USA. Hat tip .

The President's latest jobs speech was like watching a rerun of a bad horror movie.

He seems to repeatedly repackage his failed Keynesian economic policies into the next "big" jobs program. All the while, our economy continues to crumble around us.

President Obama is clearly trapped in the Keynesian Twilight Zone.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Harry Truman He Ain't...

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

I just caught the following on Memorandum and thought it an accurate assessment of Obama's reelection chances at this early point in the game.

The Weekly Standard - A year from now, the presidential election campaign will be in full swing. Obama and the Republican nominee will be touring the country at a feverish pace, trying hard to convince swing voters to go their way. Obviously, we’re still too far out from November 2012 to know what will happen, but we’re close enough to get a sense of the shape of the race.

President Obama’s chances next year don’t look good. As of this writing, the InTrade prediction market gives the president about a 50-50 chance, and even Democratic insiders are starting to doubt the top of their ticket. According to National Journal, they’re privately giving the president just a 63 percent chance of victory, which is not a great score considering the partisan source. These relatively gloomy odds are not surprising, as the president faces some historic challenges in his reelection quest.

Obama’s biggest problem is the economy, particularly as the typical voter experiences it. Though the recession technically ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the average American has not felt the slightest hint of a two-year “recovery.”

Indeed things appear to be looking gloomier and gloomier for the POTUS and his reelection. Obama, given his rather bleak record, especially with respect to the economy, would be better served by doing little and allowing market forces to control the direction of the economy.

Obviously Obama is not going to stand by idly and remain disengaged, to do so would be political suicide. The American people do expect their leader to lead, and they are hopeful their leader has the wisdom to lead wisely.

The President's job speech Thursday, with specifics to follow, was an attempt to lead. However, given the likelihood Congress will not give him all he wants, rightly so given what we know of his plan, one must question the motive driving Obama's strategy.

The following comment left on a previous Rational Nation USA post by blogger Always On Watch is an excellent analysis that answers the question.
IMO, Obama isn't going to back down on this pass-it-all-or-else mode. He's playing a game: The economy is in the dumper for the long term no matter what we do. I know you won't pass the entire set of measures I propose, and because you won't pass it all, I'll use that against you in my campaign.

Even some mainstream media sources are saying that the above is his strategy. Not that I believe much in the msm, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And so it is. We are stuck with a cynical and devious POTUS until January 2013. At which time we hope the American political process produces a candidate with vision, intelligence, integrity, and a proven track record of success.

Cross posted at the Left Coast Rebel

Egyptian Protesters Storm Israeli Embassy

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

 Egyptians demolishing wall outside embassy (Photo: Reuters)caption

Ah, the Arab Spring. A spring that brought about the downfall of Hosni Mubarak. A spring hailed as a democratic uprising of the people that ostensibly would lead only to good.


YNET - Hundreds of Egyptians partially tear down wall surrounding Israeli Embassy in Cairo, remove flag from building for second time this month. Over 200 Egyptians reportedly injured. Foreign Minister opens emergency situation room

Some of the protesters then stormed the embassy premises and tore down the flag from the building for the second time in less than a month. Eyewitnesses reported that the protesters threw the flag on the street, prompting loud cheers from the mass crowds gathered outside the embassy.

Israeli officials stated that the Egyptian protesters broke into the building and managed to reach the floor on which the embassy is located. However, they have not managed to break in through the fortified doors.

Sources in Jerusalem called the incident a “grave event,” and noted that it is still unclear whether the Egyptian security officers who guard the building fled the scene.

The Foreign Ministry opened an emergency situation room and is constantly being updated by Egyptian and Israeli authorities in Cairo. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman arrived at the command post and is being briefed on the latest developments.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with US President Barack Obama and briefed him on the situation outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.

Al-Jazeera network reported that the Egyptian army is using tear gas canisters in order to disperse the crowds.

According to eyewitnesses, crowds climbed the embassy security wall, pummeled it with hammers and tore away large sections of the barrier, which Egyptian authorities erected after daily protests last month sparked by tensions over the death of five Egyptian security personnel in Sinai which Cairo blamed on Israel.

Since Mubarak’s fall, calls have grown in Egypt for ending the historic 1979 peace treaty with Israel, a pact that has never had the support of ordinary Egyptians.

The attempt to demolish the wall came after an Egyptian Facebook group called activists to gather outside the Israeli delegation in Cairo and “urinate on the wall.”

