A Reminder From Franklin

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Benjamin Franklin had it right. Today I think one can safely say that since the great experiment in self government (republican government), whose concepts were born during the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment and came to full fruition with the American Revolution, the nation founded on the principles contained in Franklin's quote below has strayed far.

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." --Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, 1774

The further we have strayed from the founding republican principles on which this nation was built and grew strong staying true to, the greater our problems seem to grow. We are already in the shadows of a declining nation. The choice we have is to continue on the same path or chart a new one.

Perhaps the nation and its leaders will put aside the politics of political correctness and special interest, turning away from corruption, and pandering to those with the heaviest and most fully stuffed wallet. Even a great nation such as the United States of America can not expect to survive if it turns from the very values that were responsible for it achieving greatness.

Words from a great 18th century thinker. And just some thoughts from a 21st century American patriot who loves his country. It's the {unsavory} politicians, businesses, and unions that are the problem.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Rule 5 Video: Electro Hip-Hop Tyranny Remix

By RightKlik

Colonel Qaddafi tears it up:

Noy Alooshe, 31, an Israeli journalist, musician and Internet buff, said he saw Colonel Qaddafi’s televised speech last Tuesday in which the Libyan leader vowed to hunt down protesters “inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alleyway by alleyway,” and immediately identified it as a “classic.”

“He was dressed strangely, and he raised his arms” like at a trance party, Mr. Alooshe said Sunday in a telephone interview, referring to the gatherings that feature electronic dance music. Then there were Colonel Qaddafi’s words with their natural beat.

Mr. Alooshe spent a few hours at the computer, using pitch corrector technology to set the speech to the music of “Hey Baby,” a song by the American rapper Pitbull, featuring another artist, T-Pain. Mr. Alooshe titled it “Zenga-Zenga,” echoing Colonel Qaddafi’s repetition of the word zanqa, Arabic for alleyway.

By the early hours of Wednesday morning, Mr. Alooshe had uploaded the electro hip-hop remix to YouTube, and he began promoting it on Twitter and Facebook, sending the link to the pages of young Arab revolutionaries. By Sunday night, the original clip had received nearly 500,000 hits and had gone viral.

Memeorandum discussion

The Politics of Special Interest

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Lets cut to the chase. Special interests, and the resulting influence they exert on government has been the norm in American politics for years. Business has spent fortunes in the effort to secure government favors in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Unions have spent fortunes to insure the rights of labor and to gain favor with the government over business. And the beat goes on.

From a recent post at The Hill's Blog Briefing Room.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gave his blessing Sunday to President Obama's handling of the labor standoff in Wisconsin.

Amid some criticism on the left that Obama could do more to boost unions in their demonstrations against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and his proposal to eliminate most collective bargaining rights for public workers, Trumka said the president was doing just fine.

"I think he's doing it the right way," Trumka said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

A growing number of Democrats have pressed Obama to take more of a leading role in the labor dispute. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, last week called for Obama to head to Wisconsin.

Obama has called the Walker proposal "an assault on unions," but has said little else personally. Other members of the administration, including Vice President Biden and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, have also voiced concerns about the Wisconsin dispute.

"Everybody could be doing more," Trumka said when pressed about whether the president could do more, pointedly avoiding singling out Obama for criticism.

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is the AFL-CIO and the Obama administration will soon be, if they are not already, in bed together.

And so politics and special favors will remain the order of the day. The only thing that really changes is who it is that is getting the favors. Reason and common sense seem to get lost in the process.

I find it interesting that unions, who create no jobs and have no responsibility save protecting "workers rights" -- something the government now does -- will be getting the "special nod" from the Obama administration.

And the beat goes on.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday School: Every Sperm Is Sacred?

By RightKlik

Our good friend The Other McCain draws our attention to a persuasive article by Kathryn Lopez in which Lopez discusses the war between conservative Republicans and Planned Parenthood. This is the heart of her message:

We've come to expect less for and from ourselves, and for and from one another. In part, it's the fruit of the contraceptive pill. New York magazine recently observed in a cover feature: "The pill is so ingrained in our culture today that girls go on it in college, even high school, and stay on it for five, 10, 15, even 20 years." That, of course, has had all kinds of fallout: a false sense of freedom, security. And it has ravaged women's fertility, as it seeks to mute exactly what women's reproductive power is all about.

That's why I want to turn back the clock -- to a time when we valued love and marriage and didn't expect, support and even encourage promiscuity. Life and history don't work that way, obviously, there is no actual rewind. But we do have opportunities to learn from our mistakes.

Kathryn Lopez makes several good points in her Town Hall piece on contraception, so go read the rest.

The Other McCain takes K-Lo's argument a big step futher:

The very name Planned Parenthood expresses the idea that they are offering something somehow superior to unplanned parenthood, that there is something wrong and inferior about letting nature take its course in matters of reproduction or — as Christians would say — recognizing God’s sovereignty as the Author of Life.

If God’s will is involved from the beginning in our lives, if God has known us even in the womb, as the Psalmist says, then at some level we must acknowledge that contraception involves a rejection of God.

This, to me, is not persuasive.

Sexuality blossoms very early in life these days. Am I thwarting the will of God if I don't marry off my daughter at puberty so that she can let nature take its course?

I'm not sure how one can fully "recognize God’s sovereignty" and avoid "a rejection of God" by McCain's standard without marrying during childhood so as to capture every moment of sexuality within the context of holy matrimony.

