Left Coast Rebel

More Predatory Harassment From Left Wing Terrorists: Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser et al.

2012-05-25T20:25:00.003-07:00

By RightKlik

CONTENT ALERT: Extreme content and vulgar language below (and at the links), absolutely inappropriate for children...

Back in October of 2010, I received a hateful message from a twitter account from Neal Rauhauser's network of online thugs:

This was part of a much larger, ongoing effort to bully and intimidate right-of-center bloggers and activists. The intimidation has been coordinated by a group of extremely violent and hateful left wing activists including Neal Rauhauser, Brett Kimberlin, Ron Brynaert and Nadia Naffe.

Neal Rauhauser is a far-left activist and "a consultant to Democrat Party officials, boasting Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva among his clients."

Convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin receives funding from mainstream Democrats and the deep pockets of the radical left. As Proof notes, Kimberlin received $70,000 from the Tides Foundation, $10,000 from Barbara Streisand, $20,000 from John Kerry’s wife.

Just last week, blogger Robert Stacy McCain (The Other McCain) was forced into hiding after receiving threats from Brett Kimberlin.

Today we learn that blogger John Patrick Frey (Patterico's Pontifications) was the victim of a dangerous "SWATting" attack by the same terrorist.

To quote John Patrick Frey, "that’s just the tip of the iceberg, folks."

There's much more at Memeorandum.

UPDATE:

An eerie reminder:

And don't think I've forgotten about you, Neal Rauhauser aka @StrandedWind aka @WingNutWatch. You are one sick puppy & you will be exposed.
— AndrewBreitbart (@AndrewBreitbart) October 7, 2010

1996: Barack Obama Headlined as Featured Democratic Socialists of America Speaker...

2012-05-24T22:21:00.000-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

Obama, a socialist? Just look the other way. Don't let the peeps see this; don't let them in on the fact that The One really is a socialist (yay!) - or at least he was when he was younger...

Via Buzzfeed:

In this little-seen advertisement that ran in the Hyde Park Herald in 1996, Obama was listed on a panel sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), University of Chicago Democrats, and University of Chicago DSA.

More at Memeorandum, and Weasel Zippers, The Lonely Conservative, Lippmann's Ghost, Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog, Hot Air, Outside the Beltway and Doug Ross

Why Progressive Liberals Should All Be Fiscal Hawks

2012-05-24T08:26:00.000-07:00

By Frank Hill

This chart from the Heritage Foundation is just about as self-explanatory as anything can be about the threats we face as a nation in our federal over-spending proclivities and irresponsible non-action in Congress and the White House to arrest the accumulation of more exorbitant debt.

62% of our federal budget is now being spent on entitlement programs. Not defense. Not 'feriegn aid' as it is known in the South. Not education. Not road construction.

Programs such as the following...

529 program or Coverdell
Social Security--Retirement & Survivors
Pell Grants
Unemployment Insurance
Veterans Benefits
G.I. Bill
Medicare
Head Start
Social Security Disability
SSI--Supplemental Security Income
Medicaid
Welfare/Public Assistance
Government Subsidized Housing
Food Stamps

And you want to know the really weird thing?

Well over 50% of the American public doesn't think they have ever used or benefited from a US Federal Entitlement Program!

Well, someone is using those programs, aren't they?

Each year, another block in the chart above gets filled in with blue with another entitlement commitment such as by some provision of the Medicare Part D prescription benefit program passed under W or The Affordable Health Care Act passed under Obama.

If you are a progressive liberal, you should be far more concerned about this treacherous onslaught of more 'mandatory spending' than any fiscal conservative out there.

(There is no guarantee that a 'social' conservative is a 'fiscal' conservative and vice versa so we are separating the two here today for this posting)

Why should a progressive liberal be concerned about these budget trends?

Because all of the 'discretionary' programs progressive liberals would love to see continued are being nibbled to death by ducks as each mandatory program such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicare continues to chew up more and more of scarce available resources at the local, state and federal level.

'Fiscal' conservatives don't mind that attrition in discretionary programs as much. They 'want' smaller, less intrusive government...supposedly.

Unless it is in any defense program or some local road construction or agricultural support program that benefits their constituents. Then it becomes a 'vital national program!'

For the life of us, we can't figure out why progressive liberals are not all fiscal hawks.

Why?

Because if they would just take a look at the federal budget details, they would soon see that:

1) Tons of money goes each year to support very wealthy people on entitlement programs. (Think of what happens when a Warren Buffett or a Bill Gates gets his monthly SS check in the mail and says out loud: 'What the heck is this paltry amount of money....a gift card to Best Buy or something?)

2) Humongous amounts of wasteful spending is still going to programs that were created either before World War II to solve the problems America faced after the First World War!

Either that or current funds are spent by the hundreds of millions of dollars to support jobs in a congressional district that were established by some long-gone defense appropriations committee chairman who went on to the Great Beyond decades ago and his successors have successfully kept such unwanted and unnecessary programs going for no reason other than political incumbency protection.

3) Hundreds of millions of dollars get spent each year on federal programs that do not receive the proper oversight from congressional committees and have out-lived their usefulness and purpose. No one even knows if they are working or not to alleviate the pain and suffering they were intended to eradicate in the first place.

We recently had the chance to train a young woman about running for public office who said the following statement during her on-camera training sessions with a seasoned political reporter and myself:

'I am a liberal and supported Obama in 2008. But I am also a finance major and a spending fiscal conservative. They are not mutually exclusive'

The political reporter and I almost fell off our chairs to the floor. We have simply never heard such rational reasonable talk in our 35+ years of being involved with the federal electoral process.

There is hope for America at least.

People need to take a strong hard look at this chart above and memorize it and then all sides; progressive liberals, fiscal conservatives and socially libertarian/fiscally conservative Independents need to band together to support like-minded candidates to run for Congress, the state houses and the local governments so we can put our house back in order.

The people who have been in office from all parties for the past 12 years at the very minimum have not done their jobs. Time to replace them all with some adults who will do their jobs.

(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).

Actions and Consequences...

2012-05-23T09:16:00.018-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

The crooked Republican establishment gets by thinking that the grassroots isn't paying attention; or even worse, that we are paying attention but will reluctantly vote for the lesser of two evils in the end.

Enter John Boehner. John Boehner likes to talk the limited government talk but when push comes to shove, he goes golfing.

But some people are paying attention and the Republican National Committee should be too:

Like the soup Nazi said, No Money For You, RNC!

Boehner's support for the Orwellian Ex-PATRIOT Act should be an overwhelming signal to every conservative in America that John Boehner is no conservative.

Image hat-tip: A dedicated liberty-loving tea-partying radical libertarian Jeffersonian vegan militant bicyclist populist capitalist pig who remains unnamed.

Conservative Songs: Oingo Boingo's "Only a Lad"

2012-05-23T00:09:00.001-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

Lyrics (Scroll down to the last verse for the gist of things)...

Johnny was bad, even as a child everybody could tell
Everyone said if you don't get straight
You'll surely go to hell

But Johnny didn't care
He was an outlaw by the time that he was
Ten years old
He didn't wanna do what he was told
Just a prankster, juvenile gangster

His teachers didn't understand
They kicked him out of school
At a tender early age
Just because he didn't want to learn things
(Had other interests)
He liked to burn things

The lady down the block
She had a radio that Johnny wanted oh so bad
So he took it the first chance he had
Then he shot her in the leg
And this is what she said
Only a lad
You really can't blame him
Only a lad
Society made him
Only a lad
He's our responsibility
Only a lad
He really couldn't help it
Only a lad
He didn't want to do it
Only a lad
He's underprivileged and abused
Perhaps a little bit confused

His parents gave up they couldn't influence his attitude
Nobody could help
The little man had no gratitude

And when he stole the car
Nobody dreamed that he would
Try to take it so far
He didn't mean to hit the poor man
Who had to go and die
It made the judge cry

Only a lad
He really couldn't help it
Only a lad
He didn't want to do it
Only a lad
He's underprivileged and abused
Perhaps a little bit confused

It's not his fault that he can't behave
Society made him go astray
Perhaps if we're nice he'll go away
Perhaps he'll go away
He'll go away

(Repeat chorus)

Hey there Johnny you really don't fool me
You get away with murder
And you think it's funny
You don't give a damn if we live or if we die
Hey there Johnny boy
I hope you fry!

John Boehner Backs the Insidious Ex-PATRIOT Act: It's Time to Fire John Boehner

2012-05-22T21:16:00.006-07:00

We won't be fooled again

By the Left Coast Rebel

We've made no bones here about our disgust with GOP leadership, especially statist Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

At every single point, even when he had the upper hand, he folded like a moth-balled 20-dollar suit.

He handed Obama everything he wanted and more in every single three-ring-circus "negotiation" we had the misfortune of witnessing.

And his recent promise to exact reform or deep budgets cuts as the debt ceiling increase creeps up before the election?

Please, give us a break...

As independent conservatives and libertarians, we shouldn't be surprised.

If you inspect his big-government record, you'll find, like the trained seal he is that he's doing exactly what he's conditioned to do: he's just a slimy Good Ol' Boy backroom-dealing big-government Republican charlatan.

How did he ever get the speakership? Answer: because the Good Ol' Boy big-government Republican back-scratching statist network is alive and well - even as America burns.

They don't give a crap that America is deficit spending untold billions per day.

They could care less that we are bankrupting our children and our children's children.

They don't give a flying rat's ass or a rolling donut that their acquiescence to the every Democrat pet program (including national bankruptcy) means the nation's certain failure.

And the worst?

Out of one side of the mouth, they tell us they're "against" ObamaCare yet they fund it piece by piece conveniently out of public sight. Boehner has his hands so deep in the ObamaCare cookie jar we might as well just call it BoehnerCare and keep it simple.

And the latest Boehner transgression, you ask?

Today John Boehner signaled his support of Chuck Schumer's class warfare bill, the so-called Ex-PATRIOT Act.

More on the Ex-PATRIOT Act from Zero Hedge (bold mine):

This week, the universally stupid brainchild of US Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey known as the Ex-PATRIOT Act inched a bit closer towards becoming law.

‘Ex-PATRIOT’ is an absurd acronym that stands for “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy”. I call it the Tax Slave Act… and it proposes three key provisions:

1) Individuals who are deemed, in the sole discretion of the US government, to have renounced US citizenship in order to avoid US taxes, will be permanently barred from re-entering the United States.

2) Such individuals will also be required to pay a 30% capital gains tax to the United Statesgovernment on ALL future investment gains derived from the US. Currently, non-citizens who do not reside in the US pay no US capital gains tax.

3) These proposals are RETROACTIVE, and, if passed, would apply to anyone who renounced his/her citizenship within the last 10-years.
This is a truly despicable thing to do considering that these former citizens followed the appropriate rules at the time, paid the tax, and moved on with their lives. Now Uncle Sam wants to go back in time to unilaterally change the deal, and expect everyone to abide even though they’re not even citizens anymore. The arrogance is overwhelming.

More importantly, this bill is also a major deterrent for people who are thinking about renouncing US citizenship today.

The passage of this law will undoubtedly cause many people who were considering expatriation to abandon the idea altogether as the thought of being permanently barred from entry is too much to bear.

It’s truly extraordinary that the Land of the Free has deteriorated to the point that the government must now resort to threats, coercion, and intimidation in order to keep its most productive citizens inside.

The Ex-PATRIOT Act is truly Orwellian and unfit for even today's somewhat free America.

And yet John Boehner supports it.

Fire John Boehner.

Spread the word.

Just make it happen - NOW.

Updated: republican Mother has the real Friends of Boehner.

Is it bitter partisanship to dislike Obama personally?

2012-05-22T19:26:00.002-07:00

By Dean L.

Maybe it’s because I’m not evolved, but I dislike the president personally. I think I have good reason for that, but maybe I’m wrong. I’m not racist. I’m not a birther or a kook. I’m not looking to see him out of office by any means other than through an Electoral College victory by his opponent (the less-than-adorable Mitt Romney). I don’t wish him any ill or harm. But I don’t like Barack Obama personally and I think I have some pretty good reasons for that.

There are a lot of polls out there indicating that president Obama has two distinct sets of polling numbers. First, there’s the poll that indicates his job approval numbers are under water. More people disapprove of the job he’s doing, particularly when it comes to the economy and health care, than approve of the job he’s doing. Yet there are a second set of numbers that are more favorable to the president. People like him personally. He continues to poll reasonably well on likability and that represents his greatest asset in terms of his re-election bid. You might think he’s doing a bad job but if you think he’s a nice guy, you may be willing to cut him some slack and give him another chance.

That’s just swell. Forget that this is not a street cleaner job – it’s the job as leader of the free world. Nice guy isn’t helpful – he needs to make the best decisions for the country and getting it wrong, despite being nice does harm to the nation. Besides, he’s not a nice guy.

Not nice is a matter of personal definition of course. A few common notions of nice are things like concern for others, honest, having integrity, having a grounded and moral belief system. Having empathy is another. Those are all reasonable definitions and it certainly isn’t an exhaustive list of what goes into personal likability. But let’s take a look at those attributes with respect to president Obama.

Starting with honesty, the president is already a letdown. He promised to be post-partisan but has governed from the hard left and has shown nothing but disdain and derision for conservative opinions or concerns. He has sought at every turn to distort and misrepresent the views of his opponents, resorting to straw man arguments to make his own positions seem more credible. He has gone from investing heavily in companies like to Solyndra to intimating that the specific decisions were handled at lower levels. He argues that he has evolved on gay marriage, but it would be the second time his position on the subject has changed – ending up apparently where he started. In other words, his previous position was there for the sole purpose of electability. The list of dishonest, or at a minimum less than honest actions speak to a lack of full honesty that goes beyond the need for a certain amount of presidential secrecy.

Concern for others is another area where actions speak louder than words. Remember the BP oil spill? The president insisted he was completely on top of the situation while his daily activities during the crisis were quite far removed from an active involvement in the solution, and were hard to reconcile with even a casual interest in the situation. Empathy? More like disdain for having to pay attention to it. How about his comments about the price of arugula or that the price of energy would skyrocket under his plan? The latter actually showed a moment of honesty but at the same time both his comments and his green energy pursuit may be viewed as noble in nature (I disagree) but they are certainly out of touch with the economic reality facing Americans. It has not resulted in jobs, just as the health care debacle did not materialize 400,000 jobs immediately as Nancy Pelosi (who hadn’t read the bill) promised it would immediately do. His actions may be empathetic, but if that is true, it is true only for a chosen few – his chosen few.

Don’t get me started on integrity. From tax cheats at the Treasury, to the beer summit, to the Fast and Furious scandal, to the Cornhusker Kickback, to having more flexibility with Putin on missile defence after he wins the next election, to his misdirection of the middle class on his desire to spread the wealth, integrity is not the first word to come to mind.

As for his grounded moral belief system – it is certainly grounded, but it is grounded in things I would argue are not at the heart of most people’s belief systems. From Jeremiah Wright to Ed Ayers, to his support of the leanings of the president are progressive, if not socialist. His stance on the church and its right and place are clearly anti-religion. Forcing Catholic hospitals to comply with abortion funding or lose government subsidies are clearly imposing his will upon the church and that will is contra-Catholic, despite Nancy Pelosi’s twisted interpretation of church teachings.

With all that evidence and more piled up against the president’s nice guy image, I don’t get it. Slow-jamming on late night talk shows doesn’t make him more likeable, that’s just a character he plays on TV. Maybe I’m less forgiving than others but I don’t think so. Sometimes when someone is angry or bitter it just shows through and I’m sure I’m seeing that with Obama. While I dislike Bill Clinton politically, I don’t dislike him personally. Sure, a lot of his supposed empathy is likely feigned but I don’t get the same sense from him as I do from president Obama or Jimmy Carter (who also seems bitter). Politically I disagree with all of them, but personally, there is variance in whether I find them likable personally. I don’t believe I’m being a partisan political hack when I say I don’t like president Obama personally. In fact, given the evidence, I’m not sure why there is a disconnect between his personal approval and his job approval – he is his job, and his job results are not good.

Equality of Rights

2012-05-22T14:44:00.000-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

"Equality of rights means that some people cannot simply impose obligations on others, for the moral agency and rights of those others would then be violated."
~ Tom G. Palmer

Via the Bastiat Institute.

A Liberty Message Behind Rush's 1978 Classic "The Trees"

2012-05-22T09:47:00.003-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

Ever the humble world's best drummer and lyricist, Neil Peart denies there's a political message behind "The Trees" but if you read the lyrics, it's pretty obvious what he is saying:

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There was trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

I see "The Trees" as an allegory to America's socialist woes: Objective reason and individual liberty are no longer our guiding principles, rather we are ruled by "noble" laws purporting to keep us equal...

...by progressive "fairness," tax, and Leviathan law.

A Graphic Look at the War On Drugs

2012-05-22T06:42:00.000-07:00

By Grant Davies

Yesterday a magician/comedian/radio host/Cato Fellow named Penn Gillette was featured in an article linked to by The Drudge Report. He went off on the insane "War on Drugs" during a tirade on his radio show and specifically singled out Obama for his vitriol because of his past use of pot and cocaine. He pointed out that if Obama had been caught and prosecuted he would never have become President, much less anything else of importance. That makes him a hypocrite. (He's hardly the only one, so it's really beside the point.)

Gillette, who has never used drugs (including alcohol), was correct. You can read the transcript or watch a video of his remarks here. (Harsh language alert)

So when I saw this chart on the Facebook page of a friend of mine I knew it was going to end up here. You can draw your own conclusions about the chart and what it means. But always keep a few things in mind:

Drug use is not lower now than when this craziness started.
Anyone can get any substance they want with very little effort.

Hat tip to Mike Dixon

Too Good Not to Share...

2012-05-21T23:25:00.002-07:00

By RightKlik

Hat Tip: Thoughts From Concentrate

(By the way, if you're not on Tumblr, you should be.)

Even Star Wars Can't Win The Battle Against California Socialism

2012-05-21T21:18:00.002-07:00

Buh-bye, People's Republik of Kalifornia

By the Left Coast Rebel

It's not the latest and (not so) greatest sequel to Star Wars, rather it's an epic tale of one billionaire limousine liberal producer -- George Lucas -- against the Darkside -- the Marxist Marin County Moonbats.

You see, Lucas owns a lot of property in Marin and over the years has built and added to the Lucasfilm studio on his sprawling Marin estate. Good for him; he's one of the most successful people in the world and we applaud him for his success.

But Marin leftists ain't havin' none of his latest plans for Lucasfilm expansion...

(NYT) SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — In 1978, a year after “Star Wars” was released, George Lucas began building his movie production company far from Hollywood, in the quiet hills and valley of Marin County here just north of San Francisco. Starting with Skywalker Ranch, the various pieces of Lucasfilm came together over the decades behind the large trees on his 6,100-acre property, invisible from the single two-lane road that snakes through the area. And even as his fame grew, Mr. Lucas earned his neighbors’ respect through his discretion. Marin, one of America’s richest counties, liked it that way.

But after spending years and millions of dollars, Mr. Lucas abruptly canceled plans recently for the third, and most likely last, major expansion, citing community opposition. An emotional statement posted online said Lucasfilm would build instead in a place “that sees us as a creative asset, not as an evil empire.”

If the announcement took Marin by surprise, it was nothing compared with what came next. Mr. Lucas said he would sell the land to a developer to bring “low income housing” here.

Please read the rest at The New York Times, trust me, it's worth the read, for example:

With the project seemingly winding its way toward approval, a group of residents in Lucas Valley resurrected a defunct homeowners’ association last summer. In November, the association and others sent a letter to Mr. Lucas requesting that he find a “far more appropriate location for the development.”
The project, the letter said, would “pose a serious and alarming threat to the nature of our valley and our community,” “dwarf the average Costco warehouse” and generate light pollution so that “our dark starry skies would be destroyed.” The association hired an environmental consultant and a lawyer, then alerted the county to questions that state and federal authorities had raised about Lucasfilm’s plan to restore a creek. Last month, the county’s Board of Supervisors decided to postpone a final vote on the project.

Light pollution! I've heard what I thought was everything, but even I haven't heard that one.

You really have to love that Lucas writes that his operation is moving to a place "that sees us as a creative asset, not as an evil empire." But you have to cry when you consider how many businesses here have been treated this way (through zoning, "planning" and other socialist, entrepreneur-stifling schemes).

You have to love Lucas even more for claiming that instead of expanding, he's going to get the 'F' out of Marin and subdivide the land for low income housing. I can't even describe the Joker-like grin I had when I read that.

Even the great Star Wars director is not immune to the anti-capitalist insanity of California.

California truly is that far gone.

More at Memeorandum.

(VIDEO) Oingo Boingo: Capitalism from 1981's Oingo Boingo Debut, "Only a Lad"

2012-05-21T09:44:00.000-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

Danny Elfman is a genius. Listen closely:

I'm so tired of hearing you whine
About the revolution
Bringin' down the rich
When was the last time you dug a ditch, baby!

You're just a middle class, socialist brat
From a suburban family and you never really had to work
And you tell me that we've got to get back
To the struggling masses (whoever they are)
You talk, talk, talk about suffering and pain
Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain
What the hell do you know about suffering and pain . . .

Hat-tip WC Varones

Related: At National Review, "Rockin' the Right, the 50 Greatest Conservative Rock Songs" (good list but there aren't enough Rush songs)

Preakness as Metaphor

2012-05-20T12:44:00.001-07:00

By Dean L

Yesterday anyone tuning in to NBC during the annual running of the Preakness Stakes horse race, was witness to one of the greatest duels down the home stretch in years. The race won by I'll Have Another and jockey Mario Gutierrez, serves as a metaphor about personal responsibility and success.

Context

To provide some context for anyone who hasn't seen the race, I'll Have Another, a long shot in the Kentucky Derby, came from behind to track down front runner and race favorite Bodemeister in the home stretch in a stunning but exciting race. The rider, Gutierrez, a rookie jockey racing in his first Kentucky Derby, never doubted his horse in that race, but he also rode a perfect race putting his horse in the perfect spot to win. The winning trainer Doug O'Neill also new to such great stakes, was simply following his passion into the sport and enjoying success as a result. Owner J. Paul Reddam, a Canadian businessman now transplanted to California, and quite successful, got the horse that so many had overlooked as a possible great racer.

Finally, having won the Kentucky Derby, I'll Have Another was still regarded by many as a fluke. Going into the Preakness, the second jewel in horse racing's Triple Crown, I'll Have Another was still under-regarded and Bodemeister was the favorite in the race. I'll Have Another was the second choice, yet he has not lost a race this year. Yet given the horse and the cast of characters surrounding him, it was hard to cheer against him.

Metaphor (or Simile?)

The underdog perseveres. In the current philosophical debate, the Occupy Wall Street crowd sees what they refer to as the 1% as the enemy. They see it in an adversarial role and it must be overcome through means provided by government. But look at I'll Have Another. Not once but twice so far, he has overcome what was perceived to be a much stronger competitor without the help of horse racing's governing body. He did it with his natural ability and a talented team. Horse racing is emblematic of the free market. Talent and good systems rise to the top. The underdog can win. If it were not the case, the underdog would not try. The race would not even be run. Such is the case in communist systems and largely in socialist systems as well. The system keeps you in your caste. You cannot move and therefore you do not try to move. That ultimately leads to stagnation.

On the other hand, dogged perseverance pays off. Hard work pays off. That does not come from someone else, it comes from inside. You simply cannot excel because someone else fails or is punished or because some governmental agency orders you to excel. You can only succeed because you want to succeed and you try hard to succeed. Success is relative, but not to the success of others, but to your own personal best.

Another thing - horse racing has winners but horse racing is not a zero sum game. There is money for finishing second, or third or even further down the list. I'll Have Another did not win the entire race purse - the 1% do not get every morsel of America's GDP. Certainly the winner gets the lion's share of the prize, but competitors are not shut out of everything. If such is the case there would be only Coke or Pepsi. , not both There would only be Ford, no GM. There would only be Verizon. Competition is not a zero sum game. Yes, there are people who get nothing, but most get something. There's more too than just prize money. There's prestige. There's the tangible benefit of competition spurring you to be better yourself. There's always another chance too. And for those who finish dead last in the race, there's always show jumping, or riding farm opportunities. The 'losers' are not taken outside and shot. That does happen under dictatorships like Germany's Nazi party (socialists I might remind you), and communist regimes. In capitalist societies, the ineffective are ultimately re-purposed and the real beauty is that it is done in a self-directed way. In horse racing, the losing horses are not banned from racing, and the winners by the way, also aren't banned from winning thank God.

Self-reliance and perseverance can lead to success. They will do so only when people (or horses) are allowed the freedom to pursue their goals without an unfair alteration of the rules that dictates that those who do well must do so with a debilitating disadvantage. I know what you are thinking, horses are given allowances and slower horses are allowed to carry less weight in their races. How is that different from the rich paying 90% more tax? There's a difference between leveling the playing field for bettors and taxation. Weight allowances have no equivalent in real life. Nor should they. Besides, what the progressive agenda intends is not a weight allowance, but rather a quarter mile penalty applied to the winner after the race is run. There's no coming back from that sort of imposition.

I've got one more consideration for you. Now that I'll Have Another has won two of three races, should he be allowed to compete in the Belmont Stakes and win the Triple Crown? Or is that unfair to the other horses? Has he been too successful to be allowed to continue to compete? That sounds ridiculous but that is the approach the Occupy Wall Street would apply to the successful in America with punitively high taxation.

In a brief two minute race, there is excitement and a lot of emotion that happens. One of the things that happens is a metaphor for life, that unless you stop and put some thought into it, the lesson will escape you and the opportunity to learn it is lost. The lesson is that self-reliance and fairness are not inherently contradictory and in fact are complimentary to each other. Life is a horse race, or rather a series of them. You do your best, and constantly try to improve and if you don't win this week, there's another race next week and the week after that. That's all anyone can do. Asking the guy who won the race to forfeit his win defeats not only him, but the rest of the horses as well.

European Debt Crisis Discussed At Camp David...

2012-05-20T09:17:00.001-07:00

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

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

Just a few select examples from yesterday's The New York Times...

Leaders of the world’s richest countries banded together on Saturday to press Germany to back more pro-growth policies to halt the deepening debt crisis in Europe, as President Obama for the first time gained widespread support for his argument that Europe, and the United States by extension, cannot afford Chancellor Angela Merkel’s one-size-fits-all approach emphasizing austerity.

So, what the other leaders are really going to do is to pressure Germany's Chancellor to fully adopt the Keynesian economics that apparently all socialist countries, including the USA, accept as the best world economic view. I may be off base here but it seems to me this is just a brick being laid in the building of the foundation for a one world economic and government order...

The leaders did concede somewhat to Ms. Merkel’s position on austerity, acknowledging that national budget deficits had to be addressed. But they added that spending cuts must “take into account countries’ evolving economic conditions and underpin confidence and economy recovery,” a recognition of how much the austerity packages have dampened consumer and political confidence in Europe.

This I suspect amounts to "throwing Chancellor Merkel a bone," just enough to get her to accept their view of "the bigger picture" and what they consider the correct remedial approach to the world's economic woes. I do find it quite interesting the nation that spawned Karl Marx is the nation most inclined to less government in the present. At least from a world or global view.

... While Greece is not part of the Group of 8 — the club is made up of the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia — the political and economic crisis facing Athens hovered over the meeting. Greece has been unable to form a government after voters, angry over austerity measures, brought down the last government, and there is now talk of bringing back the drachma and abandoning the euro.

One would think with the experiences of Greece and the problems its pathetic socialist government is responsible for causing would create a clearer picture of the dangers of ever greater dependency on Leviathan. Apparently not so.

With his own re-election bid tied to a fragile American economic recovery that could easily reverse if Europe’s economy takes another turn for the worse, Mr. Obama was pushing hard on Saturday for a euro-zone growth package. American officials said they hoped that after the full-court press this weekend at Camp David, Ms. Merkel would be more amenable to the pro-growth argument when she meets with European leaders this week at a summit to come up with specific steps to fight rising debt while spurring the economy.

Ah, could President Obama's primary motivation be to save his political skin? Of course it is.

In comments to reporters afterward, Mr. Obama said that the group needed to discuss “a responsible approach to fiscal consolidation that is coupled with a strong growth agenda.”

“If a company is forced to cut back in Paris or Madrid, that might mean less business for workers in Pittsburgh or Milwaukee,” Mr. Obama said to explain why the European crisis matters to the United States. He said that while Europe’s predicament is “more complicated” since it requires coordination among multiple governments, steps his own government took to blunt the impact of the American financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, including the stimulus, can stand as an example for Europe.

It should be clear the President is hitting on two of his overriding themes here: A) increased government involvement in the economies of both European nations as well as increased influence and intervention by Leviathan in America's business sector; and B) his narcissistic belief in his own intelligence, importance, and that his policies have actually worked wonders when clearly they have not.

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

Now, The New York Times article in full.

Cross posted @ Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

Brian Doherty: We are Entering the Age of Ron Paul

2012-05-19T18:46:00.002-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

You mean the Paulites will have a lasting influence on the GOP and perhaps the future of this nation?

Say it ain't so.