Egyptian groups also called activists to spray graffiti slogans against Israel on the wall and erect a memorial for the soldiers killed during the attack in south Israel.

Eyewitnesses said policemen and soldiers stood by as the activists hammered away at the roughly 2.5 metres (8-foot) high wall.

Egyptian officials said the wall was intended to protect residents of the high-rise embassy building, not the Israeli mission.

The move against the embassy wall came as around 4,000 Egyptian activists demonstrated in central Cairo demanding faster reforms, ending military trials for civilians.

Since Mubarak’s fall, calls have grown in Egypt for ending the historic 1979 peace treaty with Israel, a pact that has never had the support of ordinary Egyptians.

One can only wonder what the future will bring. A educated guess would be greater turmoil, stoked by radical Islamist in Egypt as well as throughout the Middle East and the world at large.

The threat to Israel's long term viability as a nation is immediate and grave. We can not help but question... When will extreme Islamic lunacy, driven by hatred for Israel and the USA hit our shores. Again.

For video footage and additional pictures.

Via: Memeorandum

White House... Pass It All!

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

Obama Addressing the Joint Session of Congress

The POTUS gave his jobs speech, and surprisingly enough there are some sensible ideas that deserve debate and consideration. Republicans listened and are signaling there are area's for agreement and bipartisanship.

POLITICO - House Republicans are planning to peel off portions of President Barack Obama’s plan that they find favorable, and pass them separately.

GOP leaders are planning to pick the most passable items out of the bill — trade agreements, small business relief measures, revamped unemployment insurance — and pass them separately.

“This is my objection to the message that was delivered tonight,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the speech. “The message was: either accept my package as it is, or I will take it to the American people. I would say that that’s the wrong approach. What we’re here to do is try to transcend differences, not let them get in the way in the areas we can make progress on.”

Cantor added that “as majority leader, I certainly would like to see us be able to peel off some of these ideas, put them on the floor, vote them across the floor and get the senate to join with us so we can actually get something to the president and make some progress as quickly as possible.”

The quick reaction from a top congressional Republican suggests the GOP is not outright dismissing all of Obama’s ideas, but certainly is not going to pass the entire $450 billion package in one fell swoop.

Speaker John Boehner also seemed open minded, saying proposals laid out in the Capitol Thursday night “merit consideration...

The White House response to the republicans willingness to pass parts of Obama's jobs bill... Pass it all.

The Plum Line - Yesterday, after the President finished up his speech last night, House Republicans responded by signaling an openness to passing parts of Obama’s new jobs bill, while signaling disapproval of Obama’s vow to barnstorm the country to get the American Jobs Act passed in its current form.

“The message was: either accept my package as it is, or I will take it to the American people,” Eric Cantor said. “I would say that that’s the wrong approach.”

Today, the White House offered its answer: Sorry, we want the whole bill passed. Nothing less.

With the spin war over the speech now shifting to a phase where Republicans are telegraphing a desire to compromise, even as Obama hits the road to sell his whole plan to the American people, this exchange on MSNBC this morning between Chuck Todd and White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer struck me as important:

TODD: The bill gets sent to Congress next week. Are you guys assuming that it gets sort of piecemealed, that at the end of the day you’re going to get some of what you want but not all of what you want?

PFEIFFER: No, we’re not assuming that. The president said it 16 times, I’ll say it a 17th time today. He wants them to pass the American Jobs Act. That’s the piece of legislation he’s sending up. It’s a simple thing. Puts the Americans back to work and puts more money into the pockets of working families. Our belief is that everything in this bill is reasonable. Everything in the bill has bipartisan support. Everything will have an effect right now. And so we want them to pass it.

So much for bipartisanship and negotiating in good faith. Aside from the reality that much of Obama's prior efforts at stimulating the economy and creating new jobs have been failures, he now wants to play hardball, putting the nation at risk of even greater economic uncertainty.  While at the same time further increasing the public debt.

Flopping Aces has an excellent post up that pretty much sums it up.

Did you hear Obama gave a speech last night? If you didn’t here is the summary…Infrastructure spending, bailouts to states to save government jobs, bailouts for mortgages, job training, unspecified regulatory reform, and some small tax credits for businesses and individuals.

Sound familiar?

It should. Its the 2009 Recovery Act Part II and not once did he acknowledge what a total and complete failure that was.

