Tuesday, July 31, 2012

When the Truth is Inconvenient...

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


The left ignores it...

New York Post - While in Israel, Mitt Romney said something every sane person knows to be true: There is great cultural and political meaning in the fact that Israel has prospered while the Palestinians have festered.

“Culture,” Romney said, “makes all the difference . . . you notice a dramatic, stark difference in economic vitality.”

He didn’t specify what he meant by “culture,” but you can take your pick.

You want a political culture that works to create conditions under which an economy can thrive? Since signing the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, Israel has spent two decades working to unshackle its economy from its socialist roots, with remarkable results.

The Palestinians? They’ve created what the House Foreign Affairs Committee has called a “chronic kleptocracy,” with foreign aid and investment shamelessly stolen and diverted to the bank accounts of the leaders of the Palestinian Authority and its gangsterish local strongmen.

According to Jim Zanotti of the Congressional Research Service, Uncle Sam has given the Palestinians $5 billion since 1994. We might as well have lit a match to most of it. It hasn’t gotten to the people who might’ve used it best; it’s simply served as personal financial lubricant for the folks in power.

You want a healthy social culture? The Middle East Media Research Institute has spent decades detailing the diseased messages emanating from Palestinian TV and textbooks, instructing children in the glories of suicide terrorism against innocent Israelis.

You want a culture where citizens are free to express themselves and so live in the openness necessary to the functioning of a successful economy? Israel has a free press, much of it openly hostile to the parties in power. The Palestinian Authority has arrested and tortured critical journalists, as well as conducted denial-of-service attacks against Web sites reporting on corruption.

And this doesn’t even take into account Hamas, the radical terror group in charge of Gaza. It, too, has lived parasitically, sucking the life out of the Palestinian economy.

In 1993, pre-Oslo, the GDP in the territories was $2.9 billion, according to the World Bank. In 2011, it was something like $10.5 billion — a small increase when you consider population growth.

In Israel, the GDP has risen from $66 billion in 1993 to a stunning $243 billion in 2011 — per capita, from $12,500 to $31,000.

One reason Palestinian economic growth has been so disastrously slow is the terror war that Yasser Arafat launched against Israel in 2000 — the “second Intifada.”

It shattered Israeli hopes for peaceful concert with a new neighboring country, and led to an economic estrangement that proved horribly costly to Palestinians. Israelis stopped employing Palestinian workers and stopped buying Palestinian goods. Transit and trade between the two became difficult and painful.

And whose fault was it? Israel, which agreed in principle to a deal at Camp David in 2000 granting Palestinians a state with sovereign dominion over nearly 94 percent of the West Bank? No, it was exclusively the doing of Arafat, who served as a reverse George Washington — rejecting nationhood for the violence he understood better.

So Romney said Israel has done better than the areas under Palestinian control because Israeli culture is healthier. That’s not only true, it’s a necessary thing to say — because the refusal to say it and accept it contributes to the continuing immiseration and unfreedom of the Palestinians themselves. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, July 30, 2012

As Election Day Nears the Nation Is Locked In a Struggle To Remain Unchanged...

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


It is true this nation is divided politically and socially. It is also true the division is almost split equally along politically driven ideological lines.

Is it any wonder then that we are seeing such a heightened degree of rancor and fighting over which direction this nation should take. It likely will get much dirtier and more disgusting over he next 100 days until election time.

Are both parties, and by extension their advocates, equally as guilty of playing the disingenuous game of one ups man ship? Absolutely! My guesstimate is that the majority of people will continue to look at, and cast aspersion and blame on their "opponents" on the "other side." 

Apparently it makes everyone feel good believing their views are forever right and the other sides views are forever wrong. Maybe it's just human nature. If there is really any such thing as human nature.

And so it is in the 21st century we continue to hash out the same old issues, using the same old premises and arguments, and by and large we continue to arrive at the same old conclusions. At least that's how this individual sees it. What is the definition of insanity again?

At this critical juncture in our nations history and development, "We the People" are evenly divided in our views, yet each seem unwilling to look for, let alone find reasonable solutions to common problems.

It is almost as if the people realize something is dramatically wrong with the direction of their nation but they are unwilling to vote for candidates that think outside the box and are not beholden to the ideologies of the conventional "mainstream" parties.

I for one am not afraid to "step outside of the box of conventionality" and therefore will be voting for none of the ideologically corrupt major party candidates. If the people of this nation really want and expects different results perhaps they ought to consider voting accordingly.

And now this from The Hill:

Mitt Romney holds thin advantages over President Obama on leadership, personal values and honesty, according to a new poll for The Hill.

The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, suggests voters see little difference between the candidates on character issues that Democrats have cited as key to Obama’s appeal.

It found 48 percent of voters consider Romney the stronger leader, compared to 44 percent who favored Obama.

Similarly, 47 percent of likely voters also said Romney most shares their values while 44 percent picked Obama.

When asked which candidate voters considered more honest and trustworthy, 46 percent said Romney and 44 percent said Obama — a result within the poll’s 3 percentage point margin of error.

The results may prompt new questions about the effectiveness of the Obama campaign’s effort to characterize Romney as a calculating former corporate executive who has little in common with ordinary voters.

The findings could also raise a red flag for Obama, who analysts say needs to maintain a strong personal connection with voters to balance off his chief political weakness — the economy.

“I think in a very close election — which this one promises to be — those intangibles do make a difference and it could be a decisive difference for some people,” Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University, told The Hill.

“Even before Romney was the [de facto Republican] nominee, Obama’s character and personality always polled better than his policies and better than his performance,” Jillson said. “If he were being evaluated purely on performance, he would be in great difficulty.”

The poll found 93 percent of voters consider “policies and competence” more important than “likability” when choosing who to support for president. {Read More}

Isn't it time to look at a real alternative? Or will we once again be content as a people to elect more of the same old same old? The only difference really being the choice of the path that is selected.

History has shown us, if we are paying attention, that all paths essentially have been leading us to the same eventual cliff. Perhaps we're satisfied knowing someday the nation will ultimately end up at the brink, all the while telling ourselves it won't really happen.

Taking a chance for real change is hard. People are creatures of habit.

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Deja Vu...?

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


2012 Newsweek cover

It failed in 1987.

1987 Newsweek cover

Will it fail again?

BuzzFeed - Newsweek was beyond silly when it called former World War II Naval aviator and savvy Texas oilman George HW Bush a “wimp” on its cover in 1987. The magazine returns to the same failed playbook now with its cover on Governor Romney. The fact is that Mitt Romney is a steely-nerved businessman, who has turned around failed companies, the corruption-plagued 2002 Olympic Winter Games and an almost-bankrupt Massachusetts – against all odds in each case. Moreover, he has raised a great family with his wife, Ann. Notwithstanding these sorts of ridiculous attacks, the American people elected President Bush in 1988 and they will send Governor Romney to the White House in 100 days to turn around this economy.