From Reason:

Paul, says Brian Doherty, a Reason senior editor and author of the new Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired, "is leaving in his wake a set of institutions, and a set of hundreds of thousands of energized intelligent youngsters who are unquestionably going to shape American politics moving down the line."
Doherty argues Paul's long-term effect on the GOP will be similar to that of Barry Goldwater, the Arizona senator who, despite a crushing electoral loss to Lyndon Johnson in 1964, energized and transformed the Republican Party into the limited-government force that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980.
"His fans understand that Ron Paul is not just out to win an election," says Doherty. "Even if the [party bosses] shut the door in his face at the Republican convention as they did in 2008,...the ideas he injected into the party [and politics] are not going away anytime soon."

I agree with Doherty's sentiment because I saw the Ron Paul movement with my own eyes.

Reason.tv: 3 Lies About the Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Recall

2012-05-19T09:39:00.002-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

As usual, the demagogic economically-illiterate left-wing doesn't get it right; although taking some bold stands in Wisconsin (and having the guts and gravitas to go against the state's entrenched Teachers Union Industrial Complex) Governor Walker hasn't actually cut real government spending in the state -- he's just cut the rate of growth...

Nevertheless, in today's long-running progressive series America Gone Mad, Governor Walker's actions are fascist and tantamount to starving and murdering defenseless women and children (or fill in the insane Chicken Little sky-is-falling leftist meme here):

Get it? Scott Walker is not the radical we've come to love (because the collectivist left hates him); rather he is a (somewhat) bold reformer (IMO) that got the ball rolling on much-needed reform in his state.

But he's no budget hack-and-slasher.

From Reason.tv:

Ever since he took on Wisconsin’s teachers unions and denied them collective bargaining rights, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has been Public Enemey No. 1 for public-sector unions all over the country. Walker faces a recall election on June 5th and may well be chased out of the governor's mansion after just one year in office...
Is Walker the heartless budget-cutter his opponents claim - slashing spending, cutting taxes, and driving Wisconsin’s economy into a sinkhole?

Hardly. Here are three lies at the heart of the Wisconsin Recall.

Lie #1: Gov. Walker Cut Spending
Gov. Walker has cut the rate at which Wisconsin's state budget is growing, but he hasn’t actually cut spending. In fact, the state's biennial budget is scheduled to increase by about 3 percent on Walker's watch, rising from $62.6 billion (2009-11) to $64.3 billion (2011-13).
A big reason for that bump is that Walker's budget includes a historic increase in state spending on Medicaid, after the federal government cut its contribution to the state-run health insurance program for the poor.

Walker has been widely vilified for a 7 percent cut in state aid to schools over two years, which he says will be paid for by cost-saving measures such as requiring teachers to kick in more for their pensions and healthcare.
But the bottom line is that Walker hasn’t actually cut overall state spending.

Lie #2: Gov. Walker Slashed Taxes
Gov. Walker's tax cuts will save Wisconsonites about $136 million dollars[*] in the next fiscal year, which is just 1 percent of the total tax money the state collects.
It’s not like Wisconsin is some sort of under-taxed haven. In 2009, the Tax Foundation ranked Wisconsin as having the fourth-highest combined state and local tax burden in the country. If cutting taxes and letting individuals spend their own money is a way to spark economic activity, Wisconsin still has a long way to go.

Lie #3 Gov. Walker Destroyed Jobs
Walker has been battered for a projected drop of 24,000 jobs in the Badger State over the course of one year. His opponents say this is proof that his entire first term has been an abysmal failure.
Walker's supporters are pointing to another jobs survey that shows an increase of 23,000 jobs over the same period.

Whichever's more accurate, these numbers represent neither catastrophe nor triumph since they account for less than 1 percent Wisconsin's labor force.
One thing that both sides can agree on is that Wisconsin's unemployment rate of 6.8 percent is well below the national average of 8.1 percent.
There's no doubt that Wisconsin's economy has plenty of room for improvement. That'll only happen if Gov. Walker can get serious about cutting taxes and spending.

[*]: The Wisconsin's Legislative Fiscal Bureau's June 2011 tally of Walker's tax cuts was completed before passage of Act 212, which brought an additional tax reduction of $1.3 million next fiscal year.

Obama "Born in Kenya" Literary Agent Affair

2012-05-18T11:41:00.002-07:00

Hat-tip Breitbart

By the Left Coast Rebel

I'm sure you've seen the Obama lit agent Kenya controversy so I won't bore you with rehashing the details; rather I thought I would just quickly check in here with a few thoughts on the issue.

Two possibilities are at play here:

Obama was born in Kenya (the least likely). What do we do about that? Nothing, except insist that future candidates be vetted properly and NEVER FORGET how American media is such an epic fail.
Obama is a liar and fabricating who he is is all he is - his modus operandi. He wanted to be known as the "born in Kenya" Harvard Law Review president to increase his limousine-socialist creds (overwhelmingly likely).

My thoughts on this controversy:

If Obama wasn't a divider deathly intent on pitting man against woman, red state against blue state, black against white, "health" bureaucracy against faithful, poor against the wealthy, unions against non-unions, environmentalists against business owners/income earners, haves against "have-nots", state against the Catholic church, gays versus straights...

...no one would care about this "born in Kenya" literary agent issue.

My advice is this...
...don't get distracted. Yes, Obama is an angry man hellbent upon bringing this nation's economy down in pseudo Hugo Chavez-like fashion. He is frightfully hostile and ignorant to what actually makes America work (let alone what makes it great). It is insane that someone like him could be elected in America.

But remember this: It foretells worse things for the future of the Republic that the public would elect a man like Obama. His lineage is a side-issue to this bigger picture.

The media failed at every point by not vetting him. They wanted their cultural-relativist black Democrat socialist president; nothing was going to get in the way of that.

But our neighbors, families, friends and acquaintances fell for it. As Americans, we hold the true power of who holds the reins of power in our society and we failed.

Now as liberty-loving Americans let us not be distracted by side-issues, rather let us turn back the tide on socialism and get America back to what it was even in recent memory. Bear witness to your neighbors, your family, your acquaintances. Speak boldly and never be afraid.

It's a long, twisting, dark road before us but I know we can do it.

Les Carpenter from Rational Nation Hits the Nail on the Head

2012-05-18T00:23:00.000-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

Yesterday I touched on the controversy wherein Obama's literary agent in the early '90s touted his being "born in Kenya."

Unsurprisingly, since the issue is so controversial, the post got a lot of comments -- most of them supportive of my broader statement within the post.

That broader statement was this: Obama is not the problem with this country, rather an American public that would vote for someone like him is (in addition to the media that refused to vet him)...

Instead of focusing on distracting side-issues (like the literary agent Kenya thing), we in the freedom movement must instead focus on BIG IDEAS and be the lightness in the dark of our off-the-rails society that has so lazily and even willingly accepted the squandering of America's founding vision of liberty.

We have to bear witness to the wisdom (and superiority) of individual freedom to our neighbors, acquaintances, co-workers, friends and family and start changing America from the inside - one person at at time.

Les Carpenter from Rational Nation was motivated by my post and plea as well, writing:

Focus on the facts: The economy, crony capitalism, unemployment (the real numbers), the antiquated and punitive tax code, the obvious bias against capitalism, the continued interventionist foreign policy, the continued support of a corrupt Federal Reserve, the list continues.

My advice is this... Be positive. Provide the REASONS to cast a vote for either Johnson or Romney rather than why to vote against Obama. Whether anyone realizes it or not, that is why Obama won in 2008. HOPE and CHANGE was perceived as a positive...

Be that positive change rather than the negative voice of why one should vote AGAINST Obama.

Therein lies Mitt Romney's weakness. And therein lies Gary Johnson's strength.

Hear, hear.

On Capitalism and a Proper Morality...

2012-05-17T00:26:00.003-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those who understand and embrace capitalism nothing more need be said...
But for those who choose to denounce capitalism rather than embrace it because of their fear of individual responsibility and accountability, nothing will change their myopic view of reality.

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

Via: Atlas Shrugged

The Bamboozler-in-Chief Takes Credit He Doesn't Deserve

2012-05-16T21:22:00.001-07:00

By Proof Real shocker, eh? The essence of a good con, or so I'm told, is to include an element of truth, something the mark can identify as true, so that you build credibility for when you start lying through your teeth. So, in the Obama ad pictured above, the statement being made is entirely factual, and perhaps one of the biggest lies you'll hear all year.

The graphic says that US oil production is at an eight year high. The question they hope you do not ask, is "Was Obama responsible for any part of it?" I think I can answer that with an illustration: Oprah Winfrey and I have a combined net worth of over three billion dollars, the highest it's ever been. And, even though I suspect that my contribution to that is a mere rounding error in Ms. Winfrey's assets, it is similar to Mr. Obama's oil claims.

The bulk of the production on federal lands, where Mr. Obama had control, has actually decreased. The federal leases producing oil were developed under George Bush and even Bill Clinton. Obama's policies did not result in the "eight year high", but rather production on state and private lands that are not under Obama's control.

And even though production is at an eight year high, worldwide demand for oil has increased even faster. Had Obama not obstructed oil drilling in the Gulf, the extension of the Keystone pipeline, and continued the bans in ANWR, the nation would have been able to supply even more, which, according to the laws of supply and demand, would have helped to bring energy prices down.

Graphic via Roger Kimball And the renewable energy Obama touts in his ad? Heard this on the radio today:

A Canadian firm will receive up to $50 million in Obama Stimulus cash for a Nevada solar plant that hires two people. And, the energy produced at the plant costs three times as much as energy from natural gas.

Is Obama really the guy you want in control of the nation's finances for the next four years? He spends $50 Million on a project that creates energy at three times the cost of natural gas and creates two (2) whole jobs. Had Obama simply signed the papers for the Keystone XL pipeline, the initial estimate of 20,000 jobs would be created. The cost to the taxpayer? A 39 cent Bic pen.

If you ran your household the way Obama runs the country, exactly how long do you think it would last?

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Coming Soon at The Daily Caller: Milton Wolf's Family Feud with Barack Obama

2012-05-16T16:15:00.000-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

It's a family feud between Barack and his second cousin (the smart one) Milton Wolf:

For more on this new Daily Caller series, check out Milton Wolf's site the Wolf Files.

Atlas Shrugging: Facebook Co-Founder Eduardo Saverin Renounces U.S. Citizenship

2012-05-15T08:48:00.001-07:00

By the Left Coast Rebel

Last week Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin announced that he was going to give up his US citizenship and become a citizen of Singapore. Saverin made the announcement just weeks before Facebook goes public, potentially saving the 30-year-old 5% Facebook stakeholder untold sums of IRS levies.

I see Saverin's move as one that perfectly fulfills Ayn Rand's prophecy of the productive class essentially going on strike against increasing taxes and regulations in her epic dystopian Atlas Shrugged novel.

Forbes' John Tamny sees Saverin's move as a positive that just may wake more Americans up to our corrupt system...

Saverin’s essential maneuver will at first glance hopefully get Americans thinking once again about our wrongheaded system of taxation. As it stands now, Americans, through taxes levied on income and capital gains, are explicitly forced to “prove” their income to the IRS .

Think about the above for a moment. A nation founded on skepticism about politicians and government now has as one of its most powerful institutions a revenue agency meant to badger its citizens about how much they owe a government utterly contemptuous of constitutional limits. To this insatiable beast, Saverin is apparently saying no. Good for him!

Saverin’s flight from the U.S. is yet another reminder of the superiority of a national consumption tax that in a perfect world would be implemented in concert with the abolition of the I.R.S. A limited federal government is a difficult concept to achieve so long as that same government can grant itself the legal right to tax a certain portion of our incomes. When individuals resist governmental hubris, we should exalt their actions.

Ideally Saverin’s situation will remind Americans that the feds work for us, and to ensure that they seek to serve our needs rather than bludgeon us for revenue that they can dole out to favored constituents, we’ll implement a consumption tax through which we can limit what we hand over to them to spend. And if the tax is regressive or hits low incomes at the same percentage as high ones, all the better. Everyone should know intimately the cost of government.

Saverin’s departure is also a reminder to politicians that while they can obnoxiously decree what percentage of our income we’ll hand them in taxes, what they vote for won’t necessarily reflect reality. Indeed, as evidenced by Saverin’s renunciation, tax rates and collection of monies on those rates are two different things. Assuming nosebleed rates of taxation were a driver of Saverin’s decision, politicians will hopefully see that if too greedy about collecting the money of others, they’ll eventually collect nothing.
(Read the Rest)

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Visits The View...Again

2012-05-15T08:23:00.002-07:00

By Proof
Gasoline prices are high. World economies are crumbling. Unemployment is unacceptably high, with no end in sight. Iran may be on the brink of having nuclear capability. Israel may be on the brink of war with Iran. North Korea is developing ICBMs. Chinese dissidents are being turned away from our embassy. And Barry's poll numbers may be slipping among women.

What does the Leader of the Free World do? He goes on The View to discuss how he's making gay marriage the central point in his re-election bid..

"This is going to be a big contrast in the campaign..."

Well, it is after all, all about him! It is much more important (to Barry) to shore up his poll numbers among women, by going on The View, than anything else that might be on his plate, right?. Mitt Romney outpolls him among women, not just Republican women, even after the Democrats' poorly manufactured hit piece, the so called 'GOP war on women'. (Maybe if Barry's allies on the Left would stop attacking Ann Romney and comparing her to Hitler, he could spend less time on The View and more time back on the golf course?)

This is the Obama's fourth appearance on "The View" -- his second since taking up residence in the White House.

Fourth? I knew about the time POTUS, the honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, blew off the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts to be on the View. It seems that Barry consults with Whoopi Goldberg more than some of his cabinet members and generals in an active shooting war.

Can you think of a single nation on the planet, other than Venezuela, (where his buddy, the dictator Hugo Chavez rules with an iron fist), where Obama has actually improved relationships with the US, or made the world a safer place for democracy and freedom? So much for the world "loving us" after we got rid of the "cowboy Bush"! And yet the Commander-in-Chief of the last remaining super power on the planet (although, if Barry gets his "flexibility", perhaps not for long!), will not focus on world stability or the crumbling world economy or the lackluster American economy, but rather chooses to focus on whether American homosexuals should have to settle for civil unions instead of changing the definition of marriage.

How about a really bold move, Mr. President? Why not tell the women of The View that you are negotiating with the Taliban (or Tollybon) to take over Afghanistan after we pull out? You remember the Taliban, don't you ladies? They forbid young girls from going to school, sometimes maiming them, or throwing acid on them if they are so bold as to try. The "Tollybon" subjugate women and best of all, Mr. President, tell the ladies what the Taliban does to homosexuals. All those newly married homosexuals can honeymoon in Afghanistan and be buried together, after the locals stone them to death.

Gee, Mr. President. Don't you think that making the world safer for gays is more important than the legal niceties of their cohabitation?

In a related story, Obama awarded himself the newly created Order of bin Laden, for meritorious service in voting "present" in the White House Situation room. The medal depicts bin Laden sleeping with the fishes, alongside the American economy.

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Obama's diversionary tactics

2012-05-14T12:29:00.000-07:00

By Dean L

Let me preface this post by noting that social issues are fundamental to the fiber of the country. Character matters in politicians, and in daily life. The direction of the nation is directly related to the philosophical bent of its leaders, and that bent is tied to character, values and is often intertwined with social issues. But social issues necessarily should take a back seat this election cycle, much to the chagrin of social conservatives I'm sure. The reason social issues are secondary is that the nation's economic well-being - the debt, the economy, unemployment - has to be the primary if not the only campaign issue.

Notwithstanding the diversions, and there are going to be a lot of them, the rules of engagement for the GOP across the board are simple this cycle. Every diversionary tactic - Obama endorsing gay marriage for example - has to be seen for what it is. What it is, is a diversionary tactic designed to steer eyes away from the shambles of an economy. The hope is that people will be diverted and/or Republicans will be drawn into a pointless distraction that may end up reflecting badly on them.

So if you see this...reply with this.

The president wants to endorse gay marriage? What about jobs?

Mitt Romney is a bully? Great, what about the deficit?

The president had a dinner party with George Clooney? That's terrific - why didn't Dodd-Frank prevent the latest JP Morgan loss of billions?

Romney was a layoff specialist at Bain Capital? Why did the president lay off so many dealerships at GM if he was bailing it out?

Get the picture? It's Always the Economy. Always, always, always. For years Obama blamed Bush for the economy. He promised a cap on unemployment of 8% if the pork-laden stimulus bill passed. And now he wants Americans' attention to be diverted from the economy after years of massive debt and little to show for it. That's understandable because his record on the economy is abysmal. I wouldn't want people taking note either.

For the GOP, whether it relates to the campaign of Mitt Romney, or to Congressional or Senatorial campaigns the drum beat message has to be about the economy, and the president and Democrats' mismanagement of it. In the Senate and Congress, it is easy to run against Harry Reid and the no budget Senate. And for every Republican, every conservative it's far too easy to run against Keynesian government and debt and a bad economy to pass up the opportunity. DO NOT get suckered into gay marriage discussions, or immigration discussions. That's what liberals/Democrats want. It gives them a footing to possibly run successfully against you because you might screw up and say something sounds terrible in a sound bite. Or people will look at that instead of the basic economic discussion that everyone should be focused on They don't have to keep people's attention diverted long enough, just long enough to get re-elected. Right now you are seeing trial balloons designed to secure the liberal base, but also practice for the real diversionary tactics you'll see in the fall. Remember the GOP primary debates where media moderators wanted to focus on things like Newt Gingrich's personal life instead of, you guessed it, the economy. It's all about diversion and misdirection.

Don't take the bait. Ignore the discussion or bring it back every single time to the economy and the federal debt. It's easy if you think about it.