President’s Economic Recovery Plan: Borrowing to Prosperity

The Bold Pursuit introduces our new friends, The Third Railers recently launched a new site featuring a mix of news and satire (and some ‘real’ news, too). Enjoy unique look at our political landscape



Reports from Washington are that part of the President’s V5.0 economic recovery package being worked outbetween golf outings in Vineyard Haven, MA center around a scheme plan to have the government bankrollpromote job growth through an acquisition takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Thefantasies proposals entail the taxpayer US Government now officially adding to its portfolio of investmentsentering the Insurance, Automotive, School & Home Loan, Credit Rating and real estate market by holding and leasing foreclosed homes in addition to refinancing those primarily responsible for the previous collapse high risk and sub-prime mortgage borrowers.

“It almost seems to me you want to have some type of announcement or policy, program or something from the federal government that provides that clear signal that we are here supporting the housing market and this is indeed a good time to really consider buying.” ~ Frank E. Nothaft, Chief Economist at Freddie Mac (Note: this is a real quote)

When asked about the recent experiences with gambling that economic policy, Mr. Nothaft responded “Well, the problem before is that the ponzis programs before were prematurely exposed terminated during the final months of the Bush Administration as a result of an inordinate lack of confidence in under performing assets.  I am sure that had the market not experienced such a violent turn that these schemes affordable housing policies would have been paid for by the taxpayers sustained for a much longer period.

The Obama Administration has publicly remained will leak more later quiet on this subject, however; sources inside the Administration believe this is a winner for them – both politically and economically.  “After all, Republicans really can’t say much about it since they are the ones that gave us the additional $2.5 trillion to spend agreed under the framework of the cave bipartisan debt limit agreement.  Secondly, what we want to show people is that we care with other people’s money. And sometimes when you really care, you have to spend money borrowed from China.  This will however be a win-win though for the special interestsAmerican people.  Soon everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin,size of political contribution to the President’s re-election campaign political affiliation,or inability to payeconomic status can afford once again to be given buy a taxpayer subsidized home.”

Senator Jim DeMInt (R-SC) responded “Once again this Administration has shown its absolute disregard foreconomic reality and the people’s message in the November elections.  Instead of managing taxpayer money wisely righting the ship of state, it seems the folks up there would rather fundamentally change America keep heading for the iceberg.”


ThirdRailer’s Disclaimer I:  It has come to our attention that some people mistake us for a credible news source.  Not sure what makes a credible news source these days but rest assured, we are not.  90% of what we “print” here is satire…it’s not meant to be taken literally.  Of course, we know how hard it is to tell real news from fake these days so maybe there’s a lesson in that.  Our primary purpose is to help you to learn to sift through all the nonsense you hear every day from the media, politicians, entertainers and everyone else with an agenda.  (I guess that would include us too.)  But do so in a light-hearted and fun way. 

Obama’s Economic Policy is a One-Trick-Pony

Barack Obama has a plan; a big economic plan to fire up business and create jobs. He will of course, unveil his brainchild after returning from Martha’s Vineyard for a much-needed vacation from campaigning. He thinks that lolling with his liberal high rollers ($50,000 per week rent) and breathing some Atlantic saltwater air should completely clear any proven methods for job creation that might have contaminated his mind.

The country has lived with this President’s incompetence and anti-growth policies for nearly three years and knows his economic plan is a one-trick pony that grows more tiresome by the day. He rides out on his little red pony almost daily in a comical attempt at convincing people about having an economic clue. His overly staged fundraisers, speeches, and folksy chats appeal to the gullible and his far-left allies. In the face of reality, however, Americans looking for the light of economic growth, see his words splatter like shadows of darkness into a political black hole.

Obama’s discussions on economics are case studies in absurdity and show clearly, why his policies fail. Likewise, his pretentious ramblings shine the spotlight on the ineffectiveness of his Presidency. Every provable economic idea registers a big zero on his Marxist meter, and unfit for his big-government, anti-capitalist, class warfare narrative.

A mere nine hours after blustering that he would not rest until everyone wanting a job can find a job, he announced his get-away, which to date, has been a godsend for the American People. Without his daily rants, the Dow is taking a much-needed respite, as well. One noted short speech by Obama ripped over 200 points from the Stock Market. Incredibly, he boasted at another fundraiser, “Make no mistake. We are moving in the right direction.”

An old commercial claimed when E. F. Hutton speaks, people listen. When Obama speaks they also listen; except the stock market drops like a rock at the sound of his foolishness.

If the American people could convince him to stay on Martha’s Vineyard, do nothing, and refrain from giving speeches, hundreds of comedians might be out of work, but the country could recover from its freefall and survive until the 2012 election. Unfortunately, a hurricane blew him back into the spotlight; and worse yet, back to pressing for his economy-destroying programs.

Killing jobs by taxing and regulating businesses and financial institutions, then ranting about the rich, is inconsistent with reason, logic and common sense. Then again, if one’s primary goal were to bring down our form of government by using a Cloward and Piven strategy (of collapsing the system), it would make perfect sense. It would also explain his promise “to fundamentally transform America.” To be successful in this plot, he must first destroy the American economy.

An economy with over 14 million unemployed, tens of millions more underemployed and 46 million on food stamps (up by a third in two years), and millions more on public assistance, proves that he is well on his way to a welfare state. Inconceivably, for the first time in American history an administration touts increasing the dependency on food stamps, welfare, and unemployment benefits as a means of stimulating the economy.

Republicans have a budget and job’s plan sitting on Harry Reid’s desk. Meanwhile, a trade agreement lies untouched on the President’s desk. The agreement that Obama blamed Congress for ‘not passing’ never left his desk. It remains in that undisturbed pile of known cures for a lousy economy. Possibly one call from the golf course asking an aide to place the agreement in his inbox might jog his memory. One less fundraiser or round of golf should free enough time to submit it to Congress when he returns and create those 70,000 jobs he says are waiting.

Excuses and blame are the shifting foundations upon which failures are built, and Barack Obama is the excuse and blame President. His Presidency consists of building a straw-house economy then blaming others when the soft breezes of normalcy blow it asunder. Predictably, he spends every waking moment compiling and rattling off a litany of excuses for his incompetence, and formulating a blame list for his chronic failures.

On the other hand, Obama, “The New Normal” President finds extraordinary success at striking fear into businesses, financial institutions, and into the hearts and wallets of the American people. This apprehension about spending, investing, and lending in an Obama economy, and anxiety over the strong regulatory arm of his administrative bureaucrats, led directly to this government-induced crisis.

The free enterprise, capitalist system awaits the trillions of investment dollars that lie closely held in ‘fear of Obama accounts’. A positive business climate would unleash these funds and create millions of new jobs.

Obama wants to take those trillions of dollars and continue his Marxist ways of “spreading the wealth around” by investing in even more government. He uses one of his favorite leftist ploys, class warfare, to appeal to his political base and the most gullible of independents.

Alan Krueger, another academic economist believing in more government spending, and the genius behind the Cash-for-Clunkers program is now Obama’s new economic adviser. President Barack Obama’s new economic plan will be exactly the same one-trick pony with a new rhinestone saddle; a Princeton liberal-progressive.

Jim Mullen

Libertarianism’s Poison Pill

by Robert Arvay

Libertarianism is the political equivalent of a brightly colored fruit. It may taste sweet, but lurking within, there is poison. No sooner does one taste of the libertarian ideology, than immediately he discovers both its sweetness and its bitterness, both its appeal to social conservatives, and its unacceptable liberal implications. Yet despite that, it remains a tempting political force, one that is attracting an increasing number of followers.

In light of that, the important question for social-issues conservatives is this:  how must one navigate the waters of libertarian thought? How does one reach its safe harbor of freedom, while avoiding its treacherous currents of libertine excess? How does one apply libertarianism’s strengths without adopting its weaknesses?

One must begin by identifying exactly what libertarianism is, and what it is not.

At first glance, to the uninitiated, libertarianism appears to be merely a hodge-podge of eclectic policy positions, with no internal consistency. For example, on the one hand, it advocates lower taxes, smaller government and strong property rights. So far, that is appealing to conservatives. But on the other hand, it also supports gay rights, legalizing recreational narcotic drugs, and permitting prostitution, all of which are anathema to the social right on moral grounds.

How does one make sense of this?

What is important to understand about libertarian thought is that it is not, in fact, a hodge-podge. Its individual policy positions are not eclectic, but rather, consistent with its central theme of individual liberty and personal freedoms. This central theme is the part of it which is very attractive to conservatives of all stripes. And it is also the part which makes it sometimes awkward to seemingly oppose individual liberties in favor of conservative social values.

To win this argument with Libertarians, social conservatives must first understand, and then clarify, their views on why small government must remain small, while at the same time, government must sometimes seem to intrude, (as liberals are fond to say), into the bedrooms of private citizens.

This conservative argument is not ready made. There is no one-liner that can encapsulate it. Indeed, many a social conservative stumbles around in embarrassment for an answer to the libertarian’s strongest arguments. He knows that his social-conservative principles are correct. But against the sharpened tip of the libertarian sword, the conservative shield seems insufficient to ward off the piercingly logical arguments of (what seems to be) a hybrid of liberal and conservative thought, the best of both worlds.

But although the argument for social conservatism is not simplistic, it is strong, indeed, much stronger than the cases for either liberalism or libertarianism.

It is not simple, because social conservatism is a product of the values that have shaped our nation and our Constitution for thousands of years prior to the present day. A religious analogy will illustrate the point:

Beginning with the exodus of Moses and the Israelites from Egypt, Western culture has always been about freedom. But it has never been about license. Freedom from slavery under Pharoah did not evolve into freedom to worship the golden calf. To use a secular analogy, freedom of speech does not include the freedom to commit fraud.

For freedom is not merely a right, it is also a responsibility. With the freedom from tyranny comes the duty to do good. Were it otherwise, the Declaration of Independence might well eliminate the words, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and substitute instead, “permitted by their government to exercise certain negotiable rights.”

For, without acknowledging that human rights come from the Supreme Being, one concedes that all human rights are conditional upon whatever is the current structure of power, the particular fad of the moment. Subjective rights are not rights at all, but merely temporary, revocable privileges.

To recognize that human rights come from God is to affirm that there is a God, and that His commandments are not subordinate to the whimsy of men, but are absolute and eternal.

In short, the written Constitution embodies the highest ideals of thousands of years of Western civilization and culture. It embodies them, it is founded upon them, but it does not replace them. This is why John Adams wrote that. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If the Constitution could stand apart from the centuries of context which gave rise to it, then it could be imposed upon any nation, with exemplary results. But it is clear from history and from current events as well, that no document can transform an unjust nation into a just one. No embodiment of ideals can save a people who do not share those ideals. Were it otherwise, the US Constitution could have been forced upon the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and today they would be shining examples of religious freedom. Sadly, they remain dark examples of religious intolerance and sectarian brutality, where women are oppressed, and free speech is stifled.

It is vital then, to understand and embrace not only the written words of the Constitution itself, but also its underlying values. Those words are indispensable, but they are an edifice which rests upon an equally indispensable moral foundation.

To be sure, the religious foundations of the Constitution must never be twisted so as to institute a state religion. But neither must those foundations be undermined with imported values that are in contradiction to the Constitution. Sharia law is, for example, a deadly injection into the national culture, a perverse distortion of religious freedom. The determined and persistent efforts to slip it into civil law must be aggressively countered.

And also to be sure, there is much room for debate as to which social conservative values should be enshrined into written law, and which should not. It is wisely said that morality cannot be legislated.

But it is equally true that immorality can indeed be legislated, and many laws do just that. Forcing landlords to rent to unmarried couples, forcing professional photographers to accommodate homosexual weddings, and requiring pharmacists to supply abortifacent drugs are just a few examples that come quickly to mind.

In the near future, licensing of brothels, clean injection centers for drug addicts, and a requirement that grade schools teach homosexual propaganda, will likely be enacted. To varying degrees, they already have been.

Libertarian thought provides no reliable remedy to the social poisons that society is ingesting. Its values may be those of freedom, but they are also the values of the golden calf.

Libertarianism has much to recommend it. But a poison lurks within it, and only clear thinking can save us from that.

I Told You So, Again …

Obama’s Libya:

I don’t mind one bit saying “I told you so” to all those — particularly journalists – who ignored my objective, fact-supported arguments against Western military and foreign policy in the Middle East and wound up with egg on their face as a result. (I have been trying to revive the nearly-lost scientific method and apply it to journalism, which has become nothing but a series of propaganda mills. So far, there seem to be no takers).

Obama and NATO must bear the responsibility for the fall of Kaddafi, and I have warned that this fall of a stable secular Middle Eastern leader will come back to bite the West hard in the butt.

Now Fox News and others are finally cautiously discussing the fact that the rebels are an unknown quantity and may not be as benign as they were portrayed back when they seemed to have much less chance of winning. Last night it was pointed out by Sean Hannity and Oliver North that they are a mix of tribal representatives and terrorists and their new proposed constitution already calls for sharia law, in stark contrast to Kadaffi’s secular constitution (miss him yet?).

Most telling was the remark: “Obama owns Libya.”

In case you have forgotten our direct military involvement in Libya, in addition to Obama’s repeated calls for Kadaffi (sp Gadhaffi in the linked article) to step down, here is the report on the joint French-American Operation Odyssey Dawn the day after it happened:

Back in March, I found no mainstream commentators on the left or right criticizing the West’s role in this operation or in Egypt. In fact, there has been a steady stream of “conservative” criticism against Obama for not going after Kadaffi more resolutely. (The clueless candidates — most recently Bachmann — mostly followed their clueless lead, bleating similar statements). Generally, there is a dearth of substantive criticism of any Western military involvement by left or right, no doubt for political or career reasons (many fear appearing unpatriotic, even though honest and objective commentary would ultimately save Western lives and Western embarrassment), but also due to a serious shortage of brain power. Now that a Marxist is in the White House, mainstream conservatives are finally criticizing our involvement in a Middle East conflict, but mainly because they can pin the fallout on the Left. But none of them mentioned that the regimes in post-Carter Iran, post-Clinton Kosovo, post-Bush Iraq, post-rebellion Egypt and the Ivory Coast, once ruled by secularists, are now in the hands of democratically elected Islamist leaders or mobs who openly persecute and murder Christians wholesale  (see, for example, the 4th link below on the Ivory Coast massacre of Christians presided over by the UN) and do not believe in Israel’s right to exist. (A nation that allows Muslims to live within its boundaries, whereas Muslim nations typically forbid Israelis — or often any Jews — even to visit. How fair and democratic is that?).

By contrast, I (who have nothing to lose, am not being paid for this and answer to no one) was warning repeatedly about the error in our involvement in the Middle East, not just by Democrat presidents, notably Obama, but also by Republicans (BTW, Reagan, who pulled us out of Lebanon, was an exception), and pointing out then-unheeded facts to state my case, reminding, for example, that the local Christian populations were always the ones who paid the biggest price when a stable secular leader was replaced by a mob, which eventually, inevitably, turned into an Islamic-led government with significantly less freedom for the people than under the “cruel dictators” we replaced – as well as vastly less diversity, which, oddly, Western powers prize in their countries. Israel, of course, came closer to the brink of war with each successive “win” and Iran was given a permanent pass by the West, as though these merciless enforcers of brutal Sharia law, who execute countless people for sexual misdeeds and inappropriate clothing, were lily-white defenders of human rights (as we speak, there are 2 Americans jailed in Iran for “spying,” on flimsy evidence). I sent links to each of my articles on this subject to thousands of potential readers, including major news outlets, inclucing to all Fox News personalities. News people typically do not respond, but judging by last night’s commentary by Sean, perhaps they had read some of what I said here:





and here

Olavo de Carvalho also warned you here:

Look, I don’t mind people calling me crazy. But you journalists who lead the Western world by providing information to decision makers, should know by now that, in the long run, ignoring warnings about the West’s disastrous involvement in the Middle East is going to hurt you a whole lot more than it does the warning party.

Don Hank

Reprinted with Permission: July 10, 2011 LAIGLESFORUM

Since 2006, he has been the owner/operator of the Christian news and views site Laigle’s Forum ( His straightforward and common-sense articles on politics, economics, science, government and culture have been published in WorldNetDaily, Canada Free Press, Christian Worldview Network, Etherzone, FedUpUSA, Renew America, Desert Conservative and Midia Sem Mascara. His extensive language background leads him to believe that the founders meant what they said in the Constitution, God meant what He said in the Scriptures and the grassroots are the true authorities on natural language, word definitions and the government that is best for them. He is also the founder of Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, a volunteer organization that provided Christian counseling for non-custodial parents.

Thank You Iowa!

A week later we are still remembering all the great patriotic Iowans we met at the state fair. We are also still trying to work off that delicious fried butter on a stick and red velvet funnel cake. I look forward to being back in Iowa in Indianola on September 3rd. Enjoy SarahPAC’s latest video and thank you Iowa!

– Sarah Palin



As published at SarahPAC: Thank You Iowa!


We Have Two Constitutions, Not Just One


by Robert Arvay


“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union…”

These words open what many of us believe is, aside from God’s direct revealed Word, the most important document in the history of the world. It has led, directly or otherwise, to more freedom for more people than any other political system ever devised by man. Much blood has been shed in its defense. As precious as is every drop of that blood, it has been a price worth paying. Because, using those same opening words, it has enabled us to “… secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”

However, before we had a written Constitution, we also had an unwritten one.

Make no mistake; the written Constitution is the vital heart of our nation, the very breath of our freedom. Nothing I say will decrease my ardor for, or my emphatic support of, those written words. I affirmatively reject the liberal view that the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted according to the whim of the moment, or the fad of today. That’s why the Constitution incorporates an amendment process. There, and only there, should the Constitution be changed. Period.

Our Constitution did not arise out of thin air. It was preceded by, and can be viewed as the product of, a long and deep history rooted in Mosaic Law, and in the Athenian democracy. Its spirit was already alive – in its nascent form – in the Magna Carta, in the Declaration of Independence, and in the Articles of Confederation.

Indeed, it is in the Declaration of Independence that we find those powerful words upon which our Constitution is based:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Despite the Declaration’s official homage to our Creator, many people have pointed out that the United States Constitution makes no mention of God, and that its only mentions of religion are to forbid religion being used as a qualification for public office, and that otherwise, the government must place neither support for, nor prohibitions of, the free exercise of it.

They have claimed, therefore, that the Constitution is a secular document.

But there are serious flaws in that claim. First, the context of these mentions of religion are that in the Colonies, the Church of England had been the official religion of the tyrant. Taxes were collected from all and sundry for the establishment of this religion, regardless of whether those taxed believed in the Church or not. It is this injustice, not religion itself, religious values or God, that the Constitution rejects. It is the misuse of religion as a force for tyranny that the Constitution opposes. One finds that the theological underpinnings of the Constitution are manifest throughout our history.

Second, if anyone doubts these assertions of context, consider that the Constitutional Convention (in which the document was forged) opened each session with prayer to God. No, the prayer was not made at the altar of the Church of England, at the door of a Baptist church, at the rail of a Catholic cathedral nor in the sanctuary of an Assembly of God, but here is the crucial and vital fact:  the prayer was made to the same God who revealed the Ten Commandments. The Founders prayed to the Creator, who alone is the source and provider of all of our rights, rights which are unalienable by any government of free men.

Am I saying then, that our unwritten Constitution is the religious tradition beginning with the prophet Abraham? Am I saying that only the Judeo-Christian religious tradition has any validity?

Yes, in light of our democratic traditions, there can be no doubt of it.

I also mentioned the Athenian democracy which espoused the concept of representative government and the idea that the people rule themselves through their elected representatives. Those precious traditions are traced back to Greece, then to Rome; two ancient nations ruled by men who worshipped pagan gods. We owe to them much of what makes us free. So, while our traditions are Judeo-Christian, we guarantee freedom of religion for all.

Then, what exactly am I saying?

I have already said it: our written Constitution is the physical embodiment of an unwritten Constitution. Neither of them stands alone. Without the rich traditions of Western Civilization, our Constitution would never have been put to words and without our written Constitution, those traditions themselves would soon disappear from the world of men.

Look about you, if you disbelieve that claim. It is the decline of our values that is accompanying the rise of anti-Constitutional forces both within our nation and outside of it. You’ve heard the vacuous expression, spoken by so many learned judges and politicians, that the written Constitution is only a “living, breathing” document, subject to so many frivolous interpretations that those tearing it down must resort to “emanations of penumbrances,” and to “walls of separation.” These are terms found nowhere in any of our founding documents, much less the Constitution. In other words, to its opponents, the words mean nothing. To them, the Constitution itself means nothing. Whenever it gets in the way of what they intend to do, they ignore it, or worse, distort it.

This would never have happened if we had not lost touch with the values embraced by our Founders. Those values were not the touchy feely “sensitivity” values which dominate much of current progressive thinking. The Founders were men of great personal charity, but not of government largesse at taxpayer expense. They were men who viewed government as a necessary evil, not as a god to be worshipped, nor as a tyrant to be obeyed by docile subjects of a crown. They were men who viewed freedom as a responsibility to do good, not a license to do evil.

Today, both Constitutions are under attack; the written and the unwritten. Our culture is eroding. Political free speech is increasingly restricted, while obscenity is increasingly promoted – exactly the opposite of what the Founders clearly intended.

We have actually had at least one Supreme Court Justice (O’Connor) declare that “for
eign law” can be consulted in deciding cases in American courts. These are laws that are enacted entirely without the consent of the governed, the governed in this case being the American people. This precedent is insidiously anti-Constitutional.

And that was not the end of it. Now, there are serious efforts being made to infiltrate American (and British) society with Sharia law. Ironically, those who are the most fiercely opposed to any mention of the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition are those who are most likely to endorse Sharia law. There is no doubt that Sharia Islamic law is precisely, exactly, the very sort of religious law which the Constitution expressly prohibits. Islam considers itself superior to, and immune from, any non-Islamic law.

The Constitution could never have arisen in Imperial China, Buddhist Japan, Hindu India or in Moslem Arabia. No emperor’s government would ever have recognized the “… Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government …”

No Moslem caliph would ever have declared that an Islamic government “… shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That would not only never have happened, it still cannot happen in those countries today, because in those countries governed by Islamic traditions, the state religion is Islam, and all other religions are officially considered inferior, at best.

Islamist Muslims do not share our traditions, our values and our religious heritage.

Sadly, neither do an increasing number of people in America. It is not only the Muslim immigrants. It is a generation of men and women born here, raised here and taught in unionized schools that our Founders were evil men, slave holders, plunderers, sexist, and genocidal killers. Ironically, while condemning our Founders for their certainly deep flaws as human beings, these same critics cannot bring themselves to call a terrorist a terrorist, or an illegal alien a– well—an illegal alien.

In the sixties and seventies, college hippies chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go.”

They’re getting their wish. Western Civilization is all but gone and in its place will come chaos and tyranny – the same exact evils which plagued so much of the world for so much of its history.

There is one hope. You. We are the last living Americans who have the opportunity to restore America to its foundational principles, to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If we fail, a darkness will descend upon the world that may well last centuries – centuries in which if we are remembered at all, we will be cursed for having squandered the precious gift of freedom.

We must not fail to “… secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”

The American Revolution did not end at Yorktown. We must fight on.

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad


The Bold Pursuit®