If two fertile high school kids "fall in love" and decide to remain perfectly chaste outside of marriage and decide that they will delay marriage until they can afford to have sex without contraception, have they chosen to prevent nature from taking its course?

Getting the the heart of the matter with rhetorical questions: Isn't abstinence a form of contraception? As the only form of contraception that is 100% effective, is post-pubertal sexual abstinence the most complete rejection of God's sovereignty?

Memeorandum thread

*Update: This post underwent minor changes for purposes of clarity.

(VIDEO) 'Gold Rush: Alaska' Season 2

by the Left Coast Rebel

Gold. Adventure. Dangerous conditions. Personality clashes and boiled-over tempers. A potential $15 million-dollar gold bonanza buried deep beneath the Alaskan soil.

What's not to like?

I was late the game regarding Discovery's 'Gold Rush: Alaska', I started watching the show just a few weeks ago. If you haven't heard about it, 'Gold Rush: Alaska' follows an unemployed band of "green horn" Oregonians as they pursue their dream of striking it rich in the gold-laden wilderness of Alaska.

The show premiered December, 2010:

'Gold Rush: Alaska' came to a close recently as winter finally shut the operation down. Good news, though, season 2 is coming next spring:


You have to read the profile of miner Todd Hoffman (who spearheaded the mining effort) to get more of a taste of the guys in the show and what motivated them. In particular, note his comments on the American Dream and how that inspired him to frontier the group's gold mining effort. For further reading and videos visit Discovery.com.

Simple question: Which qualities do libertarians want in a President

by Andrew33 for the Left Coast Rebel

What do libertarians want in a leader for the highest office of the United States? Well, first of all, most Libertarians want a strong leader. Weak leaders will acquiesce to the progressive and 2/3rds progressive parties.

Libertarians want a leader that will bring our military home and redeploy our military so that it protects us, not Britain, France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, the UAE, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq...how far do you want me to go? That leader would use the money saved by not paying for the defense of the world to strengthen our military and pay down the debt.

A libertarian would want someone from outside the rank-and-file of American politics, yet one who knows the real players on world politics and finance. That person would have a strong record of leadership and have executive experience.

A libertarian would want someone who can fix our broken economy without increasing presidential powers or the size and scope of government.

A libertarian would want someone who could handle the hostile press as the great ones like Reagan and Clinton (say what you will about Clinton, but his mastery at handling the press saved his Presidency).

Now while I support Allen West (understand that I worked for his campaign and learned a great deal more from him that I will most people in a lifetime), a candidate that libertarians don't seem to be taking seriously but should be is Donald Trump. Now, before you curse me out and put me on "ignore", hear me out first...then curse me out if you so choose.

First, Trump is calling for real budget cuts. He wants nations that utilize our defense capabilities to protect America. He states that any nation who wants the protection of our military should pay 100% of the operating costs to operate in their nation. He also wants to bring the majority of our fighting troops home in favor of defending our own country, not fighting for oil in Iraq or staring at North Koreans with big guns pointed at them for the next 50 years.

He wants to renegotiate NAFTA top to bottom so that it is done on a per-person basis so that to achieve fair trade, a nation with half our population must keep a balanced import/export ratio of 1 item per person to achieve fair trade. Implementation would absolutely require a diminished role for union bosses as most American support.

Trump sees the UN and OPEC akin to poorly run labor unions he would put an end to thugs like OPEC taking advantage of the USA. Consider this: we have fought 2 public and more classified wars for the Saudis and we had to pay them to use their bases to protect them from Saddam Hussein while the Saudis got the most lucrative oil deals.

Trump is electable.

Many libertarians are angry because Trump gave the honest truth at CPAC regarding Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the father of the modern libertarian and tea party movement and is one of the most important leaders of our time. However, he is unelectable and here's why: This is the TV age. If a candidate doesn't look good on TV, they are unelectable...ask John McCain. As much as I like Ron Paul, I agree with Trump that he is unelectable without multiple primary wins and winning the "powerball" lottery.

Trump has plenty of press experience, knows all the players in international business from the Chinese to OPEC. He has created thousands of jobs and millions of dollars worth of wealth during BHO's fiscal and economic insanity.

As a bonus, Trump also has as much face recognition as Sarah Palin, but without the demonization of the press. Add to that just about all the American people are ready for a President that is not afraid to fire somebody for not doing their job or walk out on a negotiation to get better terms for the country.

Personally, I was amazed at how much Trump knew about international politics and what he thought of the path we are on economically and how quickly any respect the world had for the USA dried up after Bush left. Trump said it like this: during the last campaign, a great deal was made of "the rest of the world liking us (the USA). To be honest, how much the world likes us means absolutely nothing unless the world respects us." The only reason countries pretend to like is if for that billion or so we pay Madagascar to study their 3-eyed toads. Trump mentioned placing human rights requirements on any donated money for food and this would have nothing to do with the UN "human rights" department.

For those of you worried about social issues and "the religious right", the next president will be so focused on cleaning our fiscal house, that social issues will be forced to take a back seat. Also, Trump's message of repealing obamacare and cutting other programs combined with tax reform in the direction of fair/flat tax ideas exactly what this country needs.

There are a number of economic conservatives that think Romney is a better choice of you are going to take someone focused on the economy. Trump has done far more an far more areas than Romney ever has, plus Romney still (to my knowledge) has yet to either take credit for Romneycare or admit it was a big mistake

If nothing else, I hope this at least lets some of you take a second look at "The Donald." He does seem to have the "midas touch" with many of the companies he has overseen. America needs a CEO on Chief or better yet, a "salesman-in-chief" who can attract the big companies that are considering moving to India and China to reconsider. I am not telling you how to vote or who to vote for but before you lump Trump in with McCain, Bush, Gingrich or Scott Brown, at least listen to what he has to say. He didn't get to where he is by being an idiot (which is change you can believe in).

(Editor's Note: Andrew blogs daily at Allied Liberty News and has agreed to become a team member of the vast libertarian/conservative right-wing conspiracy of the Left Coast Rebel)

Arizona and Illegal Immigration Again in the Spotlight

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

I must confess, the left has a way of perpetually amusing the more reasonable and forever pandering to those that can put and keep them in power. At the expense of the American Republic.

Arizona, in continuing its attempt to respond legislatively to control the steady stream of illegal, and thus criminal, immigration is once again vilified by a pandering and bleeding heart cadre of leftist hyperbole.

Of course the illegal and criminal immigration goes beyond just Arizona. As we know the apparently impotent Federal Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and its enforcement arm has essentially done little to nothing to stop and control the flood of illegals into the country.

This from NYT's opinion page.

Arizona made itself ground zero for a new nativism last year with a radical policing law that encouraged racial profiling and declared the mass expulsion of undocumented immigrants to be official state policy. This led to boycotts, slumping tourism and convention business, and lawsuits, including one by the Obama administration. Yet Arizona’s current legislative session is overstuffed with nativist bills, several of which passed through committee on Tuesday in an “omnibus” measure.

They include:

A bill to chop up the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to children born in Arizona to undocumented mothers. A bill requiring hospitals to check every patient’s citizenship status, turning doctors and nurses into the immigration police. A bill to deny education to undocumented children by requiring proof of citizenship to enroll in any public or private school. A bill to criminalize driving by illegal immigrants, and to evict them from public housing. This will fix nothing, and do real harm.

The birthright citizenship bill interprets the 14th Amendment in a way no federal court or Congress ever has. The state would issue a different type of birth certificate to babies whose parents lack papers. It’s a nonexistent problem; women are not sneaking over the border to have babies who — when they turn 21 — may be able to sponsor them for green cards. The plan will not drive away illegal immigrants, but it would turn generations of young Americans into deportable criminals.

The Supreme Court has ruled that undocumented children have a right to primary education, because the country is not served by perpetuating an illiterate underclass. And yet Arizona’s elected leaders persist in their assault on that principle. The bills’ sponsors don’t seem to care about the damage they do. They are bent on inflaming the anxieties in a changing country, even when crime is down in border cities and immigration has tapered off. New Census data shows America’s population growing more slowly than it has since the 1930s — another era of rampant bigotry and racial scapegoating.

We hope the angry Arizonans, and the rest of the country, will soon return to their values. Citizenship by birth and assimilation of newcomers are central to the American experiment. All that separates our newest immigrants from previous waves is the lack of a working system to assimilate them.

Arizona ought to be applauded for its stance and commitment to doing what should have been long ago by the feds. Foreigners gaining entrance into the United States from foreign lands is not a right, it is rather a privilege and should be considered as such.

What it is the left fails to understand about the concept of "illegal immigrant or alien" who knows, but it seems to be quite prevalent among the feeble of heart. On the other hand, and to be fair, the conservative business community that has perpetuated the problem by knowingly employing illegals in defiance of the law ought to have their proverbial criminal a*ses handed to them as well.

Arizona and its law, based on SB 1070 which really mirrors existing federal law, is reasonable, it is the right approach, and it ought to become the basis on which to effectively reinvigorate federal immigration law and enforcement.

The left has it wrong.... again.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

Obama Calls For Gadhafi To Step Down

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

All hail the wisdom of President Barrack Hussein Obama! Speaking in the tone of past Presidents {GWB immediately comes to mind} he and his sidekick, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, have called for the immediate relinquishing of power by Libyan despot Moammar Gadhafi. Of course they have no viable plan to fill the void once Gadhafi is gone. Unless perhaps to saddle the US with another foreign entanglement in an area we are not welcome and have no business being involved in.

While it is laudable a representative republic such as the United States of America soundly condemn the practices of repressive regimes worldwide, it is not for us to determine the domestic fate of another sovereign state. The outcome of the current unrest in Libya should, and must, rest solely with the government of Libya and the response of its people to their governments decisions.

From USA Today:

President Obama told German Chancellor Angela Merkel today that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi should surrender power immediately because of the attacks he has made on his own people.

"The President stated that when a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now," said a White House readout of the Merkel call.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton echoed Obama's demand in a statement saying that Gadhafi's government would he held "accountable for its violation of human rights"

"Moammar Gadhafi has lost the confidence of his people and he should go without further bloodshed and violence," Clinton said in her statement.

Obama spoke with Merkel a day after the U.S. placed unilateral economic sanctions on Libya, and as the U.S. works with allies like Germany on a set of international sanctions.

The United States of America has been pressing domestic problems that threaten its own long term economic viability. Indeed the continued existence of our republic as we have known it is at stake. Therefore, isn't it time we begin acting in our nations own long term self interest as opposed to continuing to be the world policeman and sugar daddy when a foreign nation falters? Is it not time we decide to relinquish the role of world policeman? Is it not time we focus on our own needs and priorities and let foreign nations deal with their problems by themselves?

The point of a prior RN USA post entitled "John Adams on Democracy" was a forerunner of the consistent conservative views set forth above. It is time for America to honestly focus on its own true self interests and turn its vast capabilities to strengthening itself at home rather than abroad. If you question why this is so I suggest a study of history. With a particular eye to great past world powers and the reasons for their ultimate decline and collapse. Our framers would understand quite well methinks.

And now the rest of the article.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

"Move On" Whistles by the Graveyard - "Wow"

Some of you new to my writing may not know it, by I am a member of "Move On dot Org". I know I'm a member, because they keep telling me I am! (Typically, before they ask me for more money.)From their latest email:

Dear MoveOn member,
Wow. The energy around today's Rallies to Save the American Dream has exploded in the last 36 hours.


What started as just an idea on Tuesday morning has turned into 30,000 people signed up to attend the Rallies to Save the American Dream in 66 cities—including every state capital.

It'll be an amazing show of solidarity with the people of Wisconsin. And it'll put the right-wing on notice that we're fired up and ready to take them on united, as a nationwide movement.

(emphasis mine)

See. This is why I think that Moooove On appeals more to the typically math impaired liberal (but, I repeat myself). The "explosion" you just heard was more like a Greenie Stickem cap* that was left in your jeans, after your Mom washed them.

Thirty thousand people in sixty six cities works out to about 454 people per city. Imagine four hundred and fifty of your neighbors rallying for anything in your fair city. Unless the population of your town is five thousand or less, I'm thinking that's not much of an "explosion". If all 30,000 of them were in one city, like New York or L.A., it might be newsworthy, but still not that big a deal! And that's "signed up", that's not even "shown up" yet.

To quote my estimable friends in Mooove oN (in my best Ben Stein impression): "Wow". Color me unimpressed.

Update: FYI, 30,000 people in a population of 308.7 million is .00971%
Less than one tenth of one percent. Again: Wow.


*For those of you too young to know what a Stickem cap was, we present the following educational video:

Cross posted at Proof Positive

'Was America Founded as a 'Christian Nation'?'

by Frank Hill, Telemachus

And if it was so founded, is it still a 'Christian nation' here in 2011, 222 years later?

If you are ever in need of a sure-fire dinner conversation starter (or 'stopper' for that matter), just bring up the issue of whether or not America was founded by Our Founders (who else could have done it?) to be 'A Christian Nation', 'a shining light on a hill' and 'the last great hope on earth'.

You'll either talk way into the wee hours of the morning and consume many bottles of your best wine. Or your guests will suddenly remember they left the gas on in their stove and 'We just have to leave....RIGHT! THIS! VERY! SECOND!'

One of the things that fascinated us over 12 years of public service on Capitol Hill was to see the ebbs and flows of efforts to bring personal ethics and religious beliefs into the public domain by way of legislation and amendments. It is not as 'easy', or 'simple', as it seems.

On the one side, you have the 'Absolutists' who assert that Yahweh Himself wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution on two stone tablets with His Righteous Finger just like he did with the two tablets He gave to Moses, the first of which Moses smashed to the ground in a fit of pique and anger. (at his nation's sin...imagine that)

On the other, you have the 'Deniers' who assert that we are just some sort of cosmic 'accident' that spontaneously combusted out of nowhere and therefore, there is 'No Heaven, and No Religion, Too!' (with apologies to John Lennon) so 'keep all talk of religious beliefs out of my face!'

Fortunately for us in the 21st century, neither extreme seems to be 100% 'right' or else we would not have an America in which we would want to live. None of us would for the reasons stated below by our friend, Cheri Harder who heads up the very fine Trinity Forum in Northern Virginia and who writes about this tension about as well as we have ever read anywhere:

'Next week, the Trinity Forum will host what promises to be a fascinating and provocative Evening Conversation with historians Thomas Kidd and Bill McClay on the religious history of the American Revolution.

It has long been assumed that "victors write history"; the arrangement of historical events into a narrative is shaped by the triumphant rather than the vanquished. The founding of America is no different; and while certain facts are undeniable (e.g., the United States did declare – and then win – their independence from England as a colony), one can be fairly sure that British students learn a slightly different version of the American Revolution (or at least spend less time on the subject) than their American counterparts.

Even within the States, one hears different interpretations of America's founding, and the philosophical, intellectual, political, and religious convictions which animated it. Some assert that ours was definitively a "Christian nation"; others point to the flexible deism of prominent founders Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and others to suggest that Enlightenment thought guided the Founders more than faith convictions.

But whatever the current ideological and historical divides between evangelicals and skeptics, one of the most interesting aspects of the founding was the unusual alliance between them – which ultimately ushered in the religious liberty we now expect as an intrinsic human right.

At the time of the founding, as strange as it may seem, New England was far more religious – and churched – than the South. Most of the original colonies had established a state church (generally Anglican or Presbyterian) which, in some cases, eagerly prosecuted - and sometimes persecuted – such wayward religious factions as the Baptists, evangelicals, and Quakers. These minority Christian groups harbored no hopes for dominance, but they did advocate for the freedom to worship as they saw fit – and made common cause with the deists and Unitarians to oppose the civil authority of established churches (the Christian "power centers" of their day) to secure the freedom for full religious expression, unhindered by the privileging of one denomination over another.

As Professor Kidd noted in his insightful work God of Liberty:

"The evangelicals wanted disestablishment so they could freely preach the gospel; the rationalists and deists wanted disestablishment because they felt an enlightened government should not punish people for their religious views. The combination of the two agendas would transform America, helping make it both intensely religious and religiously free."

Trinity Forum Founder Os Guinness has written eloquently about the dangers of both a 'sacred public square' (which establishes religion) or a 'naked public square' (which banishes faith, or marginalizes it to the private and pietistic).

It is worth noting that one of the greatest achievements of the founding – the securing of religious freedom and disestablishment of religion – came about precisely because it was in the best interest of both the faithful and the skeptical to ensure that the public square neither privileged nor penalized the practice of faith, but secured the freedom to think, speak, and worship publicly, as well as privately. (italics added by us)

In the midst of the cultural battles between those who would marginalize or banish faith from the public square, and those who assert the cultural predominance of a "Christian America" it is worth reflecting on the gift secured by the alliance of the devout, the doubters, and the Deists.

Warmly,
Cherie Harder
President
The Trinity Forum'

(to learn more about The Trinity Forum, go to http://www.ttf.org/index, join and learn...you'll be glad you did)

Further Reading

• Thomas S. Kidd, God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution (Basic Books, 2010)
• The Trinity Forum, The Great Experiment: Faith and Freedom in the American Republic, Os Guinness edited with Ginger Koloszyc, (The Trinity Forum, 2001)
• Paul F. Boller, To Bigotry No Sanction: George Washington and Religious Liberty, (Trinity Forum Reading, 1997)
• Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (Trinity Forum Reading, 2010)

SPLC Slanders Pamella Geller

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

The Southern Poverty Law Center has just named Pamella Geller, a Manhattan blogger, and her group, Stop the Islamization of America a hate group. Branding the group a posse"of anti-Islamic protesters" the SPLC proves yet once again they are nothing more than a far left totally out of touch with reality fringe organization.

Pamella Geller's work to educate people on the dangers {and evil} of extreme Islam should be applauded. Aside from the fact Islam denies women basic civil and human rights, Islam also preaches Jihad which means struggle. To the extreme Islamist it is interpreted to mean struggle against all who are non Muslim {infidels}and refuse to be subjugated to Islamic or Sharia law.

Why it is the left refuses to acknowledge the truth behind extreme Islam and it's desire to dominate the world is beyond understanding. Anyone who has taken the time to educate themselves on Islam, read the Koran, and has even a smattering of knowledge about Sharia Law would realize therein lies a great danger to America.

The SPLC, rather than speaking the truth about extreme Islam, has chosen to vilify those like Pamella Geller who recognize the dangers and have taken action to mitigate and neutralize them. Education is the best way to counter threats such as those presented by the Islamic extremists. This is what Pamella and others have tried to do. And everywhere they are met by ill advised and misguided resistance from the far left.

One only need look at the rate extreme Islam is spreading across the globe. Rather than assimilating with the cultures they "adopt" extreme Islam demands that the country they "adopt" accept the Muslim cultural norms and in fact demand special rights by virtue of their religion.

The extreme Islamist would have you believe their religion is one of peace and tolerance. When in reality it is one of gross intolerance. Any religion that treats women as second class citizens in the 21st century, that demands strict obedience to Islamic {Sharia} law, and looks the other way with respect to "honor killings" of girls or women that are deemed to have brought shame to the family is by my definition completely intolerant as well as irrational, immoral, and criminal.

Perhaps the SPLC should return to its roots. When founded in 1971 it was primarily a civil rights group and had a viable purpose. Today it has sunk to the depth of labeling as hate groups any organization that questions its far left George Soros funded agenda. It even went as far as to compare Geller and her group to the KKK. Ridiculous and an epic fail!

Pamella Geller is doing by far more to foster civil and human rights than the SPLC is capable of ever understanding. The SPLC is so steeped in the political correct statist agenda of the far left it sees only hatred for any opposing views. Perhaps in a stroke of honesty the SPLC ought to name itself a hate group.

I suppose I just put myself on a watch list. So be it. The truth is the truth. No amount of evading the truth will change it. Truth remains the truth.

Keep up your good work Pamella. There are a lot more of us that have your back than have the SPLC's methinks. Even if some of us may be afraid to speak out for fear of retaliation such as you are experiencing...

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

Green classroom too cold for use, but the program is a great success?

By Sam Foster

Here’s the “chicken or the egg” question for liberals; what’s more important the results or the program?

Liberal politicians in Britain were faced with such a situation when a 100% green, “sustainable” classroom became an empty freeze box this winter. Apparently, there is not enough energy on liberal’s green earth to actually heat the room in the English tundra.

When faced with the reality of this project’s epic fail, do you think the results or the program was more important?

Headteacher Jill Hughes defended the project and said she hoped classes would be held in the classroom when the weather gets warmer.

She said: ‘We’re delighted to have the Living Ark - its a tremendous resource both for the school and the local community and is an important part of the Muswell Hill low carbon zone initiative.’

Of course, the program is more important, which is why people in communist countries starve while central planners play monopoly.

Via Memeorandum

America The Conservative

By RightKlik

Today Gallup released new poll results that show that America is still overwhelmingly conservative. A summary of Gallup's findings:

• In the nation as a whole, Americans are about twice as likely to identify as conservative as they are to identify as liberal...
• Conservatives outnumber liberals in every U.S. state.
• Only in the District of Columbia do liberal identifiers exceed conservative identifiers.

And yet...

Our liberal president, formerly the most liberal member of the Senate, is lurching to the statist left, again.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now at the top the list of the U.S. Senate's most liberal senators.

And the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives is one of the most liberal congresscritters in the land.

Democrats do not flinch in their quest to acquire undiluted statist power for the liberal left.

But Republicans are reluctant to respond to the demands of the voters by offering a clear alternative. Rather than diminish the size and scope of the state, many of the darlings of the Republican establishment and their admirers in the GOP punditry would prefer to water down the conservative movement.

Republican good ol' boys shy away from the conservative label and call for compromise even before negotiations begin. They call for a self-imposed unilateral truce on difficult issues. They offer to help their self-declared enemies. They praise the opposition.

They want a clear and easy path to power.

The unmitigated liberal statism of our federal government is not a reflection of the values of the citizens of this country, but of the power-greedy ruling class of both parties and of the cowardice of the Republican party.

Discussion: Memeorandum

The Value of "Stuff"

by Andrew33 from Allied Liberty News

Education...In a nutshell, education is the future prosperity or destruction of this country. Yet our education system is failing. People on the left claim we don't "invest" enough of our tax dollars in education and if we simply tripled the education budget, all problems would be solved. People on the "right" claim that the real problem is the material we are using to teach with. That is a symptom, but not the root cause of the problem. The real problem with education is that we have made it a so called "right". Education is free for all and everyone gets an opportunity to attend school. Now, there are countries in Asia and Africa where families would kill to get their children just the opportunity to learn to read, meanwhile, in many inner cities the dropout rate is well over 50%. Why is that?

The answer is simple, and BHO's financial policies have demonstrated that answer perfectly. By flooding the world market with US dollars, they have become so easy to come by that they are losing their value. Money is a commodity and therefore people want it. We must make education a commodity as well and that means putting an end to the free ride education system. A child's education must be something of value in society. It must be of value to the parents as well as the children.

Question: How much value does something have in society where not only is it given away for free, but it becomes mandatory for people to take it, whether they want it or not?

The answer is none.

The solution is to make education something to fight for. Make education something to earn. Privatize the schools and allow them to compete. Give large tax incentives to low income parents of children who excel in school. Force parents to actually take the time to actually bring their children to and from the school they attend rather than sticking their children on free public busing, after all, parenting is a responsibility, not a right. Set up different types of schools for children with different abilities. Above all, parents must have final say so in subject matter taught when it comes to moral, social and religious issues. One reason parents no longer take interest in their children's educations is that they are given no say whatsoever in what or how their children are taught. The problem with the Bush "No Child Left Behind" act is that it should have been labeled the "no child gets ahead" act because that is how it, and the education system in general is set up. Rather than making an education system that is nothing more than a one size fits all production line, we must tailor the education system to the individual needs of individual students or the society based on individualism that we have come to love will be lost to the circular file of history.

One last thing, the same thing will happen to our health care system that is happening with our education system if those who want to destroy our country succeed in implementing obamahealthcaredestruction. Nobody in this country will even care about going to a doctor because it will be as tedious as the DMV and as useless as our education system.

(Editor's Note: Andrew blogs daily at Allied Liberty News and has agreed to become a team member of the vast libertarian/conservative right-wing conspiracy of the Left Coast Rebel)

Considering Romney for 2012 Anyone?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

With Mitt Romney a likely 2012 presidential candidate, his Massachusetts Healthcare Plan, hereafter called RomneyCare, is certainly to become an issue. In fact Mike Huckabee is already calling for Romney to admit his plan is a failure:

"Ever since the debate over (the national) program began, it’s been compared to RomneyCare, the failed statewide health-care program implemented by none other than my fellow GOP member Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts,” Huckabee says in the book.

“Any critical assessment of this program will show that it failed … and yet the Obama administration decided to emulate it in its pursuit of a national health-care program.”

Romney, through his spokesperson, said he was very proud he was able to get all residents covered when he was Governor of Massachusetts.

"Mitt Romney is proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered,”

“What's important now is to return to the states the power to determine their own healthcare solutions by repealing Obamacare," Fehrnstrom added. "A one-size-fits-all plan for the entire nation just doesn't work.”

What is at issue here of course is not whether RomneyCare really works or whether it is a failure in Massachusetts. However, having said this, indications are it is not that successful and is placing a strain on the state. From this perspective the federal government certainly ought to take another look at ObamaCare as it is modeled to some degree after RomneyCare. The challenges in court by several states are all well-and-good {albeit ultimately they will likely render little and be a waste of state taxpayer dollars}. However, repeal is the only realistic path to overturning the flawed legislation..

What is important is to note how Romney is positioning himself as he gears up for a presidential run in 2012. As the architect of RomneyCare his "political ego" will not allow him room to criticize his own plan. On the other hand Romney is shrewdly playing the "states rights" meme as he argues that what works for any individual state will not work nationally as a one-size fits-all "sock."

Romney is without a doubt a shrewd pol. While he demonstrated conservative credentials by cutting budgetary items while governor he also engineered in MA. the plan that is the darling of all progressives. As a presidential candidate he will position himself as a advocate of giving the states more power over matters and presumably keeping the feds less involved.

The upcoming campaign for the Republican party standard bearer in 2012 should prove to be interesting and entertaining. Romney will campaign well. Without a party favorite, as RINO McCain was, he will likely be more aggressive and he will go the distance this time.

As a MA. state resident, my take is Romney is a RINO in different clothing. For what it's worth.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

New Low, Even for Paul Krugman

by the Left Coast Rebel

NYT's virulent house loon's piece today compares the situation in Wisconsin to the Bush administration's tactics in Iraq in 2003. Here's a small taste of the stupidity:

Maybe it’s Baghdad — specifically, Baghdad in 2003, when the Bush administration put Iraq under the rule of officials chosen for loyalty and political reliability rather than experience and competence.

Confused? Don't be. Kruggie sees the right-wing writing on the wall in the Badger State and parallels to Bush's "Shock Doctrine" in Iraq, particularly the dots connected by author Naomi Klein:

From Chile in the 1970s onward, she suggested, right-wing ideologues have exploited crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving those crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society.

If you want to brighten your day further, peruse the moonbat commentary of the moonbat commenters that trail Kruggman's NYT moonbattery columns (they are more than worth reading).

Or, if you want to throw a little time at a completely unrelated endeavor that is far more worthy of your time, check out my favorite show (at this time) on tv.

Wisconsin House Passes Governor Walker's Budget Bill, Democrats Shout, "Shame!"

by the Left Coast Rebel

Hot off the presses, the Wisconsin lower chamber just voted yes on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's budget. This video shows Democrat reaction:

More from TPM:

MADISON, WI -- The Wisconsin State Assembly has just passed Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, including its controversial provisions to eliminate almost all collective bargaining rights for public employee unions as well as many other provisions to weaken union organizing.

The next step is locating the M.I.A. Democrat Senate members and forcing a vote in Wisconsin's Senate.

Related discussion: Memeorandum.

Updated: Must read at Full Metal Patriot, "There is NO constitutional right to collective bargaining."

Shuttle Discovery Begins Last Mission

By LCR Contributor Barrell Rider

The Space Shuttle Discovery is now on its last mission into space. When it returns to earth in eleven days, it will mark the beginning of the end for the space shuttle program. Discovery is the first of the three remaining shuttles to be decommissioned. Atlantis and Endeavour will make their final flights later this year.



The Shuttle program has enjoyed great success and tragedy during the 30 years of going supersonic. I recall playing with my NASA die-cast shuttle as a young child and sometimes getting up early to watch the launches live on television.

Perhaps many of us remember the day of the Challenger tragedy. I was in middle school science class one hour after the shuttle had exploded and it was a somber afternoon. We were supposed to watch the launch tape-delayed. There was also the more recent Columbia tragedy, which happened during re-entry, both events killed all on board.

It’s important to note that the accomplishments of the Shuttle program have far outshined any tragedy and the enormous risk involved with such missions are often overlooked by those on the outside. After all, an overwhelming majority of missions have gone quite smoothly. It is too bad that the shuttle program is not a priority for the government. I believe that the shuttle program pushes the envelope of technology and engineering to its limits. Much of the knowledge gained from such research, design, implementation and problem solving undoubtedly spills over into the civilian and global population.

I encourage all to follow these last three missions and remember all of the amazing accomplishments that the shuttle program has produced. How can you not be amazed at a vehicle that goes from zero to 17,000 miles per hour in about eight minutes! Ferrari and Lamborghini, eat your hearts out!

Space Shuttle Fun Facts:
-The Space Shuttle is the world’s first reusable spacecraft that can carry large satellites both to and from orbit
-The Shuttle launches like a rocket but lands like an airplane
-The Shuttle orbits the earth in 90 minutes
-Discovery has logged 453 million miles prior to her last mission, she will cover another 4.5 million over her final 11 days in orbit
-Discovery transported the Hubble Telescope into space

'On Wisconsin!’ Public Servanthood and PATCO

by Frank Hill

One of the great fight songs of all time is On Wisconsin! which is usually reserved for the Fighting Badgers of the University of Wisconsin football team.*

‘Forward’ is our driving spirit,
Loyal voices ring.’

‘Retreating’ and ‘running away’ from their elective duties seems more like their ‘driving spirit’ nowadays what with legislators running away from their own state to hide out in some Motel 6 across state lines in Illinois.

Thomas Jefferson considered public service to be the highest calling to which a person could be called. Public service has always been considered somewhat of a ‘sacrificial’ life career inasmuch as the financial rewards have always been considered secondary or tertiary to ‘serving your fellow man’ in such important and noble professions as public safety, the military and yes, elective political office.

You do public service because you think it is ‘the right thing to do’. Period.

The uprisings in Wisconsin and now Indiana and Illinois bring to the forefront of what a ‘public servant’ really is. In our minds and experience, it is an honor beyond measure. A person gets a chance every day to impact, hopefully in a positive way, thousands or perhaps millions of their fellow citizens. There are not many other areas of work where such an outcome can be reasonably expected on a daily basis.

What strikes us as odd is that the very 'leaders' (sic) in these states who were elected by their fellow citizens to be their 'honorable representatives’ in a civil legislature…are basically running away from their sworn constitutional duties to debate, argue, reason together and try to persuade without the use of bodily harm, threats or force in order to conduct the necessary business of the public.

In short, they are ‘cowards’ for running away from the debate. Any elected legislator who flees the arena of duty to hide out in some undisclosed location across state lines is not worthy of being re-elected to any office in the future. Vote them out and vote someone in who will stay on the job and vote yes or no on a bill and then go home.

One solution for these yellow bellies might be for the Wisconsin legislators to vote in the Illinois legislature; the vagabond Illinois legislators vote in Indiana and the Indiana fleers vote in Madison, Wisconsin. That way, they can make their supporters ‘happy’ (sic?) by not voting on the bill they are opposed to in their home states and they can partially fulfill their duties to vote somewhere at least and not look completely idiotic and cowardly.

Here’s something to think about: If public sector unions can dictate the operations of our duly-elected legislative bodies by having their supporters just leave their states and suspend activities on the floor of state legislatures, why do we need to elect anyone to fill the jobs of state representatives or senators? Who becomes the ‘public servant’ then? And who makes the tough decisions, the unions or the elective officials who were elected by at least 50%+1 of the registered voters in their districts, just like the Constitution said?

Even revered President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of the dangers of government unions for this very reason.

Recently-inaugurated President Ronald Reagan was faced with a similar dilemma in 1981 when the air traffic controllers at all of the nation’s airports went on strike demanding more pay and limiting their work week to only 32 hours. He cited a law that forbid strikes by government unions {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} and told them they had 48 hours to decide whether or not to come back to work.

Only a handful did.

Reagan issued an order to fire the rest of them because their strike represented a "peril to national safety", (which it did…no one could fly without air traffic controllers in the airport towers across the nation) under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

Substitute air traffic controllers were found and hired and PATCO was decertified as a government union.

And the word got out that if you are a government worker, a public servant working for the rest of your fellow citizens first and foremost, not yourself, that you better not go on strike or else you would lose your job.

When was the last time you heard about a government union strike since then until this year in Wisconsin?

If the pay and conditions of a public sector job are not to a person’s liking, they have the option to do what every other American has had the chance to do since the beginning of our Republic:

Get a job in the private sector or start your own business and hope to become the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

Public sector employees are serving at the will of the people. Not the other way around.

*On, Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin!
Plunge right through that line!
Run the ball clear down the field,
A touchdown sure this time. (U rah rah)
On, Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin!
Fight on for her fame
Fight! Fellows! - fight, fight, fight!
We'll win this game.
On, Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin!
Stand up, Badgers, sing!
"Forward" is our driving spirit,
Loyal voices ring.
On, Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin!
Raise her glowing flame
Stand, Fellows, let us now
Salute her name!

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

Related discussion: Memeorandum

Obama's Magical Misdirection Tour

The big story today is about the Obama administration's turn about on defending the Defense of Marriage Act. In my opinion, this is little more than misdirection.

In a week where Obama's strongest union allies have not only been exposed as busting the budgets through outrageous salaries and benefits, but also their ugly intransigence over the prospect of having to share even the merest fraction of the suffering of the taxpayers who support them, has not put liberals in a good light. Add to this the continuing debacle of Obama's foreign policy (or lack thereof), in being AWOL on Libya, the murder of American citizens on the high seas, (two years after Obama became keenly aware of the problem), the rising cost of energy, high levels of unemployment, and what do you have from the White House to show the smallest modicum of leadership?

Ooh! Look over there! Gay marriage!

Regardless of what Obama does or does not think about the merits or Constitutionality of either gay marriage or the DOMA, with all the things on his plate, on what planet does opening up a new can of worms show leadership? I think that this is nothing more than a smoke screen to stir up the social conservatives with an issue they feel more strongly about than some of the others*.

The Supreme Court can determine the Constitutionality of DOMA. The Leader of the Free World needs to exhibit some leadership. Sooner, rather than later.

*Update: It is also a sop to certain segments of his own base, which I gather are none too pleased with the overall performance of Team Obama to date, either.

Cross posted at Proof Positive, via Memeorandum

I am Mitch Daniels, Hear Me Purr!

By RightKlik

I've been warning folks about Mitch Daniels. Warning, warning, warning. Fortunately for those of us who have been ringing the alarms, Mitch Daniels has essentially committed political suicide. Hopefully it will now be a bit easier to persuade fellow conservatives that Mitch is not our man.

Yesterday, Mitch Daniels opened the door to a presidential bid...

During an interview at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association here over the weekend, Daniels said he has now been persuaded to keep open the door to a possible candidacy.

...and then he promptly slammed that door shut after throwing Scott Walker under the bus:

Democrats went into a behind-closed-doors meeting Monday, refusing to return to the floor. Today, sources told The Indianapolis Star that Democrat lawmakers have left the state.

Daniels, a Republican, supported their right to deny Republicans a quorum to do business and the rights of labor unions to protest at the Statehouse.

“The activities of today are perfectly legitimate part of the process,” he said. “Even the smallest minority, and that’s what we’ve heard from in the last couple days, has every right to express the strength of its views and I salute those who did.”

Mitch is so desperate to be "liked" by Democrats that he's willing to salute the fleebaggers? What a wuss!

...right at the moment when Scott Walker is being treated like a conquering hero by conservatives across the country for standing up to the unions and the Democratic fleebaggers, Mitch Daniels is faced with the exact same situation and he's choosing to give in. To find someone who was routed as clearly as Daniels was here, you have to go all the way back to France in WW2.

Even Jim Geraghty (once a starry-eyed Mitch Daniels apologist) is finally seeing the light.

Color me extremely disappointed with Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels right now...

...a concession to Democrats on major reforms like these will spur a lot of talk about Daniels’ toughness, or whether he’s too conciliatory to an opposition that has gone completely off the rails, or more accurately, out of the state….

I hope George Will (a Scott Walker admirer) will soon see the light too.

Headlines:

The Other Mccain: Mitch Daniels Boomlet Ends

Hot Air: Apparently, Mitch Daniels not running for president.

Say Anything: Mitch Daniels Caves

More:

Right Wing News: The End Of Mitch Daniels’ Presidential Aspirations

The Roughblog: Mitch Daniels is a Coward

Mark Levin: "Mr. Daniels, you get a little ‘x.’ You’re too weak."

Memeorandum discussion, here

Update: David Brooks, known for his "bromance" with Barack Obama, lurves him some Mitch.