What say you?

Via: Memeorandum

Mitt is a Hit in Jerusalem...

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


Mitt Romney displaying the diplomacy a presidential candidate should. Perhaps more importantly Mitt Romney made clear that America would stand stand behind Israel in the face of threats to their sovereignty or their very existence.

One can only assume that Romney meant if he were elected president of the U.S.A. this coming November 2012.

While not a Romney supporter per se (my man in the race is Gary Johnson) I am encouraged by the candidates commitment to a democratic nation not unlike own own. I believe his support is sincere and that Romney certainly places the importance of Israeli - U,S. relations far above that demonstrated by President BHO.



Read some very rational and excellent commentary at Daniel Pipes Blog.

In the interest of being equitable and balanced Rational Nation USA presents the opposing views from the Progressive Eruptions. Hopefully you weren't having dinner as you read the commentary at PE..

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, July 27, 2012

Mayor Bloomberg Standing Against Goosestepping Insanity...

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



Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg. With all the political uproar over Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's support for traditional marriage values and spending heavily to thwart gay marriage efforts, Mayor Bloomberg will not prevent the company from doing business in NYC. Unlike the Mayor's of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco who have all went on record as supporting efforts to keep the company from doing business in "their" cities.

Politicker - Despite Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s advocacy for a healthier diet and strong support for gay marriage, he’s cold on the idea of banning Chick-fil-A within the five boroughs.

As mayors around the country — including Boston’s, Chicago’s and San Francisco’s — are backing efforts to keep the fast food chain out of their cities due to the company’s president, Dan Cathy, spending millions to push back against gay marriage, Mr. Bloomberg said it’s “a bad idea and it’s not going to happen” on John Gambling’s radio show this morning.

“They’re all friends but I disagree with them really strongly on this one,” Mr. Bloomberg said of his mayoral colleagues. “You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city. You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit, that’s just not government’s job.”

Mr. Bloomberg went on to argue that blocking a business based on their political beliefs opens a potential slippery slope where liberal cities block conservative establishments and vice versa with conservative cities.

“Freedom of speech — everybody’s in favor of it as long as it’s what they want to hear,” he explained. “Well the only way that you have your freedom of speech is if you give other people freedom of speech. … This is just a bad idea and it’s not going to happen in New York City.” {Read More}

Meanwhile over in Bean Town, as Boston is affectionately called by it's inhabitants, Mayor Menino, like the good goose stepper he is has decided to take the left's approved "political correct" approach to keeping a legitimate business from operating in "his city" because he disapproves of the views of it's management. Even though there exists no evidence the business operate in a discriminatory manner against the gay community.

However it is no problem, at least for Mayor Menino anyway, to give away land (valued at 1.8 million) at under market value to an organization who had in its leadership ranks a man who is on record as saying homosexuality is a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Details as reported by the The Boston Herald.com

Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Actually, he has done that  . . . and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.

During the (understandable) controversy over the city selling land for a house of worship at a below-market rate a decade ago, reporters discovered that the Islamic Society of Boston counted imam Yusef al-Qaradawi as one of its spiritual guides. As the Weekly Standard reported at the time:

“The ISB does not dispute the fact that they have repeatedly used al-Qaradawi as a tool to raise funds for the Boston mosque, printing a brochure that highlighted al-Qaradawi’s enthusiastic support of the mosque and playing a videotaped message of support from him at a 2002 gathering.”

Also in attendance at the gathering, listening to al-Qaradawi’s message: Mayor Tom Menino.

Skip

OK, Mr. Mayor. But when you gave all that land to the ISB at a song, here’s what imam al-Qaradawi was teaching:

“[A homosexual should be given] the same punishment as any sexual pervert  . . . Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them.”

According to the Anti-Defamation League, “In 2003 Qaradawi stated on IslamOnline that the punishment of homosexuality is the death penalty.”

In the end, says the anti-Islamist organization MEMRI, al-Qaradawi came down on the side of stoning.

Hey — say what you want about Chick-fil-A, but they aren’t trying to kill anyone. Other than, perhaps, via hardening of the arteries.

Chick-fil-A wants to come to Boston, pay taxes and put people to work. Menino says “no” because the CEO thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. {Read More}

Liberal Mayor Bloomberg made the decision he did because? I suppose it is because it is the only rational one. More importantly however he made his decision because it is the right one, on every level.

Mayor Menino and his counterparts in Chicago and San Francisco are making the wrong decision because? I'd like to believe it's because they don't know any better. But really, I think it's because they owe their political existence to the goosestepping politically correct intolerant left.

That's my take, what's yours?

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Memeorandum

Brits See Romney As Worse Than, Gasp... Sarah Palin

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


The Gaffers

As Mittens Romney continues to find no shortage of opportunity to help "the other side" the Brits find him on the same level, or worse, than Sarah Palin. Simply AMAZING. This candidate takes one step forward followed by two steps backwards.

Politicususa - The British reaction to Mitt Romney has gone from openness, to skepticism, to mocking, to concluding that Mitt Romney is worse than Sarah Palin.

Daily Mail Political Editor James Chapman has been providing the world a play by play of Romney’s British implosion via his Twitter account. Romney started things off by criticizing London’s preparedness for the Olympics. He then forgot the name of British Labour Leader Ed Miliband, and then he admitted that he had been given a secret briefing by MI6. This led the British to ask aloud if they have another George W. Bush on their hands, “Romney blunders again by revealing he’s had (supposedly) top secret briefing by John Sawers, MI6 boss. Do we have a new Dubya on our hands?”

After his visit to Whitehall, Chapman offered two of the kinder reviews of Mitt Romney, “Serious dismay in Whitehall at Romney debut. ‘Worse than Sarah Palin.’ ‘Total car crash’. Two of the kinder verdicts.” Chapman also reported another verdict from British meet and greet with Mitt, “Another verdict from one Romney meeting: ‘Apparently devoid of charm, warmth, humour or sincerity’”

Getting compared to Sarah Palin is one thing, but being called worse than Palin is an indication of the epic display of fail that Romney is putting on in London.

If you thought things couldn’t possibly get worse for Mitt Romney, you were wrong. How does one top being unfavorably compared to Sarah Palin? If you’re Mitt Romney, you get mocked in front of 60,000 people.

The Telegraph is reporting that London Mayor Boris Johnson mocked Romney’s readiness comment, “Quite a moment from the Mayor of London Boris Johnson. Shortly after Rix had lit the flame he really went for it in Hyde Park. He referenced Mitt Romney’s ‘London isn’t ready’ quip and shot back in style. “Are we ready?” he called and the crowd went wild. There may even have been a hint of the Obama-friendly “Yes we can!” in there – he may have jumped into a winning scenario but I’ve not heard a politician get that reaction before.”

For their part, the White House rubbed salt in Romney’s wounds by pointing out that President Obama has full confidence in Britain’s ability to provide a secure Olympics... {Read More}

Okay, I realize the Politicususa is a far left leaning commentary on Romney's lack of diplomacy and display of ineptitude. I also recognize that Romney is actually more intelligent than Sara Palin. But the point is the man is running for the highest office in our country and such lack of diplomacy certainly is not something any of us should be comfortable with.

Romney obviously suffers from loose lips syndrome. As they say, "loose lips sink ships." I suppose that is the ultimate point.

There is an Alternative.

Via: Memeorandum

As Mittens Stumbles...

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


As Mittens stumbles the Obama White House tales full political and diplomatic advantage.

Yahoo News - Dear Britain: The White House wants you know that even if Mitt Romney may harbor doubts about your ability to pull off the Olympics, President Barack Obama "has the utmost confidence" in you. In fact, the Obama administration would also like Israel and Poland—the two countries the Republican standard-bearer will visit next—to know it has their back, too.

White House press secretary Jay Carney kicked off his daily briefing Thursday by describing in some detail how Obama's top homeland security and counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, had led a discussion with key security officials "to take stock of our efforts, working with the United Kingdom, to prepare for the London 2012 Olympic Games."

Brennan then discussed the issue with Obama, who "directed that we continue to ensure that we are doing everything possible to keep the American people safe and to continue close cooperation with our British counterparts," Carney said. "In keeping with our special relationship, the president also made it clear that he has the utmost confidence in our close friend and ally the United Kingdom as they finalize preparations to host the London Olympics," Carney told reporters.

That none-too-subtle message came after Romney, who often cites his experience running the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ruffled feathers in Britain by telling NBC in an interview Wednesday he wasn't sure London was ready.

"You know, it's hard to know just how well it will turn out," Romney told NBC. "There are a few things that were disconcerting. The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials … that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

On Thursday, in apparent damage-control mode, Romney emerged from a meeting with British Prime Minister David Cameron with a different message. "What I see shows imagination and forethought and a lot of organization, and I expect the Games to be highly successful," Romney said.

So was the White House announcement of Brennan's security briefing linked to Romney's trip?

"The answer is no," Carney said. "I'm just trying to fill you in on the president's day."

That remark drew laughter from reporters. But there's no evidence of any political motive. The United States has no stauncher allies than Britain, Israel or Poland—as many a president has said before—and top officials are virtually in constant contact... {Read More}

Could Romney be as gaffe prone as the white haired balding Joe Biden? Or gasp, Sarah Palin?

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Mittens In Need Of Coaching On Diplomacy...

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


Mitt Romney and British Prime Minister David Cameron                                               Charles Dharapak/AP

Among Mitten's several other shortcomings it appear diplomacy is likely one of them.

The Boston Globe - The British media and Prime Minister David Cameron himself tweaked Mitt Romney Thursday, after the presumptive Republican presidential nominee suggested Great Britain right not be ready for its Olympic moment.

“It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out,” said Romney, who ran the 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City. “There are a few things that were disconcerting: the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.”

Those comments, made Wednesday in London during an interview with NBC News, came at the outset of a European and Middle East trip aimed at burnishing Romney’s foreign affairs bona fides.

This screen grab shows the headline from the Daily Mail Online.

Instead, they prompted a rebuke from Cameron, the Conservative leader who is viewed by some as a supporter of President Obama after lavishing praise on the incumbent Democrat earlier this year.

“We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world,” Cameron told reporters after visiting the venues where the 2012 Summer Olympics will begin Friday. “Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.”

Ouch! Mitt, you had that one coming ya know.

Local newspapers were equally tart.

The Daily Mail Online carried a headline, “Who invited him? US presidential hopeful Mitt Romney questions British public’s appetite for the Games during visit to London.”

The Telegraph wrote: “Mitt Romney questions whether Britain is ready for Olympic Games.”

London Mayor Boris Johnson also chimed in during a rally in Hyde Park, saying to the crowd of 60,000 people, “Mitt Romney wants to know whether we’re ready! Are we ready?” He was greeted with a hearty, “Yes.”

Both Romney and Cameron were more diplomatic after a face-to-face meeting at No. 10 Downing St., the prime minister’s residence. It came during a series of meeting with British officials as Romney plunged into a six-day foreign trip that will also take him to Israel and Poland. {Read More}

Having gotten it right with the Obama, "you didn't build that" quote it seems he has begun to shoot himself in the foot again with this one, and the Holmes got his weapons illegally comment.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Excuse Us Mr. President, We Did Build It...

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


Forgive the Picture of Truth - I Just wasn't In a Politically Correct Mood Today!

Finally people are beginning to get it. That President Obama really believes government is the engine behind job creation. That the business(s) that people created and built was the result of somebody  else building it for them.

Of course this "somebody else" would be government. Can there be any question but what this President is all about building the government infrastructure and creating government (non productive) jobs to support the private sector that after all doesn't build a thing by itself?

POWERLINE - The Romney campaign has been heavily pressing their “you didn’t build that” attacks for the past ten days and Wednesday is their biggest push yet with events with small business owners in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada. …

In events at small businesses in locations as varied as Waukesha, Wis. to Palm Beach, Fla. to Columbus, Ohio, entrepreneurs will express their anger at the “you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen” line.

Lou Ramos, a small business owner from Tampa, will be at his local event. He owns an information technology and computer training company called Value Enterprise Solutions, Inc. and he said the president’s comments made him “almost throw up when I heard it.”

Ramos is a 64 year old Hispanic veteran, serving in the military from 1973-97, including two tours at the Pentagon, and he said he did read and watch all of the president’s comments in context, not just the two sentences continually highlighted by the campaign.

“I heard the whole thing and I read it,” Ramos told ABC News, mentioning he did like Obama when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. “I heard the whole thing…The guy was talking sincere…This guy thinks success is about government hand outs and not perseverance.”

Skip

As could be expected, and rightfully so small business owners are taking issue with the President idiotic and irrational views.

[Former Raleigh mayor and North Carolina GOP chairman Tom Fetzer] read the speech the President gave earlier this month in Roanoke, Virginia word for word during the event, to underscore they weren’t taking it out of context.

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” he read.

But it was the line, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen,” that offended so many Americans.

“I didn’t take it out of context, I just, I think it was a jab. I don’t know why,” Snoopy’s co-owner Larry Cerilli said.


From a group out of Tampa Florida the same rational sentiments being expressed by those living in the real world.


I don't know if this President really lives in the make believe land of rainbows and unicorns or not. I suspect he doesn't. But for a man supposedly brilliant beyond question, at lest in the eyes of the progressive left, to utter such words of foolishness should cause every American to seriously question this man's ability, and capabilities to govern this nation with all its challenges and complexities.

Certainly the progressives will remind us of the many, some inexcusable failings of the GWB administration. Their concerns over GWB's shortcomings are, or rather were justifiable. It is HOWEVER now almost four years into the Obama administration and government dependency continues to grow, up by nearly 25%.. This, combined with the now stated belief  by the President ( in his own words and in a moment of  personal honesty)  that individual initiative and perseverance, often combined with the business owner going without as their business grows and they provided jobs and income for others, is reason enough to scare all Americans and cause them to consider voting for anybody but Obama. Regardless of their current or heretofore party affiliation.

Simply put, irrespective of any other consideration, the President's most recent (and sincere) enunciation of his philosophy and beliefs deserves rejection by the American people. Their vote to remove him from office in Jovember of 2012 would be completely justified.

Read the full text at POWERLINE here.

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Obama Administration Approves Exemption From DOD Policy for Political Reasons...

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


Having posted both in defense of civil unions for same sex couples and most recently in support of same sex marriages I non the less found the decision by the Obama administration as outlined below out of line for the reasons stated by two Republican lawmakers.

The issue is policy and until such time as the policy is changed exceptions should not be made.

Republican lawmakers are blasting the Pentagon's decision to allow troops to march in uniform at a San Diego gay-pride parade last week.

Two senior Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services committees said Tuesday that the Pentagon was out of line to grant the one-time exemption that allowed military uniforms in the parade.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said the Pentagon made a “dangerous exception” to its policy of not allowing military uniforms in parades. In a statement, the Armed Forces Readiness subcommittee chairman said that the decision was made to advance the Obama administration’s social agenda.

“I am calling on the DOD to halt these dangerous exceptions to policy for political purposes. This decision was an outrageous and blatantly political determination issued solely to advance this administration’s social agenda,” Forbes said in a statement Tuesday. {Emphasis Mine}

"Sadly, this is yet another violation in what has become a pattern of this administration’s assault on the longstanding history of the Department of Defense as a nonpolitical organization,” he said.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking for an explanation behind making the exemption in light of the military's "unambiguous regulations" to preserve its apolitical stance.

Skip

Both Inhofe and Forbes said that the Pentagon’s decision to allow the service members to participate in the parade in uniform was in clear violation of Defense Department rules on participation in political activities while in uniform.

Forbes pointed to a press release from San Diego LGBT Pride that said the inclusion of military uniforms was helping celebrate the “growing list of states with marriage equality.” {Read More}

Of course Obamaites will find a way to politicize this issue on grounds totally irrelevant to the issue of policy violation and maintaining the military's a political posture.

What we have come to expect from Obama and his supporters.

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, July 23, 2012

Finnding the Right Tone, the Right Discussion, and the Right Answers... Is It Even Possible?

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


Two Men Contemplating the Moon

I was going to do a wrap up post on the carnage that occurred in Aurora Colorado last Friday. I was hoping to write something that might give way to maybe finding some rational and common ground for productive discussion. However, after seeing the obvious rancor and "it's our way or no way" comments from those of both views on firearms control, as well as the often groundless accusations being hurled back and forth I decided why bother.

Our best hope really is to follow a Thomas Jefferson quote which says in part "Fix reason firmly in its seat...". I'm not holding out any chance this will happen and therefore I can find no reason to continue a discussion of the issue here. So I am posting a couple of links where the discussion has been on going and likely will continue for some time. My guess of course is the discussion will end in stalemate with the proponents of both views declaring victory while in fact nothing at all will have been accomplished.

Western Hero and Progressive Eruptions argue the firearm control issue back and forth relatively effectively. For those who have not visited these sites it's worth the time to do so and poke around awhile. Which site has reason most firmly fixed in its seat. Or perhaps more to the point is there a more rational way? And if so should it not be the people's responsibility to work it out?

Side note, be sure to check this out.

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, July 22, 2012

On the Heels of Aurora... Demagoguery

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


On the heels of a lunatic madman's senseless violence in Aurora Colorado Friday the demagoguery has begun in earnest.

I get that sensible gun laws, background checks, and restricting assault weapons has merit and further reasonable discussion is sensible. Even desirable. Most Americans likely have similar thoughts... As long as law abiding citizens always retain the right to bear arms for the lawful purpose of hunting, target practice, and self defense (self defense as a check against government tyranny) is protected. Oh, that's right, I almost forgot. The right is already protected, by the U.S. Constitution. But that will not deter the more extreme anti firearm enthusiasts in their pursuit to re-interpret the Constitution in their attempts to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens entirely. But I digress.

Apparently there are some that have decided President Obama, Mitt Romney, and the NRA have blood on their hands, Of course this explicitly and implicitly means President Obama and Mitt Romney, as well as the NRA bear responsibility for the Colorado massacre. Call it as you see it. It certainly deserves everyone's reasonable and rational consideration.

Be sure to read more on this discussion here and here.

Two views. Both properly understood, and by working together on this issue, improved public safety and the retention of firearm ownership can be assured. To ignore either view is foolish and will render less than the desired results.

What say you?

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, July 20, 2012

The Face of Pure Evil, and a Appropriate Response...

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


Unspeakable Evil

Early this morning in Colorado a sub human man committed an unspeakable evil. Injuring many, and taking the life of twelve innocent victims by gunfire in a theater, this beast of humanity once again exposed for all to see what one single deranged individual is capable of.

Today's national tragedy is just another in a lengthening line of senseless acts of evil by a few individuals that have determined apparently only their life has value and all others are expendable at their whim. Somehow during their developmental stages they didn't make the connection ALL human life is to be respected and that no individual has the right to take the life of another except in the defense of their own.

For the vast, and enormous majority of people respect for all human life is a given. This vast majority lives out their lives without harming so much as a single human soul, for they understand that no man or women has the right to encroach upon another' life, let alone taking it by force and for no justifiable reason; ie: in the defense of ones own.

Yet there are those misguided souls that believe it is the inanimate object that bears greatest responsibility for the carnage a few deranged and sick humans inflict on other humans. They apparently believe by making it more difficult, if not impossible, {which is their real goal} to obtain a firearm society will be better able to control the evil carnage that a small number of evil people cause.

This belief is of course a fallacy and defies logic and reason. Simply stated those who wish to create carnage and take innocent life will find the means as well as the resources to do so. As Sherlock Holmes would say, it's elementary Dr. Watson.

Indeed it is not the inanimate object {weapon) that kills. Rather it is the said inanimate object in the hands of a lunatic that kills. The weapon (inanimate object) does not pull its own trigger, the deranged human holding the weapon pulls the trigger.

Perhaps, and I'm just saying, maybe it is time to show less leniency for the criminal and a whole lot more intolerance for those who are convicted of such evil and heinous acts as were committed in Colorado today.

I'm sure my next words will be severely criticized among the liberal establishment. So be it. What the 24 year old sub human male of the species deserves for his evil today (upon conviction of course) is a drawing and quartering on public television while the nation watches him suffer a fate far more deserved than the fate he forced upon numerous innocent victims and their families. Following such execution an announcement could be made that evil of such nature would, in the future, be met with the same end. For those convicted of such evil.

For you see, I believe society should show no mercy for those who act in such evil ways.

For those who read my words and wish to debate them I respond by saying fine. But for now let us remain somber and pay the respect to those families that lost a loved one at the hands of a lunatic.

In closing:

May the souls who lost their lives today rest in eternal peace. May the wounded recover quickly from their wound. As there are no words that can adequately comfort the families who lost loved ones in today's massacre I will say only our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Toons Continued...

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


Yesterday we posted on Michelle Bachmann's most recent looney activities. Her McCarthy era style fear mongering.

Radical Islam, where it exists must be confronted and the appropriate actions to safeguard ourselves and our nation certainly must be taken. Where it indeed exists and when backed up with proper intelligence data to support such allegations.

Senator McCain is right this time. We ought to listen to voices of reason because tyranny (often of the worse strain) can be self inflicted, the result of unsubstantiated and unbridled fear.

Today we are putting up the other side of the argument, just to be balanced and equitable. Presented compliments of GBTV and Michelle Bachmann herself.




Read the transcript here.

One can't help but wonder but maybe this being a presidential election year just might have something to do with the zaniness of Backmann and Beck.

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Bachmann (and her cohorts) Dangerous Loonies and Fear Mongers...

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


Wacko and Dangerous

I basically knew Michelle Bachmann was a looney, I just didn't realize how much a looney she really is. I never saw her as a bigoted fear monger, until just today.

CBS News - (CBS News) WASHINGTON - Former GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and four other conservative members of Congress are charging that people with ties to Muslim extremists have infiltrated the federal government.

Sen. John McCain denounced the allegations Wednesday, calling them "sinister" and saying they "need to stop."

Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has been singled out.

The State Department has responded to the allegations with very harsh language, calling Bachmann's charges "vicious and disgusting lies."

Even Bachmann's own former presidential campaign chief, Ed Rollins, said she was being extreme and dishonest.

It's rare for a senator to publicly rebuke members of his own party. But that's just what Arizona's McCain did, saying on the Senate floor, "These attacks have no logic, no basis and no merit, and they need to stop," after the five House Republicans questioned whether Abedin has ties to terrorism.

"When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it," McCain continued.

Bachmann, from Minnesota, and the four other representatives sent letters to top intelligence and security officials last week warning that the Muslim Brotherhood, a global religious Islamic movement whose members have been linked to terrorist groups in the past, may have infiltrated the top levels of U.S. government.

They pointed the finger first at Abedin, who is deputy chief of staff to Secretary Clinton and has been one of her closest aides for nearly two decades. Abedin, who was born in the U.S. and is of Pakistani descent, has been described by both Hillary and former President Bill Clinton as a daughter.

But Bachmann and the others wrote, "Huma Abedin has three family members -- her late father, her mother and her brother -- connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations."

Minnesota's Keith Ellison, the nation's first Muslim congressman, says, "Our country has gone through a McCarthy period. We cannot allow America to go back to another one." {Read More}

Bachmann is not only Not presidential material Ever, she, as well as the other idiots involved in this with her are not fit to hold the office of U.S. Congresswomen/men.



Via: Memeorandum

DNC, Classless and Without Character...

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


Ann Romney - trains with show horses as part of her therapy for multiple sclerosis

The DNC showing it's Complete lack of character and class. Perhaps it has something to do with Debbie Wassermann Schultz?

At any rate the the lame apology is just that lame. Were it sincere the ad would never have ran. But we're talking the DNC here. No pilar of integrity by any stretch of the imagination.

ABC News - It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now the Democratic National Committee is offering an apology of sorts to Ann Romney.

At issue is a DNC video featuring footage of Ann Romney’s dancing show horse. The DNC used the horse in mocking way to attack Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax returns (and dancing around the issue).

The DNC introduced the video as the first in a series of videos featuring the horse, which is owned jointly by Ann and Mitt Romney.

Ann Romney, who trains with show horses as part of her therapy for multiple sclerosis, took offense in an interview with Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America,” and now the DNC is saying it will put out no more horse videos, and is expressing regret for offending Ann Romney.

“Our use of the Romneys’ dressage horse was not meant to offend Mrs. Romney in any way, and we regret it if it did,” DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told ABC News. “We were simply making a point about Governor Romney’s failure to give straight answers on a variety of issues in this race. We have no plans to invoke the horse any further to avoid misinterpretation.” {Read More}

Classless, and clueless indeed is the DNC.

Via: Memeorandum

Obama Campaign In An Uproar, Has Egg On It's Face...

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



This sight is no fan, advocate or supporter of Mitt Romney. However when the "other" side, or opposition party takes it upon themselves to get their knickers all in an uproar over Romney's correctly quoting the President's statements, well, to frigging bad boys and girls.

The following, taken from the the weekly Standard offers clarity.

President Obama's reelection campaign accuses Mitt Romney of distorting the president's words, by showing a side by side comparison of the Obama's words and Romney's quotation of those words:



"Mitt Romney is launching a false attack," the ad's text states. But the weird thing is: The Obama campaign is purposefully trying to make it sound like Romney is misquoting the president, when the official White House transcript backs up Romney's quotation.

In the ad, Romney says that Obama revealed his thoughts on business when he said this, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

And, in fact, according to official White House transcript that's precisely what Obama said on July 13, 2012 in Roanoke, Virginia.



Nevertheless, the Obama campaign, in the ad, says it's not true. "The only problem?," the ad text reads. "That's not what he said." It then turns to Obama, from the same Roanoke campaign speech, who said, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life."

Which is true. Obama did say that. But he also said the line that Romney says he said-- "If you’ve got a business --you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

What I am most curious about is which of his actual documented statements really represent the President's philosophical and political views. I believe I know which it is, but certainly welcome your views on this quite important question. After all, this election will determine America's future for some time to come methinks. Read it all right here.

As an aside, for those in doubt this site urges you take a serious look at, and consider Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson. For a really interesting article please visit The Libertarian Patriot.

Via: Memeorandum

Update:

I just visited one of the more balanced political blogs on the net. Frank Hill of Telemachus has weighed in on the President's statements that generated some buzz.

Here's a teaser.

President Obama sure stirred up the hornet's nest last week when he told a small business group in Roanoke, Virginia:


'If you've got a business, you didn't build that!'


What would you think he was talking about if you had nothing other than those 9 words to read?


The statement came across to many as further evidence that the President is hostile to the private sector, profits and the whole free enterprise system.


That one single statement, coupled with his stated incessant desire over the past 3.6 years to 'raise taxes on the wealthy'; 'make them pay their 'fair share' (whatever that is...someone please give us an exact number or percentage of income that can truly be considered 'fair') and his propensity to regulate everything under the sun in America sure seems like 'proof' to any reasonable observer, doesn't it?


To be fair about it, here is the exact transcript of what he said in its entirety:

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me (one person exactly, Warren Buffett, our insert)-- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.

You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. (We thought Al Gore invented the Internet- our insert again) Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. "So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.

That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."

We can see where he 'said': 'If you have got a business, you didn't build that'. It is right there in the transcript for all the world to see.

Either President Obama's teleprompter went out-of-whack and he went off on a bad tangent ad-libbing or he has a very bad and probably now-fired speechwriter.

But to be entirely charitable, even though the fun thing to do would be to pile on in this political season, we will at least acknowledge that the President might have been referring to the fact that each individual business person did not build all the roads and bridges and the Internet on their own.


Which is sorta true. But not entirely. {Read More}

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

My, My... Will Obama Be Challenged By the Left?...

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


As We Have Come To Expect

Wondering if the President will be challenged by the left on these disclosures. Likely they won't even receive so much as a mention by the left. Smelling hypocrisy once again from the wind out of the left. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Not holding my breath.

The Washington Examiner - President Obama has accused Mitt Romney of raking in profits from investing in companies that ship American jobs overseas, but according to his most recent financial disclosure, he and First Lady Michelle Obama have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a mutual fund that has large holdings in corporations that outsource jobs.

“(Romney) invested in companies that have been called ‘pioneers’ of outsourcing,” Obama said at a Saturday campaign event in Glen Allen, Va. “I don’t want a pioneer in outsourcing. I want some insourcing.”

But Obama’s own portfolio shows a willingness to invest in American corporations that have shifted employment overseas.

In his most recent financial disclosure from 2011, Obama and his wife reported having between $200,000 and $450,000 in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, which invests in the largest U.S. corporations. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as of Sept. 30, 2011, the fund’s biggest holding was 8,272,039 shares of Apple Inc., then valued at $3.2 billion.

The New York Times reported in January:

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas….

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.

“If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.” {Read More}

Patiently waiting the Obamaites response.

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

At a Total Loss for Words...

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


Deja Vu

I shudder to admit, let alone think that 22 years ago I was the Vice Chairmen of the Republican Town Committee in the community in which I lived at that time. Not because I am ashamed of the party I represented at that time but rather I cannot fathom what caused the once viable republican party to devolve to its present state.

Sure, I recognized the decent of a once great party that represented ideals most Americans could identify with long before before I quit the party. Which is why I chose to register without any party affiliation five years. The things that caused me to make such a decision have only increased and grown within the big "R" statist party.

Evidence of the lack of substance was amply presented by none other than failed 2008 presidential candidate "Lost Somewhere in the Clouds" McCain.

POLITICO - Mitt Romney's tax returns had nothing to do with Sen. John McCain's decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, according to the Arizona Republican, saying he chose the former Alaska governor because she was a "better candidate."

McCain received more than two decades worth of Romney's tax returns as the former Massachusetts governor was undergoing the vetting process four years ago, far more than Romney has released publicly in the 2012 campaign. Democrats have questioned whether McCain saw something untoward in those tax returns and decided to choose Palin instead.

But on Tuesday, McCain flatly rejected that assertion and grew angry at questions over his decision to choose Palin over Romney.

"Of course not," McCain told POLITICO when asked if the contents of Romney's tax returns disqualified him from the selection process. "I don’t know what depths these people won’t reach. Obviously, it’s just outrageous. That’s just outrageous. It shows the – it’s so disgraceful for them to allege something that they have absolutely no knowledge of."

Asked why he chose not to go with Romney, McCain said: "Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. ... Come on, why? That’s a stupid question."

Steve Schmidt, McCain's top campaign adviser in 2008, told the Huffington Post that the contents of the tax returns were not viewed as a problem for their campaign. But Romney's vast wealth was seen as a political liability that McCain could ill afford, he said.

"Sen. McCain got caught flat-footed answering a question about how many houses he owned," Schmidt told the news website. "In fact, they were Cindy McCain's properties but that distinction was lost in the political optics and we knew it would be a big liability that the presidential and the vice presidential candidates together owned more than a dozen homes. It was like something out of a 'Saturday Night Live' skit. I mean, come on."

As could almost be anticipated the tired old bloviating McCain had further comment, and what I consider to be a convoluted reaction to his prior remarks. I'll leave it to my readership to determine exactly what kind of response it really was.

Via: Memeorandum

America's Waning Capitalism, The Spectre of Growing Government Under Obamaism...

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



Capitalism is under attack. Cronyism and corporate welfare will of course be defended in many nefarious ways by the Obama administration. We are indeed witnessing the slow transformational changes this President promised the nation. It ain't going to turn out so picturesque as the nanny state gig government statists would have Americans believe.

This excerpt from the David Brooks article in yesterday's New York Times says it well.

... The president is now running an ad showing Mitt Romney tunelessly singing “America the Beautiful,” while the text on screen blasts him for shipping jobs to China, India and Mexico.

The accuracy of the ad has been questioned by the various fact-checking outfits. That need not detain us. It’s safest to assume that all the ads you see this year will be at least somewhat inaccurate because the ad-makers now take dishonesty as a mark of their professional toughness.

What matters is the ideology behind the ad: the assumption that Bain Capital, the private-equity firm founded by Romney, should not have invested in companies that hired workers abroad; the assumption that hiring Mexican or Indian workers is unpatriotic; the assumption that no worthy person would do what most global business leaders have been doing for the past half-century.

This ad — and the rhetoric the campaign is using around it — challenges the entire logic of capitalism (emphasis mine) as it has existed over several decades. It’s part of a comprehensive attack on the economic system Romney personifies.

This shift of focus has been audacious. Over the years of his presidency, Obama has not been a critic of globalization. There’s no real evidence that, when he’s off the campaign trail, he has any problem with outsourcing and offshoring. He has lavishly praised people like Steve Jobs who were prominent practitioners. He has hired people like Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric, whose company embodies the upsides of globalization. His economic advisers have generally touted the benefits of globalization even as they worked to help those who are hurt by its downsides.

But, politically, this aggressive tactic has worked. It has shifted the focus of the race from being about big government, which Obama represents, (emphasis mine) to being about capitalism, which Romney represents (emphasis mine).

Just as Republicans spent years promising voters that they could have tax cuts forever, now the Democrats are promising voters that they can have all the benefits of capitalism without the downsides, like plant closures, rich C.E.O.’s and outsourcing. Just as Republicans used to force Democrats into the eat-your-spinach posture (you need to have high taxes if you want your programs), now Democrats are casting Republicans into the eat-your-spinach posture (you need to accept outsourcing and the pains of creative destruction if you want your prosperity).

The Romney campaign doesn’t seem to know how to respond. For centuries, business leaders have been inept when writers, intellectuals and politicians attacked capitalism, and, so far, the Romney campaign is continuing that streak. {Read More}

Perhaps Romney and the Republicans ought to revisit, read, and grow to understand Ayn Rand and they just might to be able to sell capitalism on the basis on which it should be sold. I'm not holding my breath.

Via: Memeorandom

Sunday, July 15, 2012

The Romney Bain Saga Continues...

BY" Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Reasonable? Plausible? Likely? You, the reasonable American people be the judge.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Ah, the Stench Of Hypocricy...

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


It has been fascinating to watch President Obama go after Romney because of his experience and record with Bain Capital, a private equity firm.

Via: Fox News Channel


Even more so considering the evident hypocrisy.

Via: Fox News Channel


However, we must remember anything goes in American politics and the obsession for power. Truth and integrity be damned!

Via: Memeorandum

Fighting Now To Keep the Revolution Alive...

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


Robert F. Bukaty/AP Photo

Ron Paul's final battle is securing the necessary 18 delegate needed from Nebraska’s state GOP convention on Saturday. In doing so he stands to secure a 15 minute speaking slot at the national convention in August. Congressman Paul believes this will help galvanize his base and keep his "Revolution" and the liberty movement alive.

THE HILL - Rep. Ron Paul said that the Republican Party is scared to let him speak at the national convention in Florida next month.

The Texas Republican candidate for president said he thinks the prospects of him having the Tampa platform to energize his “Ronvolution” movement of supporters — who buck traditional GOP staples such as war funding and are in favor of more radical ideas such as auditing the Federal Reserve — intimidates some in the Republican leadership, including former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-Mass.) campaign.

“I think the Romney campaign organization is very insecure,” said Paul in an interview with Fox Business News on Friday.

“They want this thing to go smoothly. But all conventions are like that. And this is the one thing that annoys me a bit. If they want this thing to go smoothly and be a big media event, and it costs the taxpayers $18 million, and they don't want a discussion, why can't we have a little debate?”

Paul is in the process of gunning hard for the 18 delegate votes he needs from Nebraska’s state GOP convention on Saturday so he can have his name entered into nomination for president and secure a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention in August.

While Paul does not stand much of a chance of stealing a significant number of votes away from Romney at the national convention, the plurality of delegates in Nebraska would guarantee him a 15-minute speaking spot, which he believes could galvanize his base.

Paul needs to win a plurality of delegate votes in at least five states to be given a spot on the GOP national convention. So far he was won four: Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, and Louisiana.

Romney, the party’s presumptive nominee, seized the 1,144 delegates need for the nomination in May.

Via: Memeorandum

Some Good Advice From One Who Has Been There...

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


George Schultz - President Reagan's Secretary of State and Treasury

And where might we find such a statesman today. A person with such experience and one who commands respect? Our nation is certainly in need of one.

The Wall Street Journal, Stanford, Calif. - George Shultz has one of the most preposterously impressive résumés in recent American history. World War II Marine (1942-45); distinguished academic economist; business executive; secretary of labor (1969-70); director of the Office of Management and Budget (1970-72); secretary of the Treasury (1972-74); chairman of Ronald Reagan's economic transition team; and the secretary of state (1982-89) who wound down the Cold War.

He's also been an active adviser to GOP leaders including George W. Bush in the years since. And, as I just learned, he's not a bad singer either.

When I called out of the blue on Wednesday morning, the 91-year-old éminence grise was in his office at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and willing to meet for an interview that afternoon.

The executive summary? On the economy: "We have some big problems in this country." He's very concerned about debt, and about monetary, tax and regulatory policy. On foreign policy: "We're weaker, much weaker" abroad than we were two decades ago.

But despite it all, Mr. Shultz is confident that if we get the policies right again, America can regain its footing: "When Ronald Reagan took office, inflation was in the teens, the prime rate was in the 20s, and the economy was going nowhere. We still had the remnants of wage and price controls, particularly in oil and gas. And Jimmy Carter said we were in 'malaise.' It was a bad time. I'm convinced the economy can be turned around because I watched Ronald Reagan do it."

"It took long-term thinking," Mr. Shultz emphasizes. "I'll give you an example. [Reagan] knew and we all advised him you can't have a decent economy with the kind of inflation we've got. . . . The political people would come in and say 'You've got to be careful, Mr. President. There's gonna be a recession [if the Federal Reserve tightens the money supply]. You're gonna lose seats in the midterm election.'

"And he basically said, 'If not us who? If not now when?' And he held a political umbrella over [Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker, and Paul did what needed to be done. And by late '82 early '83, inflation was under control, the tax changes that he made were kicking in, and the economy took off. But it took a politician with an ability to take a short-term hit in order to get the long-run results that we needed. { Read More}

Indeed. Taking a short term hit in order to reap long term gain. Undoubtedly in today's special interest winner take all political climate such noble ideals seem to have long been forgotten.

Are you taking note candidate Romney? Oh, and you as well Mr. President.

Via: Memeorandum

The Obama Effect Trailer...

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


Apparently somebody is making a bonafide feature movie of the New Messiah. The Obama Effect.



Via: Memeorandum

The Road To Oligarchy...

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


Some further thoughts on the very real possibility of the USA becoming an oligarchy. I found these informative videos on You Tube and thought them very instructional.

The videos illustrate the various concepts of government, and the dangers to freedom and liberty a full blown oligarchy presents the people. Indeed these dangers are ever present in our republic and must be resisted and fought against continually if we are to preserve our individual rights and liberties as well as maintaining a civil society.

It has been said nothing on earth is perfect, and that is a true statement. However, history has shown our democratic republic is arguably as close to a perfect form of government as has ever existed.

The question we face today, and must answer for the future is; do we still have the intellegence and will to preserve it?







Again, what say you?

Could It Happen Here?

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



Anyone sensing that our country is heading in the wrong direction should be concerned with the very real possibility of America becoming an bonafide oligarchy. Added to the fact that the nation has been trending towards fascism the future for our posterity seems wrought with peril.

Our nation's political environment today is such that rather than elected lawmakers and the executive branch seeking to solve problems through genuinely meaningful and spirited discourse/debate it is clear the goal is now to either gain, or preserve their own power.

We have gone from a nation of people engaged in determining our country's destiny through active involvement in the process to a nation of apathy. Our declining  voter turnout since 1968 points to this fact. Should the trend of recent years continue there is little to no doubt that we will become a fascist oligarchy.

The following was written in 1911 and all indications are We the People of today had better start taking note.

www.spunk.org" - ...Robert Michels, a friend of Weber's, also was concerned about the depersonalizing effect of bureaucracy. His views, formulated at the beginning of this century, are still pertinent today.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

"Michels (1911) came to the conclusion that the formal organization of bureaucracies inevitably leads to oligarchy, under which organizations originally idealistic and democratic eventually come to be dominated by a small, self-serving group of people who achieved positions of power and responsibility. This can occur in large organizations because it becomes physically impossible for everyone to get together every time a decision has to be made. Consequently, a small group is given the responsibility of making decisions. Michels believed that the people in this group would become enthralled with their elite positions and more and more inclined to make decisions that protect their power rather than represent the will of the group they are supposed to serve. In effect Michels was saying that bureaucracy and democracy do not mix. Despite any protestations and promises that they would not become like all the rest, those placed in positions of responsibility and power often come to believe that they too are indispensable, and more knowledgeable than those they serve. As time goes on, they become further removed from the rank and file...

"The Iron Law of Oligarchy suggests that organizations wishing to avoid oligarchy should take a number of precautionary steps. They should make sure that the rank and file remain active in the organization and that the leaders not be granted absolute control of a centralized administration. As long as there are open lines of communication and shared decision making between the leaders and the rank and file, an oligarchy cannot easily develop.

"Clearly, the problems of oligarchy, of the bureaucratic depersonalization described by Weber, and of personal alienation all are interrelated. If individuals are deprived of the power to make decisions that affect their lives in many or even most of the areas that are important to them, withdrawal into narrow ritualism (overconformity to rules) and apathy are likely responses. Such withdrawals seemed to constitute a chronic condition in some of the highly centralized socialist countries. However, there are many signs of public apathy in the United States, too. For example, in 1964 about 70 percent of those eligible to vote for president did so. In each of the succeeding national elections this figure has dropped, and in 1988 it was only 50 percent."

What say you?

Friday, July 13, 2012

Condi Rice Possibly at the Top of Romney's Short List for Vice Presidential Running Mate...

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


Word has it Condi Rice is being considered by Mittens to be his vice presidential running mate. Some sources are even saying that she may top the short list. To which I can only say, if this is true, and Condi ultimately does get the number two slot on the ticket all Romney supporters ought to hope Mittens listens to her counsel. In a nutshell she is eminently more qualified than the top of that ticket will be.

Of course the often incoherent babbling brook of the ill fated republican campaign of 2008 chimed in with her half hearted support of Condi... should Condi eventually be the choice and choose to accept. From my perspective I cannot understand why a women of Condi's intellect and experience would want to consider a run with Mittens. But enough of that.



The Hill - Sarah Palin thinks Condoleezza Rice would make a "wonderful" vice president, and dismissed concerns that the former of secretary of State might not oppose abortion rights.

“I think that Condoleezza Rice would be a wonderful vice president,” Palin told Fox News on Thursday night. She compared Rice's past experience favorably to that of Obama.

The Drudge Report on Thursday reported that Rice has emerged as the front-runner in the Mitt Romney campaign's search for a VP. Rice has previously told CBS News "there is no way I will do this," speaking of becoming Romney's running mate. But it is not unusual for the eventual choice to publicly refuse the job initially.

Rice might not be popular with all evangelicals due to what she has called her "mildly pro-choice" views. Most of the large anti-abortion-rights groups, such as National Right to Life, Americans United for Life and the Susan B. Anthony List, have united behind Romney for president, but Rice as running mate might compromise the support of their members.

But Palin dismissed concerns over Rice's stance on the subject.

“I would certainly prefer a presidential and vice presidential candidate who had that respect for all innocent precious purposeful human life,” Palin said. “We need to remember, though, that it’s not the vice president that would legislate abortion and that would be Congress’s role, and we’ll keep that in mind.”

Rice has noted that she believes in building a "culture of life," and is for parental notification and against late-term abortions. In 2008, she indicated she does not support overturning Roe v. Wade.

Condoleezza Rice would be an excellent choice. Unlike Palin she could be president of these United States someday.

Via: Memeorandum

Update:

It was certain to happen. An immensely qualified individual such as Condi Rice is unacceptable by the religious right based solely on her modest pro choice views. Gee, what a surprise.

Politico - The anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List released a statement this morning declaring Condoleezza Rice "unqualified" to serve as Mitt Romney's running mate.

Reacting to the eruption of Condi-for-veep speculation, SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser pointed out that Romney has pledged to choose an opponent of abortion as his vice president.

"Former Secretary Rice's position on the sanctity of human life makes her an unqualified candidate for Governor Romney to choose as a running mate (emphasis mine}. Throughout the campaign, including at the Palmetto Freedom Forum last September, he has pledged to us in no uncertain terms that he would choose a pro-life running mate," Dannenfelser said. "We have taken Governor Romney at his word and therefore believe Secretary Rice will be ruled out of consideration. Secretary Rice's position violates criteria that Governor Romney himself has laid out."

It's a small down payment on the blowback Romney would feel if he actually chose Rice, and a perfect illustration of why precious few think he ever would.

Romney should chose Rice because of her qualification and on that basis only.

It will be interesting to see how Mittens handles this thinly veiled threat... ""We have taken Governor Romney at his word and therefore believe Secretary Rice will be ruled out of consideration. Secretary Rice's position violates criteria that Governor Romney himself has laid out."

Romney's reputation for flip flopping from time to time is well known. This time a flip flop would be justified for sure. Anybody betting on his decision?

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails