Vacation...

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

It is that time of year again. Sunny skies, beautiful warm days and cool nights. Especially so in the north country. So, me and the ever lovely Mrs. Rational are heading up north to enjoy some relaxing quality time as well having fun with our grandson. Funny how that energetic dynamo can make grandpa and grandma feel young again. Life is wonderful, and certainly there is a time to put politics aside for the really important things in life. And so we do.

Back soon! Enjoy the archives, and stay cool...

The Real Meaning of the SCOTUS's ACA (ObamaCare) Ruling... Long Term

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

Nancy Pelosi once again revealing she just doesn't get what it truly all means. Short term victory versus a very real potentially long term loss. But the Madame will gloat in her delusional euphoric world none the less.



Now, for a clear view of the SCOTUS's decision and its potential longer term impact.

Indeed proponents of limited constitutional government actually had a good day. Pelosites are quite likely looking up a dead go*t* a*s in all reality.

Via: Cato@Liberty
Via: Memeorandun

Chief Justice Roberts Shows Himself to be a Brilliant Chief Justice...

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

Being one who is opposed to the ACA (ObamaCare) because I believe it is not the best this nation can devise (think the Swiss Healthcare Plan), I none the less fully and vehemently support the majority decision.

I support it not because in a theoretical or philosophical sense it is valid. It is not. Rather I support it in the judicial sense it is valid, has merit, and because the argument it should be (have been) invalided on the basis of the individual mandate being unconstitutional was not compelling.

In the opinion of this site the rationale for upholding the legislation is intriguing, indeed brilliant. Essentially the ruling rewrites the power of Congress power to regulate.

Chief Justice Roberts is deserving of our respect. Both for rising above pure partisan political ideology (which Supreme Court Justices are supposed to do) as well as for his brilliantly written majority opinion that essentially places the question of universal healthcare squarely back in the realm of he legislative arena. Where it properly belongs.

Ezra Klein perhaps sums it up best...

“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.”

And for President Obama, who has labored without success to find a bipartisan foothold in his advocacy for the Affordable Care Act, Roberts’s coup in writing an opinion that has found support on both sides must inspire some grudging respect. {Read the Rest}

Via: Memeorandum

It Comes as no Surprise

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

CBC

Fast and Furious, while Congress takes it's contempt of congress vote over Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to release documents the Black Congressional Caucus reportedly is threatening to walk off the floor of Congress. This comes as no surprise really, but it does show a certain lack of maturity and good sense. Amounting to nothing more than a display of emotionalism it is intended to score political points with the Hispanic, Asians, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

A recent Fox News poll indicates 38% view see the fight over F&F as a cover up by the White House while 32% view it as a "witch hunt" by the republicans in Congress. 12% percent believe it is both and 18% have no opinion. On a personal note, where there's smoke there is quite often fire. It bears further investigation.

Back to the Black Congressional Caucus and their politically motivated consideration to walkoff the floor during the vote today...

POLITICO - The Congressional Black Caucus plans to walk off the House floor during tomorrow’s votes to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress, according to a letter being circulated among members of Congress.

“We adamantly oppose this partisan attack and refuse to participate in any vote that would tarnish the image of Congress or of an attorney general who has done nothing but work tirelessly to protect the rights of the American people. We must reflect upon why we are elected to this body and choose now to stand up for justice,” the CBC members wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by POLITICO. “We call upon all members of Congress to stand with us during a press conference on the Capitol Building steps during this appalling series of votes to discuss our nation's most significant priority — creating jobs. At this critically important time in our nation, we must work as colleagues rather than political enemies.”

In particular, CBC members are hoping to garner support for their move from members of other minority and liberal groups, including Hispanics, Asians and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“Instead of focusing on job creation and other critical issues before this Congress, we have been asked to engage in a political stunt on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Our constituents elected us to do real work, not to engage in meaningless partisan activity,” they wrote.

Indeed, not surprising at all. More here and here.

Via: Memeorandum

Senator Rand Paul Losing Credibility...

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

Senator Rand Paul ( R-Ky)

If the following report is true Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky has succeeded, at least IMO, in losing a great deal of his credibility. Partisan politics and less than completely ethical tactics have pretty much been a staple in recent years from both parties. Senator Rand Paul has just elevated the practice to a new level.

I'll let The Huffington Post fill in the details.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved this week to hold a noncontroversial flood insurance bill hostage until the Senate agrees that life begins at fertilization.

The bill, which would financially boost the