Sunday, January 29, 2012

Rep. Allen West Shines Once Again

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


Rep.  Allen West (R- FL)

Maybe according to some this patriotic congressmen was over the top. To others he is spot on. So, who has the right take on his recent remarks? You, the independent, libertarian, classical liberal, and conservative readers be the final judge.

Huff Post Politics - Speaking to a Lincoln Day Dinner in West Palm Beach for the Palm Beach County GOP, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) fired off a humdinger of a line that within minutes drew recriminations from Democrats on Twitter.

"We need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, (audience boos) and my dear friend the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain't on the table," West said. "Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America."

Following cheers, West added, "Yeah I said 'hell.'"

Moments after the quote was mentioned on Twitter, former Reid spokesman Jim Manley responded via his own Twitter feed: "Me to allen west. You first asshole."

And they say politics is getting more acrimonious.

I'll give you one guess on which side of the debate I'll land on.

Via: Memeorandum

A Few Thoughts Worth Reflecting On

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


Let us not forget...

"History will also give occasion to expatiate on the advantage of civil orders and constitutions, how men and their properties are protected by joining in societies and establishing government; their industry encouraged and rewarded, arts invented, and life made more comfortable: The advantages of liberty, mischiefs of licentiousness, benefits arising from good laws and a due execution of justice. Thus may the first principles of sound politics be fixed in the minds of youth."

Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749


"The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government."

James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787


"[I]t is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government."

James Madison, Federalist No. 49, 1788


"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

James Madison, Speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, 1829


"History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views."

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781


"Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction that, after the most industrious and impartial researchers, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions or systems of education more fit in general to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors."

John Adams, letter to the young men of the Philadelphia, 1798

Our American heritage, because it has been determined by the actions of mankind is not perfect. The vision (and promise) handed off to us by our founding fathers are timeless. It is therefore up to each generation to write it's own chapter in pursuit and furtherance of both. Each generation should, indeed must ask itself if it has left the next generation with a better, stronger nation than the one it received.

Judgement will not be kind to this one methinks.

What say you?

L.L. Bean Heiress Endorses Ron Paul

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



Well well, Ron Paul has just been endorsed by Linda Bean, heiress to famed outfitter L.L.Bean. The Maine resident, and long time admirer of Mr Paul made the announcement at her lobster restaurant in Freeport.

Ms. Bean, in making her endorsement cited the reasons Paul supporters across the country respect, admire, and thus support the only true fiscal conservative and constitutionally astute republican candidate in the current field. Herman Cain's recent endorsement of Newtie the big "R" statist aside.

Freeport, Maine (CNN) - Linda Bean, an heiress to famed Maine outfitter L.L. Bean, came out in support of Ron Paul on Saturday as the candidate made a campaign swing through the state.

Bean, who is a part owner of her family's company and sits on its board, said she is a longtime supporter of the Texas congressman. She backed his 2008 presidential bid, but hasn't made a public endorsement in the current race until now.

"I've been for Ron Paul for years," Bean said. "I watched his House races in Texas, and he's just true blue. He doesn't waver from the Constitution and I like that very much."

Bean made her endorsement at the lobster restaurant she owns in Freeport, situated across the road from L.L. Bean’s large flagship store. She singled out Paul's appeal across the political spectrum as a reason for her support.

"He's very electable, he crosses all ideological lines because of his strong message," Bean said. "He's for the gold standard. I think people want stability in this country. He's for helping America domestically, and staying out of aggressive wars. We're just spending ourselves down the drain in these countries year after year with occupation."

When asked why she wasn't supporting fellow New Englander Mitt Romney, Bean said, "I've always been for Ron Paul."

Bean ran for Congress herself in 1988 but lost the Republican primary. She ran again in 1992, winning the nomination... {Read More}

Coming from a fellow New Englander Ms, Bean's endorsement of Ron Paul is especially satisfying. Just goes to show ya not all us folks in the northeast are flaming liberal's and progressives. Some are aware of our constitutional heritage and in fact understand what classical liberalism really means and what it identifies.

Unfortunately it seems few republicans and democrats these days have a clue.



Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, January 28, 2012

The Progressive Spin Machine, Central Tenets Volume One

a) Anything good that happens during Obama's tenure, credit is given him. b) Anything bad that happens during Obama's tenure, blame George Bush. c) Follow the money. d) Except when it involves a Democrat, then you don't follow the money. e) George W. Bush must not be viewed in any favorable light whatsoever. f) Mr. Bush's motives must always be viewed perniciously. g) Rinse and repeat.

If Ron Paul Ultimately Drops Out...

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



Having spent all of my adult life in the business sector in positions from staff advisory, to executive management I can attest to the validity the following article.

The article is about how the RNC should handle Ron Paul on that fateful day when he can no longer continue on the campaign trail. Viewed from a proper business perspective the articles premise is spot on.

While it is without a doubt Ron Paul is the most intelligent and qualified candidate in the 2012 GOP field, it is also becoming clear the forces arrayed against his brand of common sense and liberty are too great to overcome. The GOP statist power base is just too powerful. Combined with a media that basically ignores Ron Paul the hurdle to overcome is just too high.

How to handle a likely Paul exit is the meat of the article.

Reuters - ... Paul is not really the GOP’s problem. It’s his followers, perhaps as much as 15 percent of the general electorate, many of them young, vocal and highly energized. Like Paul himself, they’re not exactly party regulars. No, Paul and his followers promise to be a lot like that fired employee who, if “handled” incorrectly at farewell, will make it his life’s work to, if not bring your organization down, at least show you how very wrong you were to cut the cord.

The Republican Party would be flat-out careless to let that happen. Dr. Paul’s exit isn’t exactly going to be unexpected. Plus, the GOP leadership has an excellent example of how to correctly part ways right under its nose — in President Obama’s masterful handling in 2008 of Hillary Clinton, a bitter opponent right to the end, and Joe Biden, an early loser in the Democratic primary race. Both of these “terminated” rivals, along with Bill Clinton and his minions, could have easily spent Obama’s general-election campaign and his first term engaged in subterfuge, natter-nattering to the media about the Newbie-in-Chief’s every little misstep. Instead, Hillary Clinton was given a big job and a big jet and the opportunity to become the most popular woman in America. And rather than being trundled back to his commuter seat on the Amtrak to Delaware, the gaffe-ridden Biden was anointed vice-president and given the not-insignificant job of humanizing the more aloof Obama, a role he clearly relishes.

And so it must be with the RNC and Ron Paul. There can be no brush-off. No “Phew, he’s gone. Now let’s get down to business.” No booby prize. Ron Paul needs to be given a role that really means something to him –- a role with influence and voice.