In 2009, President Obama promised that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) would “create or save” 3.5 million jobs over the next two years and that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8.5 percent. Rather, he said that, by the end of 2010, unemployment would have dropped to 7.25 percent. Furthermore, White House economists forecast that without ARRA spending, the unemployment rate would increase from 7 percent to 8.8 percent. Unfortunately, the administration’s estimates were wrong by a vast margin.

This week, Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy compares unemployment estimates from the president’s 2010 Budget—which contains the original proposed estimates for the impact of the stimulus on unemployment—with actual unemployment rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While the cost of ARRA has risen to $840 billion—from the original $787 billion signed in 2009—the data reveal no marked improvement in employment as stimulus spending has increased. The large disparity between what the president promised and of the current unemployment levels contradicts the original claims about ARRA’s ability to improve unemployment conditions.

It failed so miserably so why not try it again eh?

“basically the [same ideas] I’ve been advocating for months.”

So the class warfare remains, tax hikes on business owners remain, bailouts remain….all to be paid for by a plan he will come up with later. Come on.

The whole tone of the speech was entirely political. It was an election speech and the country is tired of his speeches in which he ORDERS Washington to either pass it or he will tell Mommy and Daddy (the American people) and force them to accept it.

Whether Obama will play the role of King George, or use the grey matter and actually work with the republicans to forge a bill that just may accomplish the results all hope for is anybodies call.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, September 9, 2011

THE Speech... Then a Quick Fact Check

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

I guess if the President inculcates {you should pass it right away}he really thinks people will believe his words. Words that are based on flim-flam accounting and pie in the sky hope.

The POTUS is likely betting his speech will energize his progressive base and soothe concerns of moderates. Thus insuring his reelection.

For those who missed the speech.

As pointed out above the Potus has based his mirage on flimsy and questionable assumptions, and those who will pay the cost of his jobs bill will be those who come after.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's promise Thursday that everything in his jobs plan will be paid for rests on highly iffy propositions.

It will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future - the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals - don't roll it back.

Underscoring the gravity of the nation's high employment rate, Obama chose a joint session of Congress, normally reserved for a State of the Union speech, to lay out his proposals. But if the moment was extraordinary, the plan he presented was conventional Washington rhetoric in one respect: It employs sleight-of-hand accounting.

A look at some of Obama's claims and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: "Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything."

THE FACTS: Obama did not spell out exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act but said he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional supercommittee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides suggested that new deficit spending in the near-term to try to promote job creation would be paid for in the future - the "out years," in legislative jargon - but they did not specify what would be cut or what revenues they would use.

Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today's Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.

Currently, roughly all federal taxes and other revenues are consumed in spending on various federal benefit programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, food stamps, farm subsidies and other social-assistance programs and payments on the national debt. Pretty much everything else is done on credit with borrowed money.

So there is no guarantee that programs that clearly will increase annual deficits in the near term will be paid for in the long term.

OBAMA: "Everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including many who sit here tonight."

THE FACTS: Obama's proposed cut in the Social Security payroll tax does seem likely to garner significant GOP support. But Obama proposes paying for the plan in part with tax increases that have already generated stiff Republican opposition.

For instance, Obama makes a pitch anew to end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which he has defined as couples earning over $250,000 a year or individuals earning over $200,000 a year. Republicans have adamantly blocked what they view as new taxes. As recently as last month, House Republicans refused to go along with any deal to raise the government's borrowing authority that included new revenues, or taxes.

OBAMA: "It will not add to the deficit."

THE FACTS: It's hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery. Deficits are calculated for individual years. The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion. Perhaps Obama meant to say that, in the long run, his hoped-for programs would not further increase the national debt, not annual deficits.

OBAMA: "The American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away."

THE FACTS: Not all of the president's major proposals are likely to yield quick job growth if adopted. One is to set up a national infrastructure bank to raise private capital for roads, rail, bridges, airports and waterways. Even supporters of such a bank doubt it could have much impact on jobs in the next two years because it takes time to set up. The idea is likely to run into opposition from some Republicans who say such a bank would give the federal government too much power. They'd rather divide money among existing state infrastructure banks.

Those looking for vintage Keynesian and progressive logic and rhetoric certainly weren't disappointed. For many across this land the flaws in the POTUS job speech are glaring.

For anyone interested in reading the transcript of speech.

Via: Memeorandum