Rational Nation USA

Rep. Allen West Shines Once Again

2012-01-29T21:29:00.002-05:00

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

2012-01-29T09:04:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-29T07:35:00.003-05:00

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

The Progressive Spin Machine, Central Tenets Volume One

2012-01-28T22:10:00.007-05:00

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...

2012-01-28T19:20:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-28T17:34:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-28T02:58:00.002-05:00

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

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

2012-01-25T02:16:00.002-05:00

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

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

2012-01-23T16:44:00.001-05:00

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

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

2012-01-22T01:29:00.001-05:00

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!

2012-01-22T00:35:00.001-05:00

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

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

2012-01-21T17:58:00.001-05:00

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

Question for Paul Krugman

2012-01-17T23:47:00.002-05:00

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.

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

2012-01-16T15:29:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-16T15:06:00.000-05:00

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

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

2012-01-15T19:32:00.003-05:00

It Comes As No Surprise Really...

2012-01-15T13:59:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-15T13:27:00.000-05:00

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?...

2012-01-15T01:39:00.000-05:00

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

Ricky Santorum... The Candidate for the Religous Right

2012-01-14T23:32:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-14T04:20:00.002-05:00

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

2012-01-14T01:59:00.000-05:00

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

The Progressive Spin Machine, Central Tenets

2012-01-11T22:38:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-11T02:23:00.000-05:00

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

Thoughts for Today

2012-01-10T02:08:00.003-05:00

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.

Partisan Politics and Irrationality from the Left

2012-01-08T19:44:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-08T17:54:00.000-05:00

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

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

2012-01-07T17:08:00.002-05:00

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

The Shortest Post Ever

2012-01-04T19:57:00.001-05:00

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

Throw in the towel. America has seen its better days. Of course this statement has absolutely zero, Nada, zip to do with Obama, Romney, Paul, or Santorum. A few hapless politicians cannot make or break a nation. Not one founded on the principles of a democratic republic anyway.

It has everything to do with the hyper partisans supporting both the democrat and republican leadership, their agenda, and their monied backers. Of course neither partisan camp will admit it has anything to do with their ideologies. Nope, nothing to do with power and control. I have a bridge to sell anyone who believe the last statement. Did I forget to mention hyper-partisan bloggers of both political ideologies?

Ignorance is bliss. Whether it be the ignorance of knowledge or the lack of principles. One is just as bad as the other. The beat goes on.

Via: Memeorandum here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

So Sayeth the Lord... According to Pat Robertson

2012-01-03T18:49:00.002-05:00

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

Lord of the Heavens and Earth has spoke to Pat Robertson warning of America's decline and the resulting impact on the world. Robertson the chosen one (at least in his own mind) illuminates for all his divinely inspired experience on the 700 Club.

I spent the better part of a week in prayer and just saying, ‘God show me something,’ some things I’ll share with you. I think he showed me the next me the next president but I’m not supposed to talk about that so I’ll leave you in the dark—probably just as well—I think I’ll know who it will be. I’m going to read just as I wrote down as if I’m hearing from the Lord these words.

Your country will be torn apart by internal stress, a house divided cannot stand. Your president holds a radical view of the direction of your country which is at odds with the majority, expect chaos and paralysis. Your president holds a view that is at odds with the majority, it’s a radical view of the future of this country, so that’s why we’re having this division. This is a spiritual battle which can only be won by overwhelming prayer. The future of the world is at stake because if America falls, there’s no longer a strong champion of freedom and a champion of the oppressed of the world. There must be an urgent call to prayer. The Lord said, a time of maximum stress and peril, greater than at any time since the CBN ministry began. This country will begin disintegrating.

I started thinking, when did we start this place? We started CBN in 1960, you think of all the things that went on, you had the assassination of the president, assassination of Martin Luther King, you’ve got a war in Vietnam, you’ve got all these things, He is saying you will have worse stress than before. So I’m saying, God, let me give you some suggestions and you tell me if any of them is right, pick one. I said, is it an EMP blast? No that isn’t it. Is it a cosmic or solar or radiation blast? No. Is it Mayan galaxy alignment? No. Is it Iranian or North Korean nuclear threat? No. Is it an earthquake or a volcano? No. Is it a massive power failure? No. What is it? It’s an economic collapse. And God said, This is not my judgment, they are bringing it upon themselves. {Read More}

This is really scary stuff. But not for the reasons the R.R thinks it is.

Via: Memeorandum

As Iran Flexes Washington Counter Flexes

2012-01-03T17:43:00.002-05:00

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

The United States has essentially been on a wartime footing since World War II. Since that time military conflict(s) have either found us or we have managed to find them.

Iran, (the old Persian Empire) is again exerting it's muscle in the Persian Gulf's Strait of Hormuz. With sabers rattling their military officials have warned the west that sanctions against the nation state of Iran will carry consequences.

TEHRAN Jan 3 (Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.

"Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasise to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA.

"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.

Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.

Iran completed 10 days of naval exercises in the Gulf on Monday, and said during the drills that if foreign powers imposed sanctions on its crude exports it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's traded oil is shipped. {Read More
}

A word from President Obama's Press Secretary Jay Carney:

Tic Toc, Tic Toc, Tic Toc...

Via: Memeorandum

Santorum, Diversity, and the Eye of the Beholder...

2012-01-02T18:23:00.001-05:00

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

The point of posting this post {video} is simply this, listen to the video... and then use your own objective reasoning (aside and apart from Steve Bennen of the Washington Monthly or Verum Serum to arrive at a conclusion that makes sense to you.

Should you wish you can first read Bennen's article here, and Verum Serum's article here.

I leave it to you, my fine readership to be the judge.

And now a bit more.

After due consideration what then say you?

Via: Memeorandum

Mittens... the big "R" Statist Establihment Republican ain't Gonna Need a Surge

2012-01-02T12:31:00.001-05:00

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

As much as principled constitutional conservative/libertarians hate to accept it Mittens is quite likely going to do well in Iowa, New Hampshire, and continue on to the capture the big "R" statist republican nomination to run against the big "D" statist democrat Obama in the general. When it comes to principles apparently "S" for statism will once again win the day, again.

As sad as this is for those who remain (even today) true to the "Classical Liberalism" of our founding fathers, and the constitutional democratic republic they founded, such is life. The will of the people {assumption being they have actually thought it out} is played out on the stage of national politics. Clearly even the republican party, once the party of limited government and liberty, has caved and become the second, albeit smaller party to advocate big government statism.

There will be some who will hold out. They will vote in the caucuses and primaries as classical liberals, true conservatives and or libertarians supporting the real candidate for change, Ron Paul. Unfortunately it will not be enough. The big "R" republican statists will have their way and America will once again be the worse off for it.

That is why, out of the 2012 election cycle a strong third party must emerge. Those who feel disenfranchised by the democrat and republican party's, independents, and other for liberty and limited constitutional government need to unite around the principles that made this nation strong and work to bring it back those principles.

Libertarians actually have an opportunity to become that strong American third party, providing the party focuses on and builds support at the grass roots level. Leadership of the party should begin focusing {like a laser} on the task of building and strengthening state organizations, identifying articulate potential candidates to run in local and statewide races, and identify high profile individuals that have the ability to capture the imagination of the voting public without sacrificing principle in the process.

Perhaps it is too much to ask you say. Well, the alternative is a continuation of the present and immediate past. Certainly something it seems a large segment of the voting population is unhappy with. Or perhaps it's just me. Or perhaps the din of the public is really just words. ????

At any rate here is a take on the republican race as of today by POLITICO . It looks pretty darn accurate from this perch.

(DES MOINES) — If Mitt Romney wins the Iowa caucuses, the race for the Republican nomination is over.

If Mitt Romney comes in second in Iowa, the race for the Republican nomination is over.

And if Mitt Romney comes in third in Iowa, the race for the Republican nomination is over.

Why? Is his message of goodness and decency and American exceptionalism so overwhelmingly persuasive or are his personal attributes so awesomely compelling?

No. It’s because the Iowa caucuses do not pick winners as much as they eliminate losers. And the Iowa caucuses Tuesday are likely to eliminate from serious contention the only two men who might have blocked Romney’s path to victory: Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry.

With those two out of the way, Romney faces Ron Paul, who could come in first, second or third here on Tuesday or Rick Santorum, who could do the same.

But neither of those men has a credible route to the nomination no matter how well they do in Iowa.

Wait. What about this Santorum “surge” I keep reading and hearing about. Is it a fake?

No, just the opposite. It is so real, it is commonplace. No fewer than five Republicans — virtually the entire field — have experienced surges. {Read More}

If the people of this nation are indeed fed up with the past, both with the policies and records of Obama, GWB, and the whole host of things keeping the establishment statism in power then there certainly remains a bunch of work ahead.

Via: Memeorandum

Here's To A Much Better 2012!

2011-12-31T22:36:00.000-05:00

Wishing All A Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous 2012

Where the Battle Between Liberty and Tyranny Continues

Rational Nation USA

Christian Right Talk Show Host Endorses Newt Gingrich...

2011-12-31T12:07:00.001-05:00

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

Newt with his Halo

I am, as I suspect many who read this humble blog, a limited government constitutional conservative who values liberty and individualism. While I have certainly had many issues with liberal ideology {read socialist totalitarian or in other words statism} I am beginning to realize the fringe right, as well as the religious right present a greater threat to the principles laid down in our founding documents than any proponent of true liberalism. For those who may be wondering what I mean by true liberalism I am referring specifically to the classical liberalism of our founding fathers.

It is indeed troubling when a real constitutional conservative and advocate for liberty is handily trashed by those claiming to be conservative and love liberty. Of course I'm talking about Ron Paul. It is especially troubling when individuals like Steve Deace , endorses Newt Gingrich for the republican nomination to be president. Newtie is, after all one of the biggest, statist in the the big "R" circus tent that effectively envelops the big "R" statists running for their party's choice to sit in the "Big Chair" come January 2013.

As this site has said many times, statism is statism. The only difference between the republican statists and the democratic statists is the color of their respective party's banner. I guess you could say your freedom lies in which statist you choose to select. YIPPIE!

But I digress, so back to Steve Deace and the Newt. Deace has endorsed Newtie, predictably for all the reasons one hears from those who support increasing the size of the MIC, restricting individual rights (think Patriot Act}, and giving religion a voice in governance, something our founders realized as dangerous to a democratic republic.

Here then are some excerpts from Deace's recent article:

This country is in trouble and bold leadership is needed. As someone that has had the privilege to vet these candidates as closely as just about anybody else has, I’ve come to the conclusion there are several good, Christian people running that most years I would vote for.

However, this isn’t most years.

Sadly, there are only two candidates offering a real means by which to actually undo that which the Left has done to this country for the past 50 years, and not just conservative platitudes. One of those candidates is Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is naive at best and reckless at worst. The other is Newt Gingrich, who has campaigned on what I believe is the most important issue facing us as a people—the loss of the rule of law.

The Left has used unelected judges and judicial oligarchy to reinvent the American way of life, from secularism to the loss of the sanctity of life, to the redefining of marriage, the confiscation of private property, and the granting of imaginary rights. There is an entire chapter of my new book devoted to the need for conservatives and Christians to confront judicial oligarchy once and for all. I have spent the past two years of my radio program educating my audience on this issue...

Skip

I understand Newt has taken positions and done things in his personal life I do not agree with, but to his credit he has come on my radio program and been very transparent about those things, and has shown humility and a willingness to be transparent in the process.

He has signed the Personhood Pledge I advocated for. He has offered one of the most articulate defenses of marriage and the family I have ever read from a candidate. He has agreed to never sign a budget into law that includes a plug nickel for an abortion provider. He has agreed to seek personhood legislation and a stronger defense of marriage act...

Skip

This is a time for leadership, not warm fuzzies. The future is at stake, and we may never get another environment with the country so prepared to challenge the system as we have right now.

Skip

... It is my hope the other Republican candidates will follow Gingrich’s bold leadership in providing the country a true alternative to President Obama.

It is my prayer that next year that for once we actually have something to vote for, and not just something to vote against. I am making this endorsement in the hopes that will be the case. Sometimes the most broken people are the ones God does the most tremendous work through. I know that has been true in my life.

I have highlighted the segments that are the real reason behind Deace's support for Gingrich in this race. It has little to do with proper limited constitutional government and liberty. Quite the opposite. For those who would like to read the full article it can be found here.

Newt Gingrich is not a conservative who advocates for a limited constitutional government. He has supported climate change, ObamaCare through his earlier pronouncements on RomneyCare, he advocates that Congress should be able to send out the capital police and arrest judges who rule against views of some in congress, he is every bit as much a flip flopper as Romney, and he will indeed prostitute himself {to be like many others... in both parties} to get your vote.

Lets link to some of Gingrich's record and positions:

Newt Gingrich repeats claim about his record of balancing budget, reducing debt

Character Sketch: Newt Gingrich’s surprisingly moderate record as Speaker of the House

Is Newt Gingrich the Best Candidate for President in the Republican ...

Moving Newt Out Of The Closet: Newt Gingrich's Voting Record ...

Newt Gingrich voting record

A little research and one can find the "Real Newt Gingrich", it is not a comforting find. Certainly if you value limited constitutional government and the principles of liberty the right to be an individual. Deace is wrong, and Gingrich is wrong for America. Now or any time in the future.

Via: Memeorandum

Iowa Rep. Steve King has Joined the Attack on Ron Paul... Nothing New Given the Un-principled State of Republican Politics Today

2011-12-30T21:54:00.000-05:00

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

As the Statist big "R" republican machine continues it's orchestrated and unprincipled attack on the only constitutional conservative (and true liberty) candidate in the big "R" circus tent another false conservative has just joined in the ATTACK.

Why in the hell Ron Paul hasn't chucked the republican party and acknowledged it belongs on the trash heap of history is beyond my conservative and libertarian ability abilty to conceive.

The republican party, once the proud party that included the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and many more has become the party of... "The Twentieth Century Circus Tent of Alleged Conservatives." Sad indeed are the apparent leaders of the GOP (modern translation - Grand Old Poop) and their agenda of backwards thinking and hide bound ideological BS. The republican party is almost (although not quite) as bad as the hide bound democrat ideology.

At any rate, it is indeed unfortunate that we are so lacking in a consistent, rational, honest, and cohesive conservative/libertarian vision. Ron Paul has consistently attempted to give the nation just that. For his Patriot and constitutionally supported efforts he continues to be either ignored or vilified.

We as a people, many whom actually have read and understand the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are content to stand by and accept the March of Statism. The one man willing to stand in opposition to the eventual destruction of our founding principles has not yet found the will to stand totally apart from main stream Statist American politics and start a third party to stand tall in support of our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the principles of a democratic representative government.

Now, as I step off my soap box I give you yet another example of statism and blind ideological loyalty at work...

(THE HILL) - Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) blasted Ron Paul's foreign policy views Friday in an interview with The Hill and hinted that he might endorse someone else in order to try and stop Paul from winning the Iowa caucuses.

King, a conservative kingmaker in Iowa, said Paul's foreign policy views are dangerous and have not received enough scrutiny. He said Paul once told him he wants to bring home all American troops.

"What Ron Paul supporters need to think about if they think they can elect him as president, a commander in chief can order all of the armed forces back to the United States," he told The Hill. "That means no presence anywhere on the globe — our enemies can fill that vacuum with very little resources, and I am very troubled by that.

"I don't think that’s a worthwhile price to pay to get the good things Ron Paul talks about, like deficit reduction. I don't think that's worth sacrificing our national security."

King, who has not endorsed, said that Paul's strong position in the state might make him more likely to back another candidate. He spoke positively about both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. {Read More}

And there you have it conservative and libertarians. Another 'so called conservative' about to back Romney or Santorum. Both as big a statist (translation - anti liberty) politicians as you might find. Other than Barrack Hussein Obama and Newt Gingrich of course.

Given the current of present day politics in both the republican and democratic parties the future indeed looks VERY bleak.

Ron Paul is the only candidate standing in the way of complete abrogation of constitutional principles and ultimately the rule of law.

Via: Memeorandum

2011... The Year in Review

2011-12-30T13:18:00.000-05:00

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

The American Spectator article by Jed Babbin, entitled 2011: The Year the Wheels Fell Off provides a quick and light summary of the year almost over. It is worth the read.

A short teaser:

The coming year will not give us a break from the steady stream of political knavery, green graft and governmental stupidity that 2011 delivered, though it will surely provide a flood of politically-induced comedy.

JANUARY: An enterprising BBC reporter -- seeking to prove the practicality of electric cars -- drove from London to Edinburgh. The journey took four days -- longer than a horse-drawn stage would have taken for the trip 150 years ago -- including nine stops of up to ten hours.

(In its first crisis summit of the year, EU leaders declared they would impose Germanic controls on its members' sovereign debts and toasted each other with large portions of Rémy Martin Louis XIII cognac. Meanwhile, in the first Republican presidential debate, both television viewers cheered when twelve contenders, apparently chosen at random, actually showed up.)

FEBRUARY: Chicago chose as its new mayor former White House chief of staff Rahm Effing Emanuel, who immediately ordered a voter registration drive in the city's cemeteries. Shortly after that, the "Arab spring training season" began in Egypt. After Secretary of State Hillary said that the Mubarak regime was stable, the Cairo Clubbers traded their top grenade thrower to the Port Said Molotovs for two machine-gunners and a future draft pick.

(In an urgent crisis summit, Eurozone leaders sought to solve Greece's insolvency by imposing budget rationalization written by Italian PM Silvio Burlesqueoni. Eurozone leaders toasted each other's wisdom with a tiny sip of Dom Perignon 1975 champagne. Burlesqueoni requisitioned the rest of the bottle for what he called a "bunga-bunga" party, which term had to be translated for the media by Bill Clinton.)

MARCH: In January, Obama had proclaimed France our best and strongest ally. Because the French never forgive a favor, Sarkozy dragged Obama into his war for glory in Libya. Barry called it a "kinetic military action" and cute little Sarah called it a "squirmish." My blazingly brilliant pal, Andy McCarthy, said that henceforth we should call acts of terrorism "kinetic Islam." Barry told Congress to stuff its War Powers Resolution because bombing Libya wasn't a hostile act. Meanwhile, Hillary called Syria's Bashar Assad a "reformer." {Read More}

I'm sure there are opportunities for opposing views. So please feel free to have at it, and have some fun in the process!

Via: Memeorandum

Drama of American Politics... GOP Style

2011-12-29T18:11:00.000-05:00

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

The drama of American politics. Part comedy, part reality, mostly about doing make overs and whatever it takes to get elected.

Perhaps American politicians have principles. Some, like Ron Paul(at least for the most part} even stick to their principles. Which of course provides others the desired fodder to attack with a vengeance.

Others, like Michelle Backmann, who is of little substance have their campaign managers defecting to "the other" campaign. Michelle lost her Iowa manager to, Oh Dread, none other than... the Paul campaign!

Then we have Rick Santorum, another horse of the {fringe} religious right taking third in what is the newest surge in GOP primary politics. How many does that make for the GOP (Grand Old Poop)he tast couple of months? I've lost track. But I'm sure there is more to come.

When the principles enunciated in our Declarations of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America cease to be the anchor of American values is it in wonder we are where we are today.

And yes, I welcome both conservative and liberal (rational) perspectives in response to the preceding statement.

In the meantime, because the better half and yours truly have more pressing things to attend to I leave with some interesting links.

New Iowa Poll May Understate Paul's Support

Rick Santorum Gets A Big Polling Boost, Goes After Ron Paul

Romney's Iowa confidence grows

As Rick Santorum surges, Newt Gingrich fades fast in Iowa

Bachmann defection opens new rift in campaign

And now, the issue the big "R" Republican statists (as well as some democrats and independents) will misrepresent and use to vilify (using it as the big wedge issue) against the only consistently conservative and advocate for constitutionally limited government and liberty candidate in the tent of republican presidential hopefuls.

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are ‘acts of war’

Again Paul shows his consistency and fidelity to the Constitution.

Via: Memeorandum

Thoughts On Our Current Political Climate

2011-12-27T18:38:00.002-05:00

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

Editors note: Given the issues we face today as a nation Rational Nation USA is re-posting this article. Originally posted on October, 22 2011 it defines the nature of, and danger in wedge politics.

Politics is a strange business. Politicians are without a doubt a breed apart from the rest of the nation. Well, maybe when a person enters politics in the beginning they are just like the average person and want to make a difference. But, inevitably it seems that they lose their principles. Influenced by special interests they become part of the problem they initially hoped to change.

Maybe it's just the times we live in. But doesn't it seem that we are a nation that has become so polarized by competing ideologies we are no longer able to discus issues of national concern in a civil and respectful manner? It is sad that politics, and political discourse has sank to the level of a sporting event. In the process the nation and its people lose the values the nation was founded on.

Americans have always had competing views. From its birth as a nation the United States of America has dealt with differing political philosophies. Throughout her history she has always found a path to resolve any challenge facing the nation. Yet today we cannot find the wisdom and courage to resolve the issues the nation faces at present.

Should it be any different today than it was during that hot sweltering summer of 1787 in Philadelphia when great men drafted our Constitution? The document that united us and has withstood the strain of over two and a quarter centuries. Our constitution is perhaps one of, if not the greatest political document in history. It set a nation on the path of governance whereby the government was responsible to the people. Rather than the other way around as it had always been up until that time in history.

There are those who will argue that the Constitution was flawed. And it was. The singular glaring flaw, one that still haunts us today, was the blight of institutionalizing slavery. It was a contradiction of the very principles Thomas Jefferson so eloquently spoke to when he penned The Declaration of Independence. But (as in all things), it is important to understand the political realities of the time when the nation was being formed. When drafting the Constitution compromises were made so that the United States of America would become a reality. For the delegates to the constitutional convention, as well as most of the people, establishing the United States was the highest priority.

As 2011 approaches the end of the year we are witnessing the greatest internal threat to our nation since The Civil War. The polarization of our people through the divisive use of wedge issues in politics is tearing at the very fabric of our nation. Our politicians {as well as corporate America and other special interest groups} seem only too willing to stand by and let it happen. Perhaps the interest of ideology and irrational self interest are more important to them than pursuing (rational) interests that will help strengthen the nation both economically and politically.

I am a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, and a fair amount of classical liberalism mixed in for good measure. As my readership knows Ayn Rand has held strong influence as well. Many Americans I believe share some of the principles and values discussed here at Rational Nation USA. I am equally as sure that the majority of Americans want our politicians to find a path that benefits the nation and all people, not just the few who hold the power.

If this country is to resolve the issues that have us bordering on becoming a second class democratic republic, as well as a second class world power, our leaders in Congress, the Senate, and in the one in the Oval Office had better get it together. For if they don't this heretofore nation of liberty and prosperity shall cease to exist as we have know it.

Ayn Rand said, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Putting this in the context of governance,... As long as our government protects the rights of the individual as enshrined in our Constitution and The Bill of Rights we should all be okay with opposing views on present day issue. In fact we should encourage opposing views. It has been said that the word {written} is mightier than the sword. And so it is. Through the use of words to describe rational concepts minds are changed, and so is society as a result.

If conservative and libertarians are to win the day then they must do so on the strength of their ideas. Ideas presented in such a way that people can first understand them. Then, if they determine the idea is a rational one be willing to ultimately accept and support it.

It serves no purpose, other than to divide, when politicians, the news media, and bloggers {on both the left and right}, use wedge issues to drive their point home.

The refusal to consider any opposing view with a active mind is not the mark of intelligence or wisdom. Rather it is the mark of a fool.

At the end of the day the future rests in the hands of those living in the present. What kind of future do you want for your children and grandchildren? It is up to each and every one of us to make it a better one.

Rational Nation USA leaves you with the following to consider. Written by Octopus a contributor at The Swash Zone in response to comments on a liberal blog.

This hyper-partisanship has damaged our country in ways too numerous to count. Let me elaborate. Hyper-partisanship translates into hyper polarization. It colors how we relate to one another. It turns neighbors and normal decent folk into the “other,” the enemy, those hateful liberals or those despised conservatives. It is a function of “identity” politics whose aim is to divide persons with common economic interests into warring factions. Divide and conquer. And a great many of us, liberals and conservative alike, buy into this bullshit and later pay a heavy price.

Hyper-partisanship colors how we think. It gives rise to ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING, where a party, a group, a person are either all black or all white with no shades of gray. Very few people in life are either all good (saints) or all evil (devils); yet hyper-partisanship demands that you think this way.

No matter what a person may achieve, the game of politics commands you to ignore the accomplishments and focus on the flaws; or spin good deeds into failures or characterize all deeds as evil deeds, despite evidence to the contrary. Demonize your opponent, that is the way the game is played.

Suddenly, one of our readers says: “Hey, wait a minute! I’m pissed off at something but I don’t know why.” It is this hyper-partisan programming pulling, tugging, sucking you under until you gasp for air. Time to break the cycle.

We are living in an era of non-stop character assassination and defamation, of political hostage taking, and legislative gridlock at a time when millions of people are suffering. There are powerful corporate interests that want us to be this way – divided – so they can cash in their chips and turn into serfs. Unless we break this cycle and say “To hell with you, I am not buying this bullshit anymore, then they win, and our country will wither away as dry wind-blown leaves of Autumn.

Sorry folks! Either we get our act together, or we will have no future at all.

And this.

All of us guilty of allowing ourselves to get sucked into the vortex of hyper-partisanship, and I admit to being as rabid as any … especially when baited by “libtard” epithets or facsimiles thereof. Sometimes I run hot or cold trying to end the cycle of mutual recrimination.

Case in point: Almost two years ago (October 26, 2009), I posted this article: DEMOGRAPHIC CLUSTERING AND THE SELF-SEGREGATION OF AMERICA, which touched on some these points. The comment thread is even more revealing than the post (and you will recognize the names of our conservative friends). Here is a quote from the article:

“Over time, according to Bishop, a preference for living with like-minded neighbors in extreme homogeneous communities incubates ever more extremist views. Voters in landslide districts tend to elect more extreme members to Congress while moderate candidates shun public office. Among highly polarized lawmakers, debates degenerate into shouting matches as legislators engage in obstruction and gridlock. That is how our most urgent and pressing issues go unresolved.”

When I look at the current political situation, it seems the article was prescient: We are now more polarized and gridlocked than ever before, and the current slate of candidates are even more extreme to the point of caricature.

Recalling some of RN’s recent comments, he distrusts the corporate plutocracy as much as we do – for the same reasons – and you would think we would have common cause; yet, identity politics and old habits always get in the way – witness the hyper-sensitivity that always accompanies hyper-partisanship.

I am wonder if it would be worthwhile revisiting this subject again and see where it takes us.

Conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals can and should remain true to our principles, so should modern liberals to theirs. However, it is time to back away from the wedge issues that both sides of the debate have used to polarize the nation.

I think Jefferson and Rand would understand.

Labels, Collectives, and Groupthink... What Happens to the Individual?

2011-12-27T18:01:00.001-05:00

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

Labels. For some reason people like labels. Maybe it is because, like the labels on a piece of clothing you can always identify the product particulars.

Could be it simply gives comfort to people knowing the label they chose to wear tells others something about them. You know, sort of a status thing.

Like what church somebody belongs to, or what political ideology or party one is affiliated with. Being a individual, and at the same time fitting into the mold of some particular collective (the label) seems to be quite important to people.

Which explains, I suppose, the dynamics of the individuals need to fit in and the phenomenon known as group think. Always a puzzler to me as it does present inherent contradictions.

Thinking about this phenomenon, as it applies to political ideologies or party, explains why people seem so entrenched in their beliefs. Having bought into the "party line" one does not want to be considered the outsider within the group.

Group (label) identity becomes all important. No longer is the individual, or the integrity of a particular premise important, the group (label) has overshadowed and overpowered all else. Independent thinking and individual integrity becomes something to be scoffed at.

By some. Not by all.

Via: Wikipedia

The Skeptics 1

2011-12-27T00:00:00.001-05:00

1) Ivar Giaever - Nobel Prize winner for physics.............2) Dr. Joanne Simpson - atmospheric scientist, first woman in the world to ever earn a PhD in meteorology.............3) Dr. Kiminon Itoh - environmental physical chemist.............4) Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck - chemical engineer Abo Akademi University of Finland.............5) Dr. Pal Brekke - solar physicist and senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Center in Oslo.............6) Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera - researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.............7) Geoffrey Duffy - professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering University of Aukland.............8) Dr. William Briggs - climate statistician at the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee.............9) Andrei Kapista - Russian geographer and Antarctic ice-core researcher.............10) Dr. Will Happer - physicist Princeton.............11) Dr. Miklos Zagoni - Hungarian physicist.............12) Dr. David Gee - geologist Uppsala University Sweden.............13) Dr. Philip Lloyd - nuclear physicist and chemical engineer.............14) James Peden - atmospheric physicist and formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.............15) Dr. Phil Chapman - astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut/M.I.T. physics professor.............16) Delgado Domingos - environmental scientist and founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast Group.............17) Dr. Takeda Kunihiko - vice chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research Chuba University Japan.............18) Dr. Eduardo Tonni - paleontologist at the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires.............19) Dr. Art Douglas - atmospheric scientist Creighton University.............20) D. Patrick Frank - more than 50 peer reviewed articles.............21) Jack Schmitt - astronaut (Apollo 17)/geologist and formerly of the Norwegian and U.S. geological surveys.............22) Dr. Richard Keen - climatologist University of Colorado.............23) Dr. G. LeBlanc Smith - Principal research scientist with Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.............24) Dr. Arun Ahluwalia - geologist Purijab University India.............25) Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more..............................................................................................Look, folks, I'm not saying that there isn't global-warming, or even that man hasn't played a role in it. I'm just saying that MAYBE we need to show a little bit of prudence, for Christ (the fact that Boone Pickens couldn't make a go of it with windmills, the fact that even with an $8,000 tax credit nobody really wanted those crappy electric cars, Solyndra, etc.).

Michael Crichton on "Scientific Consensus"

2011-12-26T22:09:00.000-05:00

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus."............This, to all of the people out there who think that the global-warming debate is settled.

Eric Dondero on Ron Paul's Character

2011-12-26T21:25:00.000-05:00

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

I feel vindicated. My support for, and advocacy of Ron Paul for the republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America has just received the best possible endorsement. That is for those that are truly libertarian and of the limited constitutional government mindset.

Given the testimony of Eric Dondero, Publisher and Editor in Chief of the Libertarian Republican blog it is clear Ron Paul is indeed not racist or a anti Semite. Perhaps all the hoopla created by the MSM {aka: LSM (Lame Stream Media} can now be put to bed once and for all.

Excerpt from Right Wing News:

I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.

I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.

Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.

He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.

One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks. {Continue Reading}

For those who understand limited constitutional government and the real meaning of freedom and liberty not much else need be said. Ron Paul will certainly be your horse in the race to the Presidency.

Unfortunately Mr. Dondero goes on in the balance of his article to do everything he can to undermine the only true conservative/libertarian candidate remaining in race. Very likely the only republican candidate that can beat President Obama.

Mr. Dondero, a savvy political pundit is marketing his extreme distrust and resultant fear of all Muslims to cast doubt on Rep. Paul's fidelity to America and her founding principles. Perhaps this is because Mr. Dondero fails to understand the classical liberalism upon which this nation was founded.

I mean no disrespect to Mr. Dondero, nor do I question his love of country. But when a self proclaimed conservative/libertarian does not land on the side of the only constitutionally limited government and liberty candidate something is fishy in Denmark. Especially when all the other republican candidates are big government pro military industrial complex statists.

Please read Eric's entire article. Then refresh your knowledge of Ron Paul's record and the principles on which he stands. Perhaps Mr. Dondero's view of the same is severely biased as a direct result of his demonstrated distrust, bordering on hatred, for Muslims in general. A distrust of extreme Islamic ideology is justified. Not all Muslim's are extremists.

Via: Memeorandum

Christmas, Little Sis, and Politics

2011-12-26T07:43:00.003-05:00

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

Yesterday was Christmas, my baby sister called from out west. She isn't really my baby sister anymore. She is forty six years young so I guess that means she's a women now. It was good to hear from her.

No matter how much you think you know someone {especially baby sisters}, you find out there's so much more to know. Baby sisters can even be teachers. Especially to their big brothers.

Anyway, we were talking about family stuff, about Sarah (my niece), and the holidays before Mom had to leave us. Holidays are important times, right sis?. Mom made them so special. We will always have our memories of the holidays with Mom.

So, we're talking about the holidays and my sister tells me she had a winter solstice party. Of course I have no clue what the hell that is so I had to ask. And of course she told me.

I don't remember all the specifics but it has something to do with the days getting longer and spring is on its way. I guess celebrating the winter solstice is considered a kind of a pagan thing. Sort of like the modern Christmas celebrations which of course were taken from Roman pagan celebrations once the Romans jumped on board with Christianity.

Out of the clear blue sis asks me who I'm voting for. I guess it's because she reads my blog from time to time and knows I'm sort of political. I was flattered she would ask. So I told her Ron Paul was my horse in the primaries but since he likely won't get the nomination Johnson will probably be my horse in the general.

I had no idea little sis was interested in politics. Turns out she's seriously considering Ron Paul. I'm thinking (for a minute anyway), wow, maybe blogging can actually make a difference. Na, just wishful thinking by a blogger.

Somehow, don't ask how as it was late, sis brought up that whole thing about labels. Turns out her husband has figured out my sister is a gun toting second amendment advocate, tree hugging liberal, that thinks we ought to mind our own business and the rest will pretty much take care of itself.

Oh, almost forgot. She believes America needs a strong defense to act in the face of aggression, and of course some of the social stuff important to people.

Sis, Your big brother is very proud of you. I always learn something when you call.

Thanks for filling me in on winter solstice parties. They sound like a lot of fun.

Newt Gingrich... Anti-Conservative as Well as Anti-American and Anti-Liberty

2011-12-22T20:24:00.009-05:00

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

The holiday season is upon us. For those more conventionally inclined, and not intimidated by the PC Police (that would definitely be me) the season is best known as the Christmas Season.

Sorry all you over sensitive anal atheists (and that from a tolerant atheist), please stuff a nice big Christmas stocking in your over bloated and insensitive blow holes.

That aside, preceding what will be my last post prior to December 26th, Rational Nation USA wants to wish all its readership A Very Merry Christmas and A Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Please drink responsibly, and use a designated driver whenever common sense dictates.

Moving forward... In the interest of providing clarity Rational Nation USA can no longer represent itself as a conservative site. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn't leave the republican party and conservatism, rather the republican party and conservatism has left me. As unfortunate and uncomfortable as that may be it is objective reality.

This development I suppose leaves me a man without a political home. When squared against the alternative however it is not such a bad place to be. I remain a man who knows and understands his principles. One who refuses to carry water for any party or ideology. Standing for right is, in the final determination, far more important than winning when winning requires sacrificing your soul. To crib Ayn Rand, that means sacrificing your independent objective mind. Or put another way it means sacrificing your principles in the support of a lesser of two evils.

I think I'll pass and continue my advocacy for classical liberalism. For those wondering what the difference between modern liberalism, and or modern conservatism is from classical liberalism I suggest a visit to a website such as Wikipedia, any reputable Encyclopedia, or a good Dictionary. The rest is up to you.

George Will is a man whose positions I do not always agree with. He is however a thoughtful and intelligent man. I was pleased to come upon his recent article calling out so called conservative presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich for his blatantly anti-conservative, indeed anti-republican views on the judiciary.

This sites position on the Newt's statist, indeed his almost fascist like positions is well known. With his most recent statements that congressional police ought to be able to arrest judges whose views essentially differ from congressional views is extremely frightening as well as dangerous.

George Will is spot on in his analysis of Newt, the would be dictator's position with respect to the judiciary.

(The Washington Post) When discussing his amazingness, Newt Gingrich sometimes exaggerates somewhat, as when, discussing Bosnia and Washington, D.C., street violence, he said, “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 16, 1994]. What primarily stands between us and misrule, however, is the Constitution, buttressed by an independent judiciary.

But Gingrich’s hunger for distinction has surely been slaked by his full-throated attack on such a judiciary. He is the first presidential candidate to propose a thorough assault on the rule of law. That is the meaning of his vow to break courts to the saddle of politicians, particularly to members of Congress, who rarely even read the laws they pass.

Gingrich’s most lurid evidence that courts are “grotesquely dictatorial” is a Texas judge’s aggressive decision concerning religious observances at high school functions, a decision a higher court promptly (and dictatorially?) overturned. Gingrich’s epiphany about judicial tyranny occurred in 2002, when a circuit court ruled unconstitutional the Pledge of Allegiance phrase declaring America a nation “under God.” Gingrich likened this to the 1857 Dred Scott decision that led to 625,000 Civil War dead. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the circuit court’s “under God” nonsense.

So, Gingrich is happy? Not exactly. He warns that calling the Supreme Court supreme amounts to embracing “oligarchy.”

He says that the Founders considered the judiciary the “weakest” branch. Not exactly. Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch (Federalist 78) because, since it wields neither the sword nor the purse, its power resides solely in persuasive “judgment.” That, however, is not weakness but strength based on the public’s respect for public reasoning. Gingrich yearns to shatter that respect and trump such reasoning with raw political power, in the name of majoritarianism. {Read More}

There can be little doubt but what the classical liberal thinkers, those individuals instrumental in founding our great nation and in the process changing history, are rolling over in their graves {if that were possible} witnessing the likes of one Newtie Gingrich vying for the most powerful office in the free world.

While I cannot support the likes of any of the republican candidates {Ron Paul excluded} currently arrayed the the Circus Tent of Elephants I can say this. For those who cannot bring themselves to support any alternative to the statist republican nominee for president cast your ballot for Mitt Romney in the primaries. While he may be a statist, just as Obama is, at least he is not a anti-constitutional idiot like the Newtie.

Footnote: I speak only for myself and for no other individual. Nor do I speak for anyone's political organization.

Via: Memeorandum

A Short Speech You'll Never Hear...

2011-12-22T13:33:00.001-05:00

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

American Bald Eagle - Representing Freedom and Liberty

A short speech you'll NEVER hear from any candidate, of either party, who is seeking their party's nomination for the office of President of the United States.

"My fellow Americans, be not deterred in your search for reason and rational thought..

Do not turn from your quest to find truth and an understanding of objective reality.

Be ever suspicious of those circling on the far left as well as those on the far right, as they are your enemy. Indeed they are the enemy of constitutionally limited government and liberty.

Be afraid, very afraid of those who would have you believe the state, with its power hungry special interest manipulators, the ones who advocate increased dependency in statism as the answer to our problems. They simply will provide us with more chains to wrap around our already crippled liberties.

Yes my fellow Americans, we face daunting challenges. Challenges that will require both thinking outside the box as well as returning to a principled and ethical constitutionally limited government. It must be accomplished in our lifetime.

The circling fringes are hungry for your support. In their war of "political attrition" they will do and say whatever they think you might like to hear. Ignore the hyperbole and the platitudes. Focus like a laser on the core. The core of reason and rational analysis. Formulating your decisions on objective reasoning and discard all emotionalism. For this is how we as a nation will indeed slay the extremes that are constantly lurking just around the next corner.

Thank you, and may Reason and Objective Rational Thought prevail."

Funny how the understanding of freedom, liberty, responsibility, accountability, right and wrong, justice, reason, rational self interest, liberalism, conservatism, statism, and the entire host of concepts with respect to ethical behavior is understood (or misunderstood) in such a variety ways.

Greatness is usually found in, and defined by adherence to great principles. Something to think about, yes?

Via: A Document
Via: Document 2

Los Angeles Mayor Calling for Budget Cuts to Offset Occupy L.A.'s Costs to City

2011-12-22T11:23:00.000-05:00

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

Occupy Los Angeles

Perhaps a glimpse into the future of America? This complimentary view into the results of Occupy L.A. should serve as a wake up call above all else. OWS and its "affiliate" movements across American appear to be misguided, directionless, and quite costly. Good Job Future Statists (Socialists) of America.

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — The City of Los Angeles reportedly faces millions of dollars in expenses brought about by the Occupy LA movement.

City agencies have been ordered to calculate what was spent on the Occupy LA protests.

Repairs to City Hall’s lawn where the Occupy group set up camp on Oct. 1 will require an estimated $400,000. The police action to clear out the encampment on Nov. 30 cost more than $700,000.

Additional expenses are attributed to hauling away debris from the camp, and cleaning up graffiti that defaced City Hall marble walls and trees.

Mayor Villaraigosa says more budget cuts will be necessary to offset the costs.

The Video from CBS:

Via: Memeorandum

Matt Damon Sours on the Hope and Change President... Apparently He Hasn't Excercised Enough Power Based Change

2011-12-22T09:41:00.001-05:00

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

Pinhead Damon and President Obama

Matt Damon, a one time admirer and advocate for the "Hope and Change" President has gotten his nose a bit out of joint lately over the President's lack of getting things done. Presumably like the dictators who have no need to listen to the people or follow the rule of law.

His pinhead comments as reported in the Gossip Cop.

Matt Damon rips President Obama in Elle magazine, blasting his leadership qualities and saying he’d prefer “a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done.”

The actor, a longtime supporter of the Democratic Party and onetime Obama advocate, reveals frustration with the administration in his wide-ranging interview.

“I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level,” says Damon. “One of them said to me, ‘Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician.’”

Damon then gets even more direct with his own criticism.

“You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of this country, much better,” argues the We Bought a Zoo star.

He adds, “If the Democrats think that they didn’t have a mandate – people are literally without any focus or leadership, just wandering out into the streets to yell right now because they are so pissed off.”

“Imagine if they had a leader,” wonders Damon.

Wow.

What do you think of the actor’s comments?

Since they asked, One should show respect and respond.

One, Damon is a pinhead, two, he has no sense of constitutional government, three, he is ignorant of the American concept of "the rule of law", and four, did I forget to mention he is a verifiable idiot? I guess I just did.

Visit the Daily Caller for more.

Via: Memeorandum

Ron Paul: He Should Have Known Better... But, Lets Get Real Shall We?

2011-12-21T20:33:00.004-05:00

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

So it continues. Just as many knew it would. The pressing of Ron Paul over his approving material written on his behalf over twenty years ago that he failed to read has come back to haunt him, and those of us who support him.

A very dumb and foolish move on his part? Absolutely! Should he have known better? Absolutely he should have! Is he the first to have made foolish mistakes? Absolutely not.

Is it correct to question the naive and foolish lack of judgement on Ron Paul's part for the material written for, not read by, yet approved by him over twenty years ago? Certainly!

Is it not also reasonable to accept his answer disavowing the entire lot of comments that do not accurately reflect his views? Especially in light of the material he has written and the comments he has that accurately reflect hos principles? One would think so.

The media, as well as the statist politicians will of course dwell on Ron Paul's past. While believing and accepting the "I smoked marijuana but didn't inhale" and "I did not have sex with that women", and the "It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is" from ex President Bill Clinton, they will undoubtedly refuse to believe an honorable limited government and liberty politician when he disavows publicly the statements he admittedly should have read twenty years ago before approving them.

Telling indeed!

The exchange between CNN's Borger and Ron Paul.

(Mediaite) - Ron Paul walked out of an interview with CNN’s Gloria Borger following a heated exchange over the controversy regarding racist newsletters sent in his name during the 1990s. Borger asked the Congressman if he had ever read the newsletters. “Did you ever object when you read them?”

“Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didn’t write them, I disavow them, That’s it.”

Petty clear to me. But then again I've read Ron Paul, and seen the consistency in his positions that are not at all what the media and the statists who fear liberty are making him out to be.

Of course there is more.

“But you made money off them,”

“I was still practicing medicine,” Paul responded. “That’s probably why I wasn’t a very good publisher, I had to make a living.”

“There are reports you made almost a million dollars off of them in 1993.” Borger noted.

“No, I’d like to see that money,” Paul responded. “I never read that stuff. I was probably aware of it ten years after it was written and it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this and CNN does it every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out?”

“Is it legitimate? Is it a legitimate question to ask that something went out in your name?” Borger continued.

“And when you get the answer, it’s legitimate you sort of take the answers you get. I didn’t write them. didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them. That is your answer.”

“It’s legitimate, it’s legitimate. These things are pretty incendiary,” Borger pressed.

“Because of people like you,” Paul riffed.

But Borger continued to barrage Paul with questions, at which point Paul took off his mic and walked out of the interview

“It seems like Ron Paul got tired of talking about it,” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said.

“I did have to ask them. He clearly thinks its irrelevant.” Borger explained to Blitzer. “He thinks it’s been asked and answered…It’s clearly a question he’d rather not be asked.”

The live interview, for those with the stomach to watch the piranha who is obviously enjoying her work.

href=".

The feeding frenzy has begun. The MSM media, as well as the statists in the democrat and republican party are no doubt salivating right about now.

Via: Memeorandum

Mittens: Will He Become the Statist Republican Establishment 'Shoe In'?

2011-12-21T08:00:00.003-05:00

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

Mitt Romney - Republican Statist

(Public Policy Polling) - Romney leads Obama

For the first time in PPP's monthly national polling since July 2010 Mitt Romney's taken a lead, albeit a small one, over Barack Obama. He's up 47-45.

Romney has two main things going for him. He leads the President 45-36 with independents. And he's also benefiting from a much more unified party with 88% of Republicans committed to voting for him while only 83% of Democrats say they'll vote for Obama.

Our national survey confirms the wide electability gap between Romney and the rest of the Republican candidate field. Obama leads both Newt Gingrich (49-44) and Ron Paul (46-41) by 5 points, Michele Bachmann (50-41) by 9, and Rick Perry (50-40) by 10. It continues to look like if GOP voters really want to defeat Obama they pretty much have to nominate Romney. {Read More}

Principles matter. Or at least they should if one fancies themselves a leader.

Conservatives, especially republican conservatives salivate at the prospect of a Obama defeat in 2012. Which I suppose when considered in the narrow context of present realities would be a good thing.

It is appearing more likely Mittens Romney will be the republican nominee. Why? It is certainly not because he is the "best and truest conservative." Ron Paul is that man and wears the label with consistency.

Given his track record as the architect of "RomneyCare", and the model for "ObamaCare" it seems as Mittens is merely "Obama Lite." But when the ultimate goal is to "knockout" the incumbent at all cost only that goal becomes important.

So, once again conservatives and republicans will back away from the principles of limited constitutional government and liberty to support, endorse, and elect a candidate that in reality scoffs at the very principles they purport to hold near and dear. They will do so and because... "voting for the lesser of two evils" is somehow considered a virtue.

As Rand said many years ago, and I paraphrase here... 'When good compromises with evil, evil wins.' Statism being the evil in this case. And so it has been progressing for many a year.

Folks, I ask you, what does that tell us about the majority of the American public? What do they really want?

When the majority of the people will sacrifice the principles of limited constitutional government, and the liberties that go hand in hand with it the nation is in fact realizing the statism (socialism) that crept into our national body politic about one hundred and fifty years ago.

Like the uncontrolled locomotive it is picking up steam as we continue to look through our rose colored glasses.

Via: Memeorandum

Cheerleader for Statism...

2011-12-20T18:35:00.001-05:00

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

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

Cheerleader for the Statist in Chief Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-Texas) says President Obama should extend unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut by Executive Order. Or, put more accurately by Presidential Decree.

(The Hill) - Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said Tuesday that President Obama "absolutely" should use his executive power to continue the unemployment benefits and payroll tax cut extension and said she hoped to discuss the option with the White House later in the day.

"It is extraordinary, don't get me wrong. But I'm feeling the pain of the constituents I left [at] home," Jackson Lee said, speaking on the progressive Ed Schultz's radio show. "I consider this a crisis. I consider leaving Americans without unemployment insurance for January and February a crime. I consider not extending the payroll tax cut ... a crime."

Jackson Lee slammed the move by House Republicans to call for a House-Senate conference as a "ridiculous procedural calamity."

House Republicans called for a vote on the motion Tuesday, which passed without any Democrat votes. {Read More}

For some the exercise of power {as corrupt as it may be} is more important that recognizing that our democratic republic and the rule of law must prevail. If we are to retain the liberties in inherent in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

When the foundation crumbles so will go the rule of law and liberty as we have known it for well over two and a quarter centuries.

Via: Memeorandum

Is There a Real Choice?... Does America Really Want a Choice?... One Can Only Hope...

2011-12-19T20:13:00.002-05:00

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

Please forgive my cynicism. Well, actually don't bother. You see we live in the 21'st century where the 30 second soundbite is all important.

Substance and clarity of purpose and principle no longer matter. Today's mantra is to "satisfy the immediate desires no matter the ultimate cost or logical end may be."

We will as a nation reap exactly that which we have so callously demanded. Not to fear, big brother/sister state will after all solve all of our problems. Right?

When the producers have stopped producing, what then?... Blank response.............

Perhaps when it is too late, after our American manufacturing infrastructure {I've worked in manufacturing management all my adult life} has been sold to the highest bidder, maybe then America will get it. Don't hold your breath.

As we move into a new election cycle the comedy of errors, and the clown like candidates continue to amuse me. But, such is the 30 second soundbite. That and the sheeple mentality.

But hey, who needs to actually exercise a cogent thought process? The MSM {aka: LSM} will do all that for us, Right?

Okay, it's late. Time for all to have our fun. In the meantime the clock is ticking. Tic-Toc, Tic-Toc- Tic-Toc...

... and the beat goes on.

Good Night.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Memorandum
Via: Memorandum

A Tragic Comedy... The United States Congress

2011-12-18T18:31:00.001-05:00

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

Gridlock and political gamesmanship. Apparently the favorite spectator sport in America in the 21st centuty. As DC (and America) burns. Nero would be proud!

WASHINGTON (AP) - Top House Republicans said Sunday they oppose a bipartisan, Senate-approved bill that extends a payroll tax cut and jobless benefits for just two months and said congressional bargainers need to write a new version lasting a longer time.

Their comments, along with a House GOP conference call Saturday in which lawmakers voiced strenuous objections to the Senate bill, made clear that House Republicans were intent on changing the measure and left its ultimate fate uncertain.

The Senate used a 89-10 vote Saturday to approve the legislation, which was negotiated by Senate GOP and Democratic leaders and backed by strong majorities of senators from both parties. The House planned to vote on the measure Monday.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Sunday that the bill - which includes the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and a halt to scheduled Medicare reimbursement cuts for doctors - needs to last an entire year. That was the original goal of President Barack Obama and congressional leaders as they worked on the legislation in recent weeks. {Read More}

What say you?

Via: Memeorandum

Will the Real Newt Gingrinch Please Stand Up?... {Is Facism Coming to America?}

2011-12-18T18:04:00.003-05:00

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

Fascist ?

Newt Gingrich has always been a scary dude. Narcissistic, divisive, out of touch with democratic republican principles, and he is one power hungry dude. Read his latest and be fearful of this lunatic ever sitting in a position of power again in America.

(THE HILL)- GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich said Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose.

Gingrich says if there is broad opposition to a court decision, Congress should subpoena the ruling judge to defend his or her action in a hearing room.

When asked if Congress could enforce the subpoena by sending the Capitol Police to arrest a judge, Gingrich assented.

“If you had to,” Gingrich said. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall.”

Gingrich made his remarks during a Sunday appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” where he defended his position that the president has the power to eliminate federal courts to disempower judges who hand down decisions out of step with the rest of the nation.

Gingrich cited the 9th Circuit’s decision that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional as an example of a decision drastically out of step with the values of the country.

Gingrich noted the Federalist Papers describe the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches of the federal government and that Thomas Jefferson abolished 18 of 35 newly created judgeships.

“I got in this originally for two things: the steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a non-religious country and the encroachment of the courts on the president’s commander-in-chief powers, which is enormously dangerous,” Gingrich said.

Indeed a vote for the Nwetie is a vote for fascism. For anyone who doesn't recall we defeated fascism in 1945 when when Italy's fascist regime and Nazis Germany fell to the Allies. Need any more be said?

Via: Memeorandum

Ron Paul Gets Time With Jay Leno... Better Than Lame GOP Debates

2011-12-18T17:37:00.000-05:00

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

The MSM HAS for certain refused to give Representative Ron Paul the time he is richly deserving of. Jay Leno apparently doesn't carry water for the MSM, aka LSM.

Presidential? What say you?

Via: Memorandum

Liberty and Integrity to Concepts... No Longer in America

2011-12-17T20:54:00.000-05:00

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

The Statue of Liberty

The United States of America, a land built by pioneers, free and independent thinkers, men with vision and the understanding of what it means to be free.

The United States of America, a land where men of common principles and values, yet holding fiercely differing opinions as how to arrive at the "common good" found the integrity and strength to form a great nation.

The United States of America, a land whose founders understood that freedom is not free and that liberty, like a well kept\t garden must faithfully be attended to.

The United States of America, a land whose founders left a road map that would insure continued freedom and the individual liberties that brave men gave their lives for so that their own, as well as succeeding generations may be free.

The United States of America, a land whose people once understood the value of hard work and that expecting something for nothing was unethical, indeed immoral.

America, the once proud beacon of freedom, strength, integrity, ethical values, and tolerance for the divergent ideas of intelligent men whose purpose it was to further the greatness of a nation that was great because of the principles and values that were articulated during the Enlightenment. AKA, the Age of Classical Liberalism.

Today we have a nation whose populace sorely lacks in a basic understanding of the concepts of freedom and liberty.

The difference between the two parties in America today {democrat and republican) is but the difference between a blonde or a brown hair. Which is just another way of saying virtually none.

Today America is on the verge of foregoing its heritage and the legacy of its founding principles. The principles millions of young men have died for since the land we now occupy became the United States of America.

The United States of America will be going to the polls in November 2012. It is currently experiencing a painful period of circus watching as the republican party parades its field of candidates across the national stage.

A stage that will eventually pit the current President of these United States against the republican nominee for the same elective position.

For the individual with a sense of history, a understanding of what freedom and liberty mean, a active and free thinking mind, and a love of country and what American exceptionalism really means it is looking as though the choices will be bleak.

To spell it out... Red {republican} statism or blue {democratic} statism. Statism is statism. The only difference lies in the color {red or blue} and the flavor.

There is one candidate in the room who dares defy the statist mold of both the democrat and republican party. Rational Nation USA leaves it to each individual "free thinker" to grasp just who that might be.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Statism
Via: Freedom and Liberty

Madame Pelosi... The GOP Led House 'the Do Nothing Congress'

2011-12-16T20:02:00.001-05:00

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

From out of the rafters comes Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

(The Hill) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) lambasted Republicans for leading a “do-nothing Congress” as the first year of their House majority draws to a close.

“It can clearly be labeled the Republican do-nothing Congress. It’s a year of missed opportunities and made-up crises,” Pelosi said in a press conference Friday, which she hoped would be her last for the year.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), responded: "The current 'crisis' was entirely manufactured by the Democrats who run Washington, and everyone knows that."

Pelosi, who lost the Speaker’s gavel nearly a year ago, criticized the House GOP for not focusing on jobs and for ginning up crises that nearly shut down the federal government and caused a national default.

Her comments came as the House prepared to vote on a $1 trillion omnibus spending bill to avert a partial government shutdown Friday night. While Republicans have accused Democrats of causing the latest crisis, Pelosi tossed the blame back on the GOP for insisting on “hundreds” of extraneous policy provisions that Democrats found unacceptable. {Read More}

Indeed Madame Pelosi. How dare we defy you and your leftist cronies.

Via: Memeorandum

Hypocritical Dems Calling for Representative Allan West to Appologise...

2011-12-16T19:38:00.000-05:00

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

There is an old saying. It goes something like this... "Don't throw if you can't catch."

I would respectfully suggest the democratic left consider this common sense advice. Especially in light of their rank hypocrisy in respect to Representative Allan West's recent remarks comparing the democrats to Goebbels.

They seem to forget their own offensive and untruthful remarks that were aimed at stereotyping the Tea Party supporters as racists, fascists, or other slanderous names.

(The Hill) - Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) landed in hot water on Friday for his remarks the previous day comparing the Democrats’ proficiency in getting out their message to the notorious head of the Nazi Party’s propaganda department under Hitler.

“If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine,” West said Thursday.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) sent West a note expressing his disappointment in the remark. “I beg of you to help raise the level of congressional discourse in vigorous debate without resort to personal attacks,” Conyers wrote in a handwritten note first obtained by Politico.

West’s remarks came even as Democrats and Republicans scrambled to reach a bipartisan agreement on a spending bill necessary to continue funding the government into the new year.

“Shame on him,” tweeted Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.). “Rep. West needs to apologize now for insulting the memories of the millions who lost their lives during the Holocaust.”

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) also called on West to apologize.

“This is exactly the type of rhetoric that turns people off to Washington and getting involved in politics,” Ackerman said in a statement. “I call on Republicans and Democrats alike to join me in demanding an apology.”

West should not only NOT apologize he ought to say, as General Tony McAuliffe did in replying to the German commander,s request for Allied forces to surrender the encircled town of Bastogne in 1944... "NUTS!"

Via: Memeorandum

And This Guy Wants America To Elect Him President?

2011-12-15T19:56:00.000-05:00

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

I have known many gay individuals in my life. Most were honorable and decent people. None "chose" to be gay. None threatened my heterosexuality. They simply wished to be acknowledged for what they are. Productive members of the human race with the same rights and obligations all individuals have.

Of course there are a few exceptions. They are not that hard to deal with when homosexuality is rationally viewed and accepted by the heterosexual community.

And then we have those who just can't help themselves and make idiot statements in the exercise of creating straw bogeymen {women} for whatever benefit they perceive may exist for themselves.

The Hill - Newt Gingrich signed on to an anti-gay marriage pledge while campaigning Thursday in Iowa and said that people choose to be gay in the same way that others choose to be celibate.

The topic of homosexuality was first broached during an interview with The Des Moines Register editorial board in the morning. Asked if he thought that people chose to be gay, Gingrich said that he thought it was "a combination of genetics and environment."

"I think people have a significant range of choice within a genetic pattern. I don’t believe in genetic determinism, and I don’t think there is any great evidence of genetic determinism," Gingrich added. "There are propensities. Are you more likely to do this or more likely to do that? But that doesn’t mean it’s definitional."

Gingrich was then again asked if an individual could choose to be straight.

"Look, people choose to be celibate," Gingrich said. "People choose many things in life. You know, there is a bias in favor of non-celibacy. It’s part of how the species recreates. And yet there is a substantial amount of people who choose celibacy as a religious vocation or for other reasons."

Later in the interview, Gingrich said that he would reinstate the “Don't ask, don't tell” program if he became president. {Read More}

And this man wants Americans to consider him for {perhaps} one of America's most influential jobs? I don't think so.

Via: Memorandum

Chris Wallace Trips, Stumbles, and Falls... Well, Shows His Biased Hand At the Very Least

2011-12-15T19:16:00.001-05:00

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

Chris Wallace, someone whom heretofore maintained credibility has just stumbled. In Mr. Wallace's view should Ron Paul, the only real conservative {libertarian} in the race win the Iowa caucuses it will discredit the caucus. Why? Because "most of the establishment republicans" don't believe he will end up the nominee.

Big mistake Chris. Especially as you are a moderator at the upcoming debate.

Is it possible Mr. Wallace just telegraphed his "establishment republican" preference?

The reality is the American people are waking up to the honest and straight forward truths that are inherent in conservative constitutional governance and consistent Libertarian principles that respect the individual constitutional rights of all Americans.

The Wallace comment:

Maybe it's just me but when the heartland of America is beginning to understand all that is at stake, and speaking their views, perhaps the "establishment republicans" ought to start listening. That and increase the coverage {unbiased objective exposure} of the candidate that is capturing America's interest.

I guess FOX news is becoming just another mouthpiece for Big government Statism.

Via: Memeorandum

Newt's Problem(S)?

2011-12-13T20:04:00.000-05:00

Hat Tip: The Blaze.

What say you?

Ron Paul Getting Some Respect... Iowa Is Listening... The Rest Of America Will As Well, If The Media Is Fair and Balanced

2011-12-13T18:21:00.001-05:00

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

Good news seems to keep coming our way. Most certainly for those of us who are the real Libertarian minded Patriots in the room. Ron Paul continues to close the gap in Iowa on Newtie the NeoCon who is losing support, with RINO Mittens Romney stagnated. Fabulous trend! Here's the latest report from Public Policy Polling.

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%... {Read More}

The favorable shift in the direction towards a limited constitutional government candidate who favors expanded individual liberties is accelerating folks. The champion of these principles is Ron Paul. It is time to work doubly hard in our efforts to help him secure the republican nomination to run against and unseat Barack Obama in 2012.

Ron Paul 2012 for a brighter and freer future!

Via: Memeorandum

On How Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (More than Likely) Contributed to the Financial Collapse

2011-12-12T23:24:00.003-05:00

1) Fannie and Freddie purchased billions of risky loans (nearly 3/4 of new mortgages were going through F & F by 2008) and bundled them to investors. The money that went to these banks allowed them to make even more risky loans. The end-result was that a lot more mortgage lending than would have otherwise taken place DID take place (the bubble argument, in other words).............2) Being that Fannie and Freddie were at least quasi governmental entities, most investors and lenders (justifiably, as it turned out) took for granted that the lines of credit would more than likely be unlimited....AND that they (Fannie and Freddie) would probably be bailed out if necessary.............3) Fannie was deeply involved in the highly political move of lowering lending requirements in an attempt to more adequately meet the needs of disadvantaged groups. They specifically eased the credit requirements on the mortgages that it was purchasing from banks - the end-point being (this, according to the New York Times, September 1999) to encourage banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit hadn't been good enough to qualify for conventional homes......So, no, me-buckos, nobody was "holding a gun to these bankers' heads" (and, yes, there were in fact some very questionable practices - no doubt), but if the government is a) enabling you and b) encouraging you AND you're more than likely going to get bailed out in a worst case scenario, wouldn't you also (in the words of Congressman Frank) be willing to "roll the dice a little"?

Michael Savage Puts His Money Where His Mouth Is

2011-12-12T19:18:00.004-05:00

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

Rational Nation USA, as regular readers of this humble site likely realize, is no advocate for the divisive, hypocritical, and disingenuous politics of one Newt Gingrich.

Micheal Savage has just put up one million dollars which will be paid to the Newt {or so Savage's ad claims} if Newtie pulls out of the race.

Savage of course realizes, correctly so, that if Newt is the republican {neocon} nominee Obama waltzes into his second term and not much will change.

The Savage ad:

SAVAGE OFFERS GINGRICH $1 MILLION TO DROP OUT OF THE RACE -- WILL ANNOUNCE ON SHOW TODAY

(SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO BE EXPRESSLY STATED BY DR. SAVAGE, INCLUDING GINGRICH DROPPING OUT WITHIN 72 HOURS OF TODAY)

THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL FIELD HAS COME DOWN TO TWO CANDIDATES WHO HAVE A REAL CHANCE OF GETTING THE NOMINATION: NEWT GINGRICH AND MITT ROMNEY. WHILE IT’S TRUE THAT ROMNEY IS NOT AS STRONG A CONSERVATIVE AS MANY WOULD LIKE HIM TO BE, THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE BEFORE AMERICA TODAY IS DEFEATING BARACK OBAMA. AND THAT IS SOMETHING NEWT GINGRICH CANNOT DO. FOR WEEKS ON MY SHOW, I HAVE ENUMERATED THE REASONS WHY GINGRICH CANNOT SUCCEED IN AN ELECTION AGAINST OBAMA: {Read the Rest}

Savage is of course correct. However, there is another alternative. One that disgruntled Democrats could live with if, and when the media begins giving the proper and unbiased coverage to the candidate. And it is not Mitt Romney.

To beat Obama will require the coalition of conservatives, independents, and disgruntled democrats. All of whom are tired of politics as usual and want real change.

The only candidate that is offering a fundamental, and proper change in national direction is Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate that makes sense for those desirous of limiting governmental excess, throttling the Federal Reserve, and controlling the unbridled growth in the MIC as well as the nations trajectory towards increasing involvement {both financially and militarily} in situations that are not our business.

The future is up to the American people. The choices are stark. Soundbites do not give the true picture. Choosing the establishment republican or the establishment democrat will, when all is said and done yield the same eventual outcome.

Indeed it is time for real change. The question is... "Does the American Electorate Have the Knowledge and the Will for Change?

2012 will give the answer to that critically important question. Ultimately the people are responsible for the course the nation takes.

It is time to begin thinking outside the box, is it not?

Via: Memeorandum

Ron Paul is Still the Most Intellegent and Capable Candidate In the Room

2011-12-10T23:59:00.004-05:00

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

Updated 12/11/11 @ 10:00 AM EST

I have heretofore proudly been, and proudly remain a staunch Ron Paul supporter. Given the the field of inept and unqualified republican candidates that 1) lack vision, 2) lack consistency of purpose and therefore find it necessary to test which way the political wind is blowing almost daily, 3) claim to be 'conservative' when their brand of conservative is really nothing more than neo-conservative statism, 4) are as hypocritical as any liberal ever was, and 5) are only interested in amassing power that {may} allows them to impose their statist vision and will on all Americans is it any wonder why the republican party in general is rapidly becoming irrelevant?

Ron Paul is, above all else honest and therefore calls em as he sees em. Which by the way is refreshing as well as spot on when analyzed with a rational perspective. As such his views have a great deal more merit than most views floating around in the rooms of statist republican politicians full of irrational thought.

Okay... Ron Paul is human. Being human he is certainly susceptible to occasionally making statements that are ill advised, even foolish. The record is certainly replete with questionable and ill advised, even foolish statements by Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Did I forget any of the RHINO or neo-con statists ? The gaffes, errors, and misinformation from those above have certainly been many, as opposed the very few uttered by Ron Paul.

Ron Paul did in fact open himself up to the barrage of neo-conservative condemnation {here and here} that has followed his ill advised statement the Bush administration was gleeful of 911 because it gave them the justification to invade Iraq. However, a rational analysis of the situation in the Mid East can only lead one the rational conclusion that U.S. actions have indeed resulted in unintended consequences from time to time. To deny the truth of the preceding statement is, to cut to the chaise sheer lunacy.

The Paul statement.

{CBS NEWS} - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Thursday evening that Bush administration officials were gleeful after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because it gave them a pretext to invade Iraq.

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq," the Texas Republican told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa. He went on to suggest officials are now setting the December 9, 2011 12:17 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Thursday evening that Bush administration officials were gleeful after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because it gave them a pretext to invade Iraq.

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq," the Texas Republican told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa. He went on to suggest officials are now setting the stage for an invasion of Iran. {Read More}

Ron Paul's choice of words were most assuredly ill advised. He should have reasoned through his word selection before uttering them. On this point rational men and women can agree.There can be no doubt that GWB, and those in his administration were as stunned and numbed by the horrific events of 911 as all Americans were, including Ron Paul.

Given his lapse of judgment in this instance he should, 1) offer his heartfelt apologies for a stupid choice of words, and 2) clarify precisely what he meant so those who do not generally understand his positions will grasp the real meaning behind his choice of words.

While I cannot speak for Ron Paul I am confident his message was meant to put forth the position that the Bush administration used the events of 911 to further their arguments for a Iraq invasion following our invasion of, and eventual occupation of Afghanistan.

Mr. Paul's point was that the presence of American boots on the ground in Islam's holiest of soil {Saudi Arabia} inflamed the Muslim people of the Mid East and therefore our actions in the region resulted in unintended consequences, IE: 911.

Yes Ron Paul should have phrased his statement differently. And yes he should have known this instinctively. He could have sent the same message with the following statement...

The horrific and evil attack on American soil by Islamic fundamentalists that resulted in the loss of over 3,000 innocent American souls on 911 was appropriately and decisively responded to by President George W. Bush. However, the Bush administration's decision to invade the sovereign state of Iraq without a single act of aggression on the American state and its people by the government of Iraq was, I believe not only ill advised but driven in part by the evens of 911. The decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, irrational premise, and in fact worsened the already volitle environment in the Middle East.

My words. They do not carry the sanction of the Paul campaign. They do represent my view as to what Ron Paul's intent was based on my understanding of his ethics and guiding principles.

In the end each individual must decide for themselves whether the neo-cons are right or whether Ron Paul simply had a slip of the tongue. I know where I stand. It is the only rational stance {conclusion} to take if you are truly concerned with liberty and proper ethical governance. If you have done due diligence and actually studied the positions of Ron Paul the choice is clear. Ron Paul is the greatest defender of the Constitution ad its principles alive today.

Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc.... Liberty hangs in the balance.

Via: Memeorandum

Update - I am updating this post to give a frame of reference as to what oft used terminology really means. In this case "neo conservative " and "classical liberal."

The reason many so called conservatives have such disdain for Ron Paul is because he actually fits the description of a "classical liberal", a political philosophy feared by the neo-con statists.

The MSM, {which personifies 21st century liberalism and not classical liberalism} as well as the neo-cons will do everything they can to discredit Ron Paul and destroy his candidacy and his reputation. Don't allow that to happen if you value limited constitutional government and true liberty.

Ron Paul is misunderstood by many because rather than studying the true meaning of terms many simply buy into the false soundbites and misrepresentations of Ron Paul's positions. Ron Paul has been consistent in his understanding and proper representation of the principles found in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America his entire political life.

To the terms and explanation with proper linkage ascribed.

Neo-Conservative:

(Conservapedia)- A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives is to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.

Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.

Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionalism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture that may be incompatible with it. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.

The neoconservative movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then had a voice in the Defense Department under the George W. Bush Administration after 9/11. Candidates favored by neoconservatives for president in 2012 include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence and, to a lesser extent because she pulls support away from those candidates, Sarah Palin.

Some prominent spokesmen include Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Schwartz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg and Carl Gershman.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Neoconservatives were prominent in the George W. Bush administration by supporting a strong foreign policy, and especially favored the Iraq War and its efforts to spread democracy worldwide. {Continue Reading}

Classical Liberalism:

(NCPA)Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.

At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties. In fact, as the last century progressed, liberal support for civil liberties grew and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began to proudly claim the label "civil libertarian." Since liberalism was the dominant 20th century ideology, public policy tended to reflect its beliefs. By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights. {Continue Reading}

With an understanding of Ron Paul's positions and what they really mean for America the choice is crystal clear. Ron Paul is the only republican in the room in which you can place your trust. That is if you truly believe in limited constitutional government and the Liberty advocated by, and fought for by our founding fathers and the documents they placed in our care.

Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc...

A Night of Reflection... Something Politicians Should do More Often

2011-12-10T01:40:00.001-05:00

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

The Four Stages of Reflective Learning

There was a time when politics was an honest pursuit. Or perhaps choosing to believe so is merely a tired figment of my imagination?

Putting the correctness ascribed, or lack thereof to any given philosophy of government or governance aside, isn't there many examples of exceptional leadership in America's history?

Great thinkers with common vision and cause, who also sometimes vehemently disagreed on method came together and founded our great Republic.

As our nation grew in size and stature we continued to share many common values and yet had many differences. Even given our differences, somehow as a nation we were able to come together for the common good of our Republic and move forward. Thus becoming ever more secure in our founding principles and our liberties.

Americans, and I mean the real people who believed in the principles found in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution pushed relentlessly to correct the injustices prior generations of Americans overlooked.

Injustices of slavery, the disenfranchisement of Native Americans, women suffrage, child labor, in our time the discrimination against gays and lesbians just for a few examples.

The advancement of individual rights as guaranteed by our constitution has been a steady march and has enlisted the efforts of patriots, people who love the concept of liberty and the ability to lead their lives and secure their happiness as they see fit. Within the framework of respect for the law.

America excelled, becoming the greatest, most powerful, and the wealthiest nation the world has ever known because we were the most creative and industrious. And because we had leaders at the local, state, and national level that understood that ultimately cooperation is required to succeed.

Drawing on the strengths of our people and the competent leadership they elected to lead the country we achieved greatness.

We became the great nation we did because of the strength of our great diversity. A diversity united in a common cause. A cause embraced by all Americans... to insure our liberties wre not infringed upon, and to create he opportunity of prosperity for all.

A prosperity that is realized only by pursuing rational goals and hard sustained work guided by the ethical and moral compass of rational egoism.

The driving force behind America's great journey and her success rests in the fact the nation produced great leaders at times they were most needed.

This last, and important component to maintain continued greatness is glaringly lacking in many of today's politicians and wannabe be leaders. Save a few. From this perch it seems that many are focused on the circus below rather than on the issues of substance.

Patience, Perseverance, Tennacity, and a Strong Consistent Message of Liberty... Ingredients for Success

2011-12-09T16:52:00.014-05:00

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

Brent Budowsky of THE HILL'S pundit blog is making the points Ron Paul supporters have known to be true for a very long time.

His analysis of the current republican political environment is sound and essentially parallels those who are closely following The Paul campaign. Perhaps as more people elevate Paul to the level of respect and exposure he rightly deserves the MSM {really taking about the LSM here}give him the air time he has earned.

Ron Paul is without question the most intelligent candidate in the republican field, he is the most conservative {to recognize this of course requires one understand what true conservationism really means}, he is the only consistent candidate, never straying from his principles or the constitution, and he is the the grown up candidate in the room.

Enough of my pitching, here's what Brent has to say...

For many months I have tried to be fair and ahead of my colleagues in the media in giving serious treatment to Ron Paul as a candidate, his campaign as a campaign, and his movement as a movement. Something is happening. There is a widening public interest in the Paul campaign, a passionate support from his followers, a professionalism from his campaign managers, and growing, though not yet sufficient, respect from the major media.

For the next few weeks, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney will be calling each other names and questioning each other's conservatism, which just might open the door for Ron Paul to charge through the gap and win the Iowa caucus. If he doesn't win, I predict a strong second.

I have suggested for some time that Paul's organization in Iowa is stronger than pundits realize, the loyalty of his followers is deeper and his performance in Iowa will surpass his numbers in the polls. Recently I have added emphasis to the well-managed Paul campaign and the strength of his ads.

Today I will add two additional factors. First, many younger voters support Paul, and many of them have cellphones, not landline phones, and are not picked up in polls. {Continue Reading}

Ron Paul... The 2012 Revolution!

Via: Memorandum
Via: Ron Paul Revolution

Does a Leopard Change its Spots?

2011-12-09T01:26:00.002-05:00

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

Newt Gingrich is, to put it bluntly not the presidential candidate the republican party needs. Aside from carrying to much baggage like his three marriages, extramarital affairs, his well paid "historian" role consulting with Freddie Mac, his flip flops on healthcare mandates and climate change, and his delusions of grandeur, he is not a leader than individuals like to follow. In fact he is a rather divisive figure. When he was Speaker of the House, before his colleagues replaced him for his ineptitude, his lack of principles brought his integrity into question.

Newt, as well as his supporters will tell us he has changed, that his time out of Washington and the national political scene has changed him. That he has matured and is a more reflective and deliberate individual. A person who weighs both sides of an issue carefully and thoroughly before acting. Perhaps, but their certainly is no guarantee, or certainty this so.

I once had the pleasure of working for the President of a northeast corrugated container company, his name was Mr. Robinson and I highly respected the man. Pondering exactly what makes me leery about Newt caused me to recall something Mr. Robinson used to tell me, he would say "Les, remember, a leopard doesn't change its spots."

{FrummForum} - Today’s question is: will the Gingrich balloon deflate like all the previous Not Mitt balloons?

The answer is: yes of course–but given that these balloons take typically 6-8 weeks to shrivel, the impending Gingrich bust may not arrive soon enough to save Romney. No question though, it will arrive in time to freak out the Republican party.

The most important thing to remember about Gingrich is not the three marriages, not the dubious financial practices, not the abrupt reversals on healthcare mandates and climate change. It’s not the grandiosity of language, not the habit of casting opponents as un-American, not the lack of self-awareness that allowed him to impeach a president for lying under oath about an extramarital affair while engaged in an extramarital affair of his own.

The most important thing to remember about Newt Gingrich is that his colleagues in the House of Representatives effectively fired him as their leader even before the impeachment crisis, shifting power instead into the more competent hands of Tom DeLay. It was Tom DeLay who ran the caucus while Newt Gingrich was traveling the country giving speeches about Total Quality Management and the Struggle for Western Civilization.

Gingrich was not pushed aside by his caucus for any of the offenses listed above. He was pushed aside because he plunged the caucus into chaos, because he lost fights that he himself had chosen... {Read More}

I believe Mr. Robinson was on to something. So is David Frumm.

Via: Memorandum

Ron Paul Quietly Gaining Ground... Focuses on Newt

2011-12-08T18:02:00.000-05:00

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

While the MSM, and conventional GOP punditry has the Republican race for the party's presidential nomination a two way heat, long shot Texas representative Ron Paul is quietly and steadily gaining ground.

The Libertarian leaning congressman has maintained a consistency and adhered to his principles like no other candidate in the race. His advocacy of proper and sound constitutional government and reigning in the MIC (military industrial complex) is resonating with liberty minded individuals across America.

(ABC News)
While portions of the national press corps have declared the GOP primary a two-man race between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, the tenacious Texas Congressman on his third run for the White House, is quietly picking up speed.

The libertarian leaning Texas Congressman is buoyed by strong poll numbers. In the latest ABC News/ Washington Post poll, Paul is polling in the top three in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Similar polls by NBC, CBS, and the Des Moines Register show the same.

Paul has set his sights on Gingrich, releasing videos that criticize the former House Speaker for a career in politics and policy shifts.

The two have not only sparred over the size of the federal government, but its scope. Paul unveiled an ad last week attacking Newt for being a serial hypocrite and for building his wealth through questionable lobbying efforts on behalf of the health care industry and mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

“He’s been on a lot of different sides on all the issues,” Paul told ABC’s Jon Karl today. “He may be the opposite of what I’ve been doing for 30 years. My positions haven’t changed all that much.”

While Gingrich has led Republicans in Washington as Speaker of the House in the 1990s, Paul has often been a thorn in their side, unyielding in his support for a radical downsizing of the federal government. Paul unveiled a budget proposal in October which cuts $1 trillion from the federal government in the first year.

Skip

Paul, who served in the House of Representatives with Gingrich for seven years – one while Gingrich was Speaker, gave the current GOP front-runner credit for “devis[ing] some strategies” while he led the House, but said he “falls short on leadership” in seeing those ideas through. {Read More}

video platform video management video solutions video player

With Herman Cain gone it seems natural Ron Paul would pick up Cain supporters. Herman Cain, a successful business man, Washington outsider, and independent thinker was a maverick in his own right. Every bit much as Representative Paul has always been.

One of the best articles I have seen on this subject is by Wes Messamore who blogs at The Humble Libertarian, The Left Coast Rebel, and The RevoluTimes His analysis is free flowing and flawless.

{RevoluTimes}-
W ith Herman Cain out of the race, his supporters are looking for a new home. Which of the remaining GOP candidates should they now support? Who would best exemplify their values, address their concerns, and forge the kind of future they envision for America? Could the answer be any more clear? Ron Paul would make the best choice for them out of the remaining presidential hopefuls.

Here are nine reasons why (see what I did there?):

1. Anti-Establishment – Cain’s supporters liked that he was anti-establishment. Out of the remaining candidates, which one would you describe as the most anti-establishment? Certainly not Newt Gingrich, the very definition of a Washington-insider, who’s made millions in lobbying fees working for the U.S. government. Neither Mitt Romney, whose campaign coffers are thick with funds from wealthy Wall Street friends. Only Ron Paul, who has always stood against the establishment, even when it was unpopular, could fairly be described as anti-establishment. Ending up on the losing side of enough 434-1 votes earns you the right to claim that title. Tired of Congress? Pick the candidate who has gone against Congress the most.

2. Limited-Government – Cain’s supporters tend to support limited government. Which remaining candidate would best carry out their wishes as president? Not Newt Gingrich. He had his chance at the helm of this republic’s federal policies and what did we get? As Cato Institute president Ed Crane noted in 2000: “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that [Gingrich's] Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” We certainly can’t trust Mitt Romney either, who introduced socialized medicine to Massachusetts as governor and whose health care model formed the basis for ObamaCare. There’s only Ron Paul, who has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, and has been repeatedly named the “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” in Congress.

The preceding is just a sample. Please read the rest here.

Via: Memorandum

Obama Administration Downgrades the Fort Hood Massacre to "Workplace Violence"... Refusing to Acknowledge Islamic Fundamentalist Extremism as the Cause

2011-12-08T02:04:00.001-05:00

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

I have been trying my best to cut the President some slack. Even going so far as to give him a pass on the very questionable speech he gave in Kansas the other day .

Then his administration decides to downgrade the Fort Hood massacre of 13 United States military personnel by a Islamic Extremist to workplace violence. Even the mild mannered very liberal Republican Senator from Maine, Susan Collins has blasted the Obama administration for its, yes I'm going to say it, abject stupidity.

The President's obvious inability to call Muslim extremists exactly what they are, and identify and name the driving force behind them, which is radical Islam, is as chilling as it is frightening.

Fox News - Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a "direct target of violent Islamist extremism" within the United States.

"The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists' scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting," Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday's hearing. {Read More}

Perhaps we should remove boots from Muslim soil as it no doubt antagonizes the people in Islamic countries. But lumping the Fort Hood massacre in with all other occasions of workplace violence is to refuse to recognize the implications of something much greater than what typically defines workplace violence in America.

Via: Memeorandum

Some Serious Takes on Gary Sick, Etc.

2011-12-07T23:29:00.003-05:00

For those of you who haven't kept up, Gary Sick is one of those sickos who's been most responsible for that October Surprise conspiracy theory; the one which alleges that Reagan cut some sort of deal with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until after the election. It's a patently absurd allegation and here are what some of the more serious people are saying............. 1) "The New Republic" - According to "Wikipedia", Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or was under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the time-frame Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources.............2) "The Village Voice" - Again, according to "Wikipedia", "Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke, Snepp asserted that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be in Portland, Oregon, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting.............3) The U.S. House of Representatives - Also from "Wikipedia", " The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,^[18] who claimed to be a CIA agent."............4) The United States Senate - Also from "Wikipedia", The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".............5) The "Washington Post" (direct), In an interesting footnote to the October Surprise myth, Jamshid Hashami, who first came to public attention 1i 1991 by "claiming to have helped Ronald Reagan's 1980 Presidential campaign negotiate to delay the release of U.S. hostages in Iran after the election,...pleaded guilty (in London in December 1998) to swindling (Reston, VA corporation) Octogon and other businesses In Europe, Asia, and the United States out of millions of dollars through a series of elaborate scams".............6) Strong (I&NS 8.2 direct), a classic example of ... the paranoid political conspiracy exposé.... Unsubstantiated hints of exotic government sponsored assassinations are part of a larger pattern involving a double standard in evidence evaluation. Honegger makes "extensive use of Richard Brenneke" and, in general, the book can be dismissed as the work of a common conspiracy theorist gone off the deep end of history.............7) Newsweek (direct), NEWSWEEK has found, after a long investigation including interviews with government officials and other knowledgeable sources around the world, that the key claims of the purported eyewitnesses and accusers simply do not hold up. What the evidence does show is the murky history of a conspiracy theory run wild.......What has kept the October Surprise conspiracy theory alive is a chain of "super-sources." Self-proclaimed eyewitnesses, many with suspect credibility, have spun a tangled--and often contradictory--tale about an arms-for-hostages deal that seemed to foreshadow the later Iran-contra scandal.............So, just how damned ridiculous IS this theory (gee, let's see, Gary Sick and these other lunatics versus Lee Hamiliton, The "Village Voice", "Newsweek", "The New Republic", and the "Washington Post", that's a really tough one - NOT!!)? This theory is so damned ridiculous that even Oliver Stone won't make a movie about it. Youza, huh?

Medicare Spends Over a Quarter of a Billion Dollars on Penis Pumps

2011-12-07T01:31:00.000-05:00

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

Just when we thought the government couldn't find more creative ways to spend our tax dollars!

(heartlander) - According to data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare has spent more than $240 million of taxpayer money on penis pumps for elderly men over the past decade, and will surpass a quarter of a billion dollars this year for costs since 2001.

The cost to taxpayers for the pumps more than quadrupled during that period, from a low of $11 million in 2001 to a high of more than $47 million in 2010. And these represent only the costs for external devices, technically classified as “Male Vacuum Erection Systems,” not implantable devices or oral drugs such as Viagra.

In order to obtain a pump, according to CMS’s Local Coverage Determination (LCD) revised in October this year, the “patient’s medical record must contain sufficient documentation of the patient’s medical condition to substantiate the necessity for the type and quantity of items ordered,” noting erectile dysfunction (ED) can “commonly occur in men in the Medicare age group.”

The National Institutes of Health previously estimated between 15 percent and 25 percent of 65-year-old men experience ED on a long-term basis... {Keep Reading}

Via: Memeorandum

Romney to Pick Up Quayle Endorsment

2011-12-06T01:44:00.001-05:00

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

Former Veep Dan Quayle

Mitt Romney has picked up ex Vice President Dan Quayle's support in his run for the republican party Presidential nomination. Quayle plans to announce his endorsement Tuesday afternoon in Paradise Valley, Arizona where the former Veep owns a home.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Vice President Dan Quayle is endorsing Mitt Romney for president, Republican officials told The Associated Press Monday.

Quayle plans to announce his support for the former Massachusetts governor Tuesday afternoon at an event in Paradise Valley, Ariz., where Quayle has a home.

Quayle served as vice president under President George H.W. Bush. He was a House member from Indiana for two terms and a U.S. senator.

Quayle has largely stayed out of the national political spotlight in recent years, though he did mount an unsuccessful presidential bid in 2000. A series of gaffes during his vice presidency made him the subject of late night comedians' punch lines.

His endorsement helps illustrate establishment GOP backing for Romney, who has been trying to consolidate support among party stalwarts despite repeated challenges from conservative alternatives. {Read More}

Just another indication Mitt is a big time establishment Republican. How much Mr. Quayle's backing will help Mitt is questionable. What should no longer be in question is whether Romney is truly what he claims to be.

Via: Memeorandum