The details of this role are not for us to identify — they can only emerge from the kind of good-faith negotiations that party officials should initiate soon with the candidate. All we can say is, in this kind of setting, as in the best-practice business parting, the “victor” must err on the side of bigheartedness and dignity. Whatever speaking role Dr. Paul wants at the convention, give it to him. If he wants some sort of advisory role in the new administration, the answer is: “Of course.” Like a business leader designing a severance package with a key player, the GOP leadership’s mindset must be: “When he walks out that door, Ron Paul is going to be a friend for life.”

Because if he isn’t, Ron Paul and his followers will make their unhappiness known. And for the mishandling of this defining moment, the GOP will deserve their ire.

Just like any leader who botches goodbye.

Indeed those of us who support Mr. Paul must keep fighting in the best way we can to move his vision forward. If and when the day arrives that he suspends his candidacy we should all hope he secures a prominent role in the next republican administration.

Via: Memeorandum

From the In Box at RN USA

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


This was just received in my mailbox from a concerned American. One who is concerned over the direction (or lack thereof) of our great and once admired nation.

It is obviously a partisan take on the current state of America (I would argue it goes back more than just a few years). However I'm positive it is shared by all reasonable and concerned citizens from both sides of the aisle.

It there is truth to the following the entire free world is laughing at what once was the freest nation on the face of the earth. Remember you heard it and saw it here at Rational Nation USA.

This cartoon originated in Scotland .... It looks like most of the world is laughing at our nation's leadership! How sad that the world is laughing at the US while we sit by and watch and wonder what will happen next!

This one nails it perfectly.

"President Obama’s approval ratings are so low now, Kenyans are accusing him
of being born in the United States"


While finding this near the top I can't help but acknowledging there is a modicum of truth to it all.

Sarah Palin to Newt Gingrich's Defense

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


Sarah and Newt... The Odd Couple or a Perfect Team?

It has been a tough week. Of course they are all challenging, to one degree or another. However, for me this one has been grueling, having with it the requirement to change shifts early in the week and then back to my "normal" shift later in the week.

So, you may ask, what's the header of this post have to do with work? Well, absolutely nothing. Actually I am so GD tired I had planned on going to bed after I ate the fine dinner my wife had made before sending off to work. Told you it's been a tough week.

Anyway, I made the mistake of turning on my computer while I was waiting for my dinner to warm up. While browsing the highlights and the low lights of the news I just happened to come across the article in POLITICO about Sarah Palin being Newtie's secret weapon. It was just enough to wake me up.

Of course everyone who has visited this site knows my thoughts about Newtie. Newt's record, which is one of alarming inconsistencies and a penchant for telling less than the truth, is available to all who have a computer. And it should give reasonable and thoughtful people reason for pause.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a conservative and perhaps a presidential candidate himself in the future, has called Newtie an embarrassment to the republican party. With good reason. Newt would not be a man to increase and safeguard liberty and reign in government. He is big "R" statism personified.

That is why I am so puzzled with one of the darlings of the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, coming to the support of Newtie. One would think if Sarah really believes in liberty, reducing the size of government, and giving people more freedom she would be behind Ron Paul. But, as we all know, politics is politics an I'm sure Sarah is angling to position herself for the future.

At any rate, given her knack for appearing when needed to defend Newtie everyone should now be questioning her her grip on reality. I'm now quite glad she was never just a heartbeat away from the nuclear button.

Her comments as reported in POLITICO.

... In her latest appearance, Palin stated: “Look at Newt Gingrich, what’s going on with him via the establishment’s attacks,” she said, though the original question was about Ron Paul (emphasis mine). “They’re trying to crucify this man and rewrite history and rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years.”

Palin then called conservative writer Peggy Noonan “hypocritical” for recently calling Gingrich an “angry little attack muffin.”

“They maybe subscribe such characterization of Newt via words like that, but they don’t subscribe those to say Mitt Romney when he or his surrogates do the same thing,” she said. “That’s that typical hypocrisy stuff in the media that I’ve lived with over a couple of decades in the political arena. So I’m used to it.”

“But in order to help educate the rest of the American public, I’ll articulate that it is hypocritical of the media to subscribe to one candidate and not another, that kind of angry attack muffin verbiage to one and not the other.” {Read More}

"They’re trying to crucify this man and rewrite history and rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years." Sarah, with all due respect, might I suggest you do a bit of research and familiarize yourself with the man's record. Maybe even talk to a few who have worked with him (I'm fairly confident you know a few} and really know the real Newt Gingrich.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Obama's S0TU Address... More Government, More Regulations, Less Personal Reponsibility, More Attorneys, Incresed Dependency on the State, and More

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


The Address starts at approximately the 6 minute mark.



Text of the President's SOTU address.

A charismatic President, full of the heady stuff statists are made of offered something for everyone. Patriotic words weaved to strengthen America's belief in, and support for increased dependency on government. At least it's a plan, right?

Heavy stuff with undoubtedly far reaching impact. Part of which may carry unintended consequences. But at least it's a plan. Right?

One thing is certain, at least in my view. Republican's who are seeking to replace Obama, and he deserves to be replaced, better find a alternative that makes sense, it had better be well articulated by a nominee that can inspire trust, it had better be based on factual realities, and it certainly needs to resonate with more than just the good ole boy network of country club executives and their bought politicians.

In a brief response to the President's SOTU address Herman Cain had some critical remarks.

The Hill - "With all due respect Mr. President, some of us aren't stupid," Cain, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, said late Tuesday night from the National Press Club. "The American people, the Tea Party people know that this nation is broke."

"We also can't tax our way out of debt," Cain continued. "Not until we get this economy growing. The president didn't talk a lot about that because that's what's missing in this equation in the grand scheme of things."

Cain also called on Obama to stop initiating class warfare.

"Mr. President, stop the class warfare. Discourage your surrogates from making racial innuendoes," Cain continued. "And Mr. President most of all, stop the blame game."

Cain warned Obama, and members of Congress, that there would be electoral consequences for not heeding the Tea Party.

"We must remind him, we the people are coming," Cain said. "That's the Tea Party message to Washington, the president, and his administration."

We the people are coming and we know that we are up against goliath." {Read More}

Links below provide additional viewpoints on the President's SOTU address.

Excerpts from Governor Mitch Daniels’ Republican Address to the Nation

Obama Speech Makes Pitch for Economic Fairness

State Of The Union Address Obsolete


There you have it folks. My two cents worth, as well a sufficient amount of information to keep you occupied for awhile. Enjoy. And remember, all actions have consequences, both intended and unintended.

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, January 23, 2012

Newt Gingrich, a Man Most Unfit to be President...

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


NJ Governor Chris Christie

Governor Christie has it right. There is little doubt but what Newt Gingrich is an embarrassment to his party. Given his past ethical violations and that he was essentially run out of his speaker ship by his own party it is reasonable to question his judgement. Past errors in judgement of the magnitude of Mr. Gingrich's should give every concerned citizen pause. Why, you may ask, given he has said he has changed. The reason is because past errors in judgement often predict future mistaken judgement. Or put another way, a leopard cannot change it's spots as my former, and very wise boss used to say.

Now for what Governor Christie had to say. From The Hill.

Romney surrogate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Newt Gingrich an embarrassment to the Republican Party on Sunday, one day after the former House Speaker rode a late surge to victory in the South Carolina primary.

"I think Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party, over time," Christie (R), who has endorsed Romney, said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Gov. Romney never has."

When pressed on how Gingrich had embarrassed the Republican party, Christie mentioned said that Gingrich had been pressured to resign from the House of Representatives in 1998 and had been fined for House ethics violations.

"We all know the record," Christie added. "I mean he was run out of the speakership by his own party, he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy that's had a very difficult career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party."

Christie suggested the former House speaker's record could predict what he would be like as president. {Read More}

Given that Gingrich is leading is leading in early polling in Florida it is critically important that conservative activists and those who lean republican heed Governor Christie's words.

Newt Gingrich has a clear record, and it not one of a principled limited government conservative and constitutional candidate that he would have voters believe he is.

Of course there is more, and in the interest of education following is a few more links to check out and decide for yourself if Gingrich is deserving of the support of conservatives or Libertarian leaning individuals.

Newt Gingrich: The master of disguise

Why GOP leaders don't trust Gingrich

Romney Campaign on Newt: "We Want to Know What Nancy Pelosi Knows"


A Quarter Century of Gingrich Dirt

For those who want more reasons to be suspicious of, and ultimately withhold their support (and vote) for Mr. Gingrich it is easily found during an afternoon session Goggling the Chameleons record. Both professionally and personally.

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, January 22, 2012

President Obama's Approval Rating Lowest of His Presidency...

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



Gallup - PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama averaged 44% job approval for his third full year in office, which ended Jan. 19. His third-year average is down slightly from his second-year average of 47% and much lower than his first-year average of 57%.

Obama's third-year average is based on approximately 175,000 interviews with U.S. adults conducted between Jan. 20, 2011 -- the second anniversary of his inauguration -- and Jan. 19, 2012.

Obama's job approval rating during his third year in office had its ups and downs, peaking at 53% in May and falling as low as 38% in August and October. {Read More}

President Obama is indeed vulnerable. Very vulnerable as a matter of fact. This presents the very possible, although not necessarily probable defeat of the the President this November.

Whether the republican nominee for president is successful or not will depend on two things. First, the shape the economy is in come November and how many people are back to work. Second is the character and perceived competency of the candidate, as well as the vision he projects for America over the next decade and beyond.

Rather than personal and negative attacks on our sitting President it will serve the republican nominee well to focus on the President's actual failing record (as substantiated by the facts), and define a positive vision for America while telling us exactly what he will do to accomplish his vision for the country. It will also be extremely important that the republican nominee shows support for existing civil liberties.

It is time we begin focusing on the records of the candidates during their time in public service, and presenting a positive vision for the nation and it's people. Very much like President Kennedy and President Reagan did.

Via: Memeorandum

South Carolina Hands Victory to Newt Gingrich... Oh My!

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



Simply awe inspiring. Imagine, the candidate perhaps least likely to safe guard individual liberties and the cornerstones of constitutional law succeeded in duping South Carolina republican primary voters into handing him victory.

Congratulations Mr. Gingrich, as a matter of courtesy are in order. Beyond such courtesies Rational Nation USA, as well as the majority of Americans see though your superficial veneer to the real anti constitutional conservative you really are.

Moving on to Florida (and beyond) perhaps primary voters will be more educated on the Gingrich propensity for half truth and outright false representations. Gingrich's personal marital situation aside the man is certainly one that deserves very close scrutiny.

While representing a political ideology different than President Obama's he does not represent the America that our founding fathers envisioned. The socialist statist label that conservatives paint on the President is just as, if no more so true of Mr. Gingrich.

Anyone following the republican presidential hopefuls with a serious penchant for quality can't help but be appalled by the lack of both political talent and credibility, Ron Paul aside.

When considering who you want to represent your interests (and your liberties) look very carefully at each candidates public record. Consider their stump speeches and debates in relationship to their record. You may be in for some surprises.

It has been standard fare for all republican candidates and partisan conservative talking heads to state that "any of the republican candidates on the stage are better than Obama". And perhaps this is true true. However, remember this... whomever runs against Obama should he win the general election will be ou president for at least four years. As I have always said statism is statism, no mater the color of its mascot.

Republicans be careful, very careful whom you choose.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, January 21, 2012

The Choices Remain... "We the People" Can Decide

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs Tyranny


Newt the Fascist
Mitt the Corporatist




















Ron Paul the Constitutionalist
Ricky the Devout












First things first. Taking a week away from blogging has been wonderful, just what the doctor prescribed.

Given the absolute childish and hopelessly counter productive pursuits of both major political parties is enough to cause the reasonable and objective minded to simply shut down.

Politics is a tough and often self serving business. Spin has always been the nature of the game, but somehow it has become the accepted norm. I'm quite sure the architects of our republic never envisioned the current realities that have corrupted and demeaned their noble vision.

It is indeed unfortunate the opposing political ideologies (parties) now stand in the way of finding a common ground that could raise this nation to heights never before dreamed of. Rather than using the energies of differing opinions to create a positive synergy that would result in finding effective solutions to drive positive change our political parties (and those in power) are more focused on highlighting and exploiting perceived weakness in the other.

It has become increasingly apparent, at least to this classical liberal, the modus operandi of both the progressive and conservative movement has devolved to the point where the destruction of opposing political thought is all important and thus the singular goal of both parties. Something I'm absolutely certain our founding fathers would be in heated opposition to were they able to visit us today.

As I look at the current field of republican presidential candidates I am appalled at the weaknesses of as well as the shallowness of the party's candidates, Ron Paul of course excluded. As weak and lacking as our current President may be the current crop of republican hopefuls, again Ron Paul excluded, is equally as uninspiring.

So just where does that leave America? Given the shifting polls, and the recent rise of Newt Gingrich in South Carolina (he is doing well in Saturday's republican primaries) it perhaps portends a further loss of individual freedom and civil rights. All in the name of security and the right of the state to control individual liberty.

Remember my friends, socialism and fascism are statist in nature yet with distinctly different economic systems. Both are controlled by political and government bureaucracies that hold closely to each systems ideological perspective.

It is a fact America has been trending towards state fascism for some time. Yet "We the People" have it in our power to determine the future of our nation's political/economic structure. This of course does requires a well educated and engaged citizenry, something that's arguably lacking at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century.

Given modern realities the only question really is whether we as a nation have the will to make the choice for increased individual liberty and expanded opportunity for all. The choices we make today will most assuredly affect our children as well as our grandchildren and great grand children.

The choice is ours. What say you, the readers of Rational Nation USA.

President Obama the Socialist???



Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Question for Paul Krugman

So, dude, is it never possible to have a stimulus package that is TOO massive? I mean, seriously, that does seem to be what you're asserting. Of course, I also have to give you some credit for constructing such a fool-proof argument. I.E., if the stimulus package succeeds, you tell everybody, "See, I told you so", and if it doesn't work, you say, "Oops, it just wasn't big enough." Kind of brilliant (albeit, in a sleazeballish kind of way), if you're asking me.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Axelrod: Huntsman Dropped Because He Wouldn't Sell His Soul

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



From BuzzFeed

Jon Huntsman's withdrawal offers an opportunity for Democrats to make a play for the sliver of moderate Republicans to whom he appealed -- and also to make a broader point that the Republican Party is being pulled to the right, not to the left, by its most powerful forces.

"He was simply unwillingly to make the Faustian bargains with the Right that Romney has so willingly made," said David Axelrod, who is shaping Obama's re-election campaign.

That notion of a Republican Party -- and of a superficially moderate Romney -- hostage to Tea Party conservatives will be a central theme of the re-election campaign, and it's certainly a feature of Huntsman's failure to launch, if not the only one.

"He was a really poor candidate," shrugged another top Democrat. "He didn't get traction because he projected zero and managed to look really smug as he did so."

Now if only Axelrod could get the ideologues in his own party to display the noted sense of character and integrity shown by Governor Jon Huntsman.

I won't be holding my breath!

Via: Memeorandum

Martin Luther King Jr.... A Visionary as Well as a American Hero

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


Martin Luther King Jr.  (1929 - 1968)

Martin Luther King Jr., indeed a great man who believed not only in the right of all humans, every man and women, regardless of race or ethnicity to be treated with respect, dignity, and afforded the opportunity to reach the heights to which they aspired.

In honoring the memory of this great man and visionary Rational Nation USA brings to it's readership two his finest and defining speeches.





Further, in today's troubled and war torn realities it would serve us well to remember, and reflect deeply on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words with respect to war and its inherent evil.



Perhaps it is just this aging patriot, but I see many similarities between the foolish arguments used by the establishment of the 1960's (the Vietnam War era) and those used today by what should be a generation who has learned from history and the mistakes of prior generations.

Were Martin Luther King Jr. with us today I suspect he would be marching with Rep. Ron Paul in opposition to the MIC and in argument of the inherent good that is present in humankind if only we look to it.

Via: The King Center

Sunday, January 15, 2012

At the Intersection of Talent and Beauty - The Great Gene Tierney, Ladies and Gentlemen



It Comes As No Surprise Really...

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


Speaker of the House, John Boehner

Yes Mr. Speaker, you certainly have your share of troubles.

WASHINGTON — For Speaker John A. Boehner and House Republicans, returning to the Capitol this week could have the awkward feeling of a couple waking up after a night of fighting.

Mr. Boehner began 2011 with the heady wave of victory and ended the year in disarray when the Senate forced him and his members to accept a short-term extension of the payroll tax cut. Now, he begins the second session of the 112th Congress on defense, his leadership under scrutiny and his party facing an election-year attack from the White House.

His challenge is not only to rein in his restive conference but also to preserve his party’s majority even as he fends off President Obama, who is making Congress his central opponent in his re-election bid. And rank-and-file Republicans are itching for accomplishments, like reducing regulations and changing the tax code, to sell in their districts.

“He needs to be clear in what our strategy is,” said Representative Marlin Stutzman, a freshman Republican from Indiana. “I got chewed out by folks who said, ‘Why did you fold?’ I got scolded back home, and I don’t really like it.

“Leadership has to make decisions sometimes,” he added, “but we could at least be on the same page.”

The tensions among Republican lawmakers reflect the central problem that Mr. Boehner faced through several rounds of negotiations over federal spending last year. In his attempts to strike the kinds of bipartisan deals that voters say they crave, the speaker often gets ahead of his conservative membership and is then forced to retreat when he finds support lacking. {Read More}

Gee, what a predictable surprise!

Via: Memeorandum

Jon Huntsman... A Consevative Candidate Worth Considering

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


Jon Huntsman

Rational Nation USA has posted on just about every republican presidential hopeful in the field. All unflattering for the most part. Ron Paul being the single exception. Until today.

While this site remains supportive of, and advocates for Ron Paul's candidacy Jon Huntsmen offers a second choice for those, who like me, can barely stomach Newtie, Mittens, Ricky, or Mr Fine Hair.

Jon Huntsman has a wealth of experience as a ambassador, trade representative, and governor of the conservative state of Utah. He has by more credentials as a conservative than Mittens or Newtie. This is clearly illustrated in an article in The State, South Carolina's Homepage Sunday edition.

AFTER MONTHS of flirting with candidates who considered inexperience an asset, obstinance and vitriol a virtue and extremism — even flakiness — a job requirement, Republican voters seem to be settling down. Increasingly, they are rallying around a grownup who has impressive experience as a chief executive, in and out of government, and a history of making things work rather than pursuing ideological fetishes. Yet nearly two-thirds of Republican primary voters still reject Mitt Romney, and his opponents are convinced they can raise that number by screaming: “Moderate! Moderate! Moderate!”

You’d think that even if they don’t like it, those on the extremes would respect the fact that those of us in the sensible center decide general elections — and seek out a candidate who appeals to us. But the unhealthy demand for ideological purity obscures a hopeful fact about the GOP presidential field: There are actually two sensible, experienced grownups. And while Mr. Romney is far more appealing than any of the other choices, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is more principled, has a far more impressive resume and offers a significantly more important message.

Both men get tagged “moderate,” but for different reasons. Mr. Romney is a technocrat, a business leader who focuses on getting the job done. As governor, that meant governing in a way that suited Massachusetts. Today the job is winning the presidency, and if that means “evolving” in his views as the primary electorate swings further right, and running away from his signature accomplishment as governor, so be it.

Mr. Huntsman is a true conservative, with a record and platform of bold economic reform straight out of the free-market bible, but he’s a realist, whose goal is likewise to get things done. Under his leadership, Utah led the nation in job creation, and the Pew Center on the States ranked it the best-managed state in the nation.

He also is head and shoulders above the field on foreign policy. He served as President George H.W. Bush’s U.S. ambassador to Singapore and President George W. Bush’s deputy U.S. trade representative and U.S. trade ambassador, and the next entry on that resume is even more impressive: He was a popular and successful governor in an extremely conservative state, well positioned to become a leading 2012 presidential contender, when Mr. Obama asked him to serve in arguably our nation’s most important diplomatic post, U.S. ambassador to China. It could be political suicide, but he didn’t hesitate. As he told our editorial board: “When the president asks you to serve, you serve.”

We don’t agree with all of Mr. Huntsman’s positions; for but one example, he championed one of the nation’s biggest private-school voucher programs. And with George Will calling him the most conservative candidate and The Wall Street Journal editorial page endorsing his tax plan, independent voters might find less to like about his positions than, say, Mr. Romney’s or Newt Gingrich’s.

What makes him attractive are the essential values that drive his candidacy: honor and old-fashioned decency and pragmatism. As he made clear Wednesday to a room packed full of USC students on the first stop of his “Country First” tour, his goal is to rebuild trust in government, and that means abandoning the invective and reestablishing the political center. {Read More

For those not comfortable with Ron Paul Mr. Huntsman is certainly worth considering. He is by far a better and more qualified candidate than any of the remaining clowns in the big "R' circus tent.

Via: Memeorandum

Does Israel Have Justification For a Strike Against Iran?...

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



Israel certainly has reason for its concern over Iran's nuclear intentions. After all Iranian President Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the Israeli state.

Of course the leftist media and leftist blogistan finds little reason for concern.

Even the administration of our leftist leaning president Barack Obama has kept the possibility of a military strikes against Iran on the table. This is of course in the hope that talking tough will encourage Iran to scrap its nuclear weapons intentions which it so blithely denies having.

The Obama administration is warning Israel not to initiate a strike against Iran. Something Rational Nation USA has long felt is in the world's best interest.

If in fact Iran poses a strategic threat to U.S. and world security interests it would be in everyone's best interest for the U.S. {as well as the rest of the free world) to give the green light to Israel to strike.

Our position should be one of support only. Under no circumstance should the U.S. commit American military service personnel. Our role, as well as that of other free nations should be to supply weapons and moral support to the Israeli people and their government.

The Wall Street Journal had this in response to the issue:

WASHINGTON—U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Stepping up the pressure, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week.

The high-stakes planning and diplomacy comes as U.S. officials warn Tehran, including through what administration officials described Friday as direct messages to Iran's leaders, against provocative actions.

Tehran has warned that it could retaliate to tightened sanctions by blocking oil trade through the Strait of Hormuz. On Thursday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed to punish the perpetrators of the assassination—blamed by Iran on the U.S. and Israel—of an Iranian scientist involved in the nuclear program.

The U.S. denied the charge and condemned the attack. Israel hasn't commented.

The U.S. and Iran, however, have taken steps in recent days apparently designed to ease tensions. Iran has agreed to host a delegation of United Nations nuclear inspectors this month. The U.S., meanwhile, has twice this month rescued Iranian sailors in the region's seas.

Covert efforts by Israel's intelligence service to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons have been credited with slowing the program without the high risk of military conflict that could be sparked by an airstrike. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful uses.

But Israel has declined to rule out a strike, as has the U.S. {Read More}

Certainly Israel has the right to defend itself from a very real yet unjustified threat of extinction. The world at large has a ethical responsibility to support and help Israel to defend itself against the threat of annihilation.

However, no nation has a "duty" to commit the life of a single single citizen on the ground in the process.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Ricky Santorum... The Candidate for the Religous Right

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



Ricky Santorum, the hope of the Evangelicals. A man who believes the Judea Christian bible should be the foundation of our nation's ethics and therefore our moral compass.

It matters not to this man of mystical beliefs that our founding fathers went to great length to insure the separation of church and state. While it is proper to recognize the right of everyone to worship {or not} as they chose, it is absolutely inappropriate for elected government officials {especially the president} to give even a moments consideration to faith when determining how to govern.

Social conservatives are coalescing around Ricky Santorum in the hopes of forcing their ultra right wing Christian religious beliefs on the nation. Which in reality is no different than the ultra Islamist belief that they must force Islam on the entire western world.

Individuals like Ricky Santorum present the greatest danger to religious freedom and freedom of speech than anyone on the "left" ever has. You can take that to the bank.

Via The Hill:

A group of conservative activists decided Saturday to throw its support behind Rick Santorum in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council and a spokesman for the group of roughly 150 activists, said that a “strong consensus” emerged for the former Pennsylvania senator after a three-ballot process.

“I think it was vigorous discussion of who they felt best represented the conservative movement and who they think had the best chance of succeeding,” said Perkins, adding that he was surprised that the group was able to coalesce around one candidate.

The activists gathering in Texas, a week before South Carolina voters go to the polls in their primary, said their get-together was meant to unite behind an alternative to President Obama and not to “bash” Mitt Romney – the front-runner for the nomination who is viewed with skepticism within some conservative and evangelical circles.

But Perkins also said he did not believe the conservative leaders had weighed in too late to blunt Romney’s momentum, even though the former Massachusetts governor became the first non-incumbent Republican to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

The race, Perkins said, is “far from decided,” noting that Romney had just a handful of the delegates he needed to capture the nomination.

“This could be exactly the right time,” the social conservative leader said, calling South Carolina “a state that is more reflective of the social conservative movement.”

At the Texas event, Santorum got roughly three-quarters of the 114 votes on the final ballot, where he faced off against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas also received considerable support from the group, Perkins added.

“The group spent a good bit of time praying for unity and for consensus that could communicate the seriousness of the position this country is in,” Perkins said. “We don’t need to just change jerseys. We need to change the way we do business.” {Read More

There is fiscal conservatism based on the founding principles of limited constitutional governance, (which can be supported based on our constitution) and the new age social conservatism based on mystical religious beliefs which can only be supported on faith.

Given all available scientific data it is impossible to support the "social conservative" agenda, Unless of course science and reason are of no concern.

Via: Memorandum

Obama Shows His Political Savvy

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



One simply must acknowledge President Obama's political savvy. If anything it has gotten better the past few months.

Unless the opposing party gets it's proverbial sh*t together (or a very strong third party candidate emerges) it is quite likely Obama wins 2012 easily.

With Obama putting forward a proposal to consolidate four six government agencies into one with the purpose to streamline, eliminate duplicity, and save money, he is putting himself in a position usually occupied by conservatives.

From the Wall Street Journal.

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama proposed consolidating six trade and commerce agencies, drawing cautious praise from congressional Republicans and business groups, though business expressed concern that some of their favored advocates in Washington would lose clout.

As part of his proposal, which requires congressional approval, Mr. Obama would merge the Commerce Department's core business-related functions with five smaller agencies: the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency.

Mr. Obama said the consolidation would make it easier for business to navigate the federal bureaucracy, putting several agencies whose primary goal is the promotion of U.S. business, both at home and abroad, under one roof. In this case, "six isn't better than one," Mr. Obama said at the White House.

Congressional GOP leaders said the proposal had potential.

"Eliminating duplicative programs and making the federal government more simple, streamlined and business-friendly is always an idea worth exploring," said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican

But others in Congress and major business groups said they had particular concerns about folding the U.S. trade representative into a larger department, on the grounds that it would lose the clout and freedom that comes with an independent agency. The USTR negotiates trade deals and eases the way for U.S. commerce overseas.

"Taking USTR, one of the most efficient agencies that is a model of how government can and should work, and making it just another corner of a new bureaucratic behemoth would hurt American exports and hinder American job creation," House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said in a joint written statement.

John Murphy, vice president for international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, echoed that sentiment, saying the consolidation "makes sense" while questioning whether the USTR should be included in the shuffle. {Read More}

While this may appear to some as just another blatant grab for power it actually makes sense when viewed from a global economic perspective.

Three Billion New Capitalists, a book written by Clyde Prestowitz who served as an adviser to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan administration, points out the need  for the United States government and business to develop a partnership to channel the efforts of  our corporations in a direction that will strengthen our ability to compete in the global marketplace and stem the shift of wealth to the east.

His book highlights that we are the only industrialized nation that does not have a government department (Secretary status) to formulates policy and direct efforts in the best economic interests of their country. As Mr. Prestowitz says in his book, perhaps it is time we did.

If republicans are smart they will get the best of the best in their party to negotiate in good faith and iron out differences with the President's proposal. Then they will vote their approval. It is time this nation begin looking out for the economic interests of the entire country.

For anyone who hasn't read the book my suggestion is to spend a few bucks and get it. It covers a wide variety of topics including trade policy and how to become more competitive in the global marketplace. It should be of particular interest to the advocates of the free market. Rather than ending free markets as we know them the book shows ways to preserve the market and insure we still have a place at the table tomorrow and beyond.

Via: Memeorandum

Congressman Allan West Speaks Out On Behalf of U.S. Marines That Urinated On Dead Taliban Fighters

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



As the controversy over four U.S. Marines urinating on the dead corpses of Taliban fighters gets underway, and the politicians, media, and left blogistan begin what will perhaps likely turn into a crucifixion of the marines, Rep. Allan West has come forward and stood up for these soldiers.

Weekly Standard - “I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell."

War is hell, and as Rep. West noted the enemy has done far worse to Americans.

While these acts should not have occurred, those sitting at home all warm and safe drinking their mint juleps, or whatever, should consider deeply the situation these men were in everyday. And reflect on the atrocities the enemies of the United States have committed against our soldiers and civilians. Then cut them a bit of slack.

Thank you Rep. Allan West, for your voice of moderation.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The Progressive Spin Machine, Central Tenets

a) Anything good that happens during Obama's tenure, credit is given him. b) Anything bad that happens during Obama's tenure, blame George Bush. c) Rinse and repeat.............P.S. This was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek. There certainly ARE a fair assemblage of principled progressives who HAVE criticized Obama; his idiotic surge in Afghanistan, the huge # of civilian deaths in Northern Pakistan resulting from the drone attacks, his questionable association to Franklin Raines, etc.. But, overall, I'm saying, the Debbie Wasserman Schultzes of the planet - I'm surprised that that insane clown posse hasn't tried to blame Mr. Bush for the Tate Labianca murders.

Ron Paul... A Real Conservative

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


Ron Paul is the only candidate who will consistently remain true to fiscal conservative principals, libertarian social values, and the constitution. He has been doing so for over a quarter of a century.

America's troops overwhelmingly support Ron Paul.



And... He can beat Obama

Excerpt from The Economist...

... For conventionally right-wing party stalwarts like Mr Erickson, Ron Paul doesn't count as real Republican, because of his principled anti-war stance. Of course, that makes him a more authentic representative of smaller government, war being the health of the state and all, but that's beside the point. The conservative tribe professes faith in smaller government, and it is membership in the tribe that determines the authenticity of one's devotion to the tribe's catechism. Ron Paul isn't really a member of the tribe, so he cannot "authentically represent smaller government". He may represent smaller government in fact, but not in the right way. As votes from the Iowa caucuses were being tallied, Mr Erickson saw fit to relate to his readers a rumour that "the Occupiers showed up for Ron Paul". You get the idea.

The right time is now, Ron Paul is the right candidate.

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Thoughts for Today

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


Conservatives, usually the ones who least understand the ethical and moral principles of capitalism, proudly claim Ayn Rand as their heroine. Precisely because Ayn Rand was perhaps the world's strongest advocate for a true capitalistic society.

Lets see what Rand had to say about the conservative movement...

Today’s “conservatives” are futile, impotent and, culturally, dead. They have nothing to offer and can achieve nothing. They can only help to destroy intellectual standards, to disintegrate thought, to discredit capitalism, and to accelerate this country’s uncontested collapse into despair and dictatorship.

“Conservatism: An Obituary,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 199

It was the so-called “conservatives” . . . who ran to the government for regulations and controls [over the broadcasting industry], and who cheered the notion of “public property” and service to the “public interest.”

“The Property Status of the Airwaves,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 126

Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future—if mankind is to have a future. Those who wish to fight for it, must discard the title of “conservatives.” “Conservatism” has always been a misleading name, inappropriate to America. Today, there is nothing left to “conserve”: the established political philosophy, the intellectual orthodoxy, and the status quo are collectivism. Those who reject all the basic premises of collectivism are radicals in the proper sense of the word: “radical” means “fundamental.” Today, the fighters for capitalism have to be, not bankrupt “conservatives,” but new radicals, new intellectuals and, above all, new, dedicated moralists.

“Conservatism: An Obituary,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 201

There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies—that one has no rational arguments to offer. The “conservatives’” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith—that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason...


Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word “conservative” into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a “conservative” means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old...

This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization...

“Conservatism: An Obituary,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 196

It would be well for those who fancy themselves as conservatives, and advocates of capitalism to consider the above. Capitalism, if it is to survive the 21'st century is going to need individuals with vision, intellect, logic, the ability to reason, and a willingness to discard the old where the old no longer works. Such individuals will be the advocates for, and the defenders of capitalism if it going to survive this century into the next,

Republicans (conservative statists) who claim to understand capitalism, and Ayn Rand would do well to revisit (or actually read) her philosophical writings.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Partisan Politics and Irrationality from the Left

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


Steve Benen

I have rarely seen such a pandering load of excrement as Benen's analysis of Romney's statement regarding when one should decide to serve in public office. Benen's commentary is the epitome of unethical and divisive class warfare.

Following is Benen's irrational analysis of Romney s remarks.

Washington Monthly - About 10 hours after last night’s debate, the six Republican presidential candidates met again this morning for another debate, this time sponsored by NBC and Facebook.

This one was far livelier than its predecessor — maybe the GOP field is made up for morning people? — and one line in particular jumped out early on: Mitt Romney made the case that electoral politics is for wealthy people.

“I happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54 years old,” Romney said. “He had good advice to me. He said never get involved in politics if you have to win election to pay a mortgage. If you find yourself in a position when you can serve, you ought to have a responsibility to do so if you think you can make a difference, and don’t get involved in politics when your kids are still young because it may turn their heads.”

It’s an odd line for a candidate regularly accused of out-of-touch elitism. Only those who already have considerable wealth should “get involved in politics”? Really?

Well Mr. Steve (Knucklehead) Benen, seems as though your class warfare genes are in overdrive. Lets break down candidate Romney's statement shall we?

1) - “I happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54 years old,” Romney said. “He had good advice to me. He said never get involved in politics if you have to win election to pay a mortgage."

Good advice. Mr Romney's father was essentially telling his son that if his {and his eventual families) livelihood would be dependent on winning an election it would be in his son's (and his eventual family's) best interest to wait until this would not be an issue. Nowhere in this statement can one find any advice that the Jr. Romney should not be involves in support of candidates or causes he might someday believe in. In fact it is quite commonplace that political activists have real wage earning private sector jobs as they advocate for political positions.

2) "If you find yourself in a position when you can serve, you ought to have a responsibility to do so if you think you can make a difference, and don’t get involved in politics when your kids are still young because it may turn their heads.”

Continued good advice. Mr. Romney's father is in essence saying that the interest of ones children should, indeed must, come first, even ahead of the nation's politics and a persons desire to serve in public office. The elder Romney also is saying that when the time is right, when the family is secure and the children no longer need the degree of undivided attention that youthful offspring require it is in fact ones obligation to serve if they feel they have something to offer and can make a difference.

And now, Mr. Steve (Knucklehead) Benen's hypothetical "follow-up question."

Here’s the follow-up question: if there’s some blue-collar worker in Ohio, who cares about public service and is thinking about asking his neighbors for their vote, should he or she stand aside and allow some rich person to “get involved in politics” instead?

Please forgive me for the bluntness that is to follow. It is not my usual style. However, given the complete idiocy of Mr.Knucklehead's premise, and his follow-up I simply cannot help myself.

[Addressing] Mr. Steve (Knucklehead) Benen... Certainly if a blue color worker in Ohio who cares about public service and is contemplating asking his neighbors to support him with their vote should do so. If he is single and without the responsibly of family and or a mortgage by all means he should.

On the other hand,  if said individual has a family with younger children, a mortgage, as well as other financial obligations that are part of passage through this life it is reasonable to conclude that then is not the time to run for office when {potentially} losing an election will result in an interruption of income. This is especially true in this day and age of {Obama} uncertainty in the job market. Given these circumstances, while running for office would certainly be  ill advised it does make ultimate sense to get active in supporting a cause or a candidate on a voluntary basis. One that allows for continuation of income until such time as a loss of income would not adversely affect family welfare, thus allowing the individual to seek public office with the knowledge that if they lost the family would still be okay.

Certainly there are many views with respect to this subject. This is well and good. However to paint former Gov. Romney in the way Steve (Knucklehead) Benen did is reprehensible and is partisan politics at its worst.

Ans I'm not even a Romney supporter.

Via: Memorandum

Oh, by the way, here's the rest of the article

The Architect of Obama's Vision for a Leaner Military

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



Given President Obama's recent speech on his "vision" for slimming down and streamlining our military, yet keeping it responsive and battle ready, one must ask from where the Presidents "vision" came.

For those who remember Donald Rumsfeld it seems the President, and his advisers have bought into essentially what Rumsfeld was taking about during his tenure as Secretary of Defense under GWB.

Here's the report:

THE HILL - An unexpected name started popping up after President Barack Obama laid out his new defense strategy: Donald Rumsfeld.

Obama and Pentagon leaders used words like “leaner” and “agile” Thursday in describing the kind of military they intend to build.

Senior Pentagon officials said the leaner, more agile force Obama’s new strategy envisions is necessary so the force can both fight a major conflict while also quickly responding to a number of other situations and conflicts.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the envisioned force’s “greatest strength” is that it would be “more agile, flexible, ready to deploy, innovative and technologically advanced.”

The commander in chief acknowledged in the strategy that, “yes, our military will be leaner.”

“But the world must know — the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats,” Obama said.

If those descriptions sound familiar, they should.

When George W. Bush appointed Rumsfeld to be defense secretary after the 2000 election, the two-time Pentagon chief set about his so-called “transformation agenda.”

Rumsfeld, too, wanted a leaner, meaner military able to adapt quickly to various situations and deploy quickly.

“We need rapidly deployable, fully integrated joint forces capable of reaching distant theaters quickly and working with our air and sea forces to strike adversaries swiftly, successfully, and with devastating effect,” then-secretary Rumsfeld said in January 2002.

“We need improved intelligence, long-range precision strikes, sea-based platforms to help counter the access denial capabilities of adversaries,” Rumsfeld said. The latter is a major thrust of the new Obama defense plan.

“While transformation requires building new capabilities and expanding our arsenal, it also means reducing stocks of weapons that are no longer necessary for the defense of our country,” Rumsfeld said nearly a decade ago.

Echoing “Rummy,” Obama and Panetta said Thursday the Pentagon will begin, starting with the 2013 spending plan it will unveil in coming weeks, to terminate Cold War-era weapon programs. {Read More}

Who whudda thunk?

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Santorum Proves Himself Out of the Mainstream on Same Sex Unions... and Reproductive Rights

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA

Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum, the social conservative, is gaining recognition and exposure following his Iowa dead heat finish with the Mittens Romney. As expected Santorum is playing heavily to the Christian right as he moved into New Hampshire.

Just what the country needs. Another high minded holy roller seeking the highest office in the land. The rights of gays to lead normal and constitutionally supported lifestyles is finally gaining majority support in the arena of governance. Roe -v- Wade was decided forty years ago and is best left alone as well. Enter Rick Santorum, the conservative values crusader.

Santorum on gays...

The Miami Herald MANCHESTER, N.H. -- For the second time in as many days, Rick Santorum on Friday drew attention away from his efforts to craft a blue-collar economic message by wading into the issue of gay marriage. He suggested it was so important for children to have a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent.

Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "he found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids, were still better than no father at all to have in their childrens' lives."

Allowing gays to marry and raise children, Santorum added, amounts to "robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have right to. You may rationalize that that isn't true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it's true."

Skip

Santorum's comments on gay parents came a day after he tangled with college students over same sex marriage. The former Pennsylvania senator has been a conservative crusader on social issues, which have far more political resonance in Iowa than New Hampshire.

At a private boarding school, Santorum's voice grew emotional as he argued that only a man and woman should be able to marry. "Marriage is not a right," said Santorum. "It's a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason...We want to encourage what is the best for children."

The audience, half students and half local residents, reacted with snorts and applause. The students at Dublin School, which runs from ninth through 12th grades, were primed for Santorum's visit, said headmaster Brad Bates. He said three students in the audience had gay parents, though they were not among those who asked about the topic. {Full Article}

Indeed Mr. Santorum. While everyone can certainly respect your individual religious inspired beliefs there is a majority that disagrees with you. And they do so on sound constitutional principles. As would be expected they certainly do not want your personal {very narrow minded} beliefs imposed on all of American society.

There are many who understand and support the definition of traditional marriage as the union of one man and one women. This is the 21st century and the realities of same sex attractions has gained acceptance because those who are attracted to the same sex do so as a result of nature, not because they choose to be "different." Being homosexual is not something one thinks about and then suddenly decides they are gay.

Once upon a time I considered myself to be an "independent conservative", until I realized the term really means nothing. So during the process of reevaluation I came to the understanding that labels limit, particularly when there is no clear understanding of what the hell the label really mean. During the process of reevaluation it became clear, crystal clear that "classical liberalism" is the only term that has well defined principles {thus meaning} as well as withstanding the passing of time.

So it is with this in mind I reprint an article {written in August 2010} in support of the rights of sex couples. While those on the far left may take issue with some minor points the article defines what any reasonable person should be able accept. Candidate Santorum would do well to realize the truth.

Daily Caller - California’s Proposition 8 has once again brought the issue of gay marriage onto the national stage. It is likely headed to the Supreme Court, which, to me, seems crazy. After all, why should it take the High Court to decide an issue that the government should not be concerned with in the first place?

Intolerance is often on display on both sides of the ideological spectrum — intolerance to pursue one’s own happiness, free from the constraints of the state, continues to plague America. A vision and desire of some individuals to peaceably live their lives as they see fit is dismissed out of hand by those who are intolerant or fearful of that which they do not understand.

The justification for the inequities gays and lesbians experience is primarily based on religion and tradition. Given modern societies’ enlightened views, it seems only rational to question what seems to be a Dark Ages mentality with respect to the issue of gay marriage.

Once religious considerations and societal biases are put aside, it becomes possible to look at the gay marriage issue in a clearer, less unemotional way. When one applies reason — rather than bias, religious beliefs, or fear — to this issue, one begins to realize that gay marriage will not doom the United States. In truth, “straight” individuals aren’t affected by the sexual orientation gay people.

Some opponents of gay marriage argue that gay and lesbian couples should not be able to call their unions “marriage.” This is a legitimate argument in that words have meaning, and the accepted meaning of marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Arguments that conceptual meanings should not change to accommodate the desires of a small group are valid.

This point however is ancillary, and I digress.

Proponents of gay marriage have two very strong supporting actors: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A minority has the same inalienable rights as a majority. And the individual is the smallest minority known to humankind.

Our Declaration of Independence, in its opening words proclaims that “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.”

No one questions gay people’s right to life. But what about their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are they free to enter into loving relationships and receive the same benefits that opposite-sex couples receive?

No, gay people are not free to enjoy the same benefits individuals in opposite-sex unions enjoy. Yes, their happiness is affected by this reality. Anyone who holds up the Declaration of Independence as a guiding document of our Republic must stand behind its words.

The Constitution is a contract between the people and their government. One of its primary aims is to protect vulnerable minorities from the tyranny of the majority. This is of particular note in California, where voters rejected gay marriage at the ballot box. Can a majority deny an individual the right to peaceably live his life as he sees fit?

My simple answer is no. If your answer is yes, then who is to say that your lifestyle, religion, or ethos will not be next?

Les Carpenter III has spent thirty-one years in manufacturing management. He has held positions from front line supervision to executive management and is currently employed with an East Coast manufacture of games. In addition to his management responsibilities he is Editor-in-Chief of Rational Nation USA, an East Coast Conservative/Libertarian political blog.

So Mr. Santorum, you might want to reconsuder the validity of your premise. There are a lot more that support the opinion expressed in the Daily Caller article than not. Don't forget Mr. Presidential hopeful if you should be so lucky as to sit in "The Big Chair" one day that you represent all the people. Not just the minority you identify with, and besides, that minority is already protected from the tyranny of the majority. They are free to lead the lifestyle you so vocally advocate. As am I, my wife, and our children.

And now a bit of Santorum's position on abortion...

THE POLITICAL GUIDE - Senator Santorum is stronly pro-life. He has repeatedly asserted that life begins at conception and that that life should be protected under law. Senator Santorum does not beleive in the exceptions that some pro-life people grant for rape. He has stated that the life that results from a rape is innocent and deserving of the protection of the law.

In a 2011 interview, Senator Santorum spoke in a radio interview about his pro-life stances and desire to see Roe vs Wade overturned and the decision on the legalization of abortion returned to the people and the states.

In March of 2011, Senator Santorum generated controversy when he stated that abortion had contributed to the pressure on social security by lessening the number of people in the subsequent generations. He stated that a third of the potential population had not been born due to abortion.

In April of 2011, Senator Santorum discussed his opposition to funding for groups such as Planned Parenthood. He added that the origins of Planned Parenthood were related to eugenics and racism and that the modern day actions of the nation mirror those purposes as abortion clinics are located in predominately minority and poor neighborhoods. {Read More}

Fear, lacking rational argument, should not be a driver of either national or state policy.

Via: Memeorandum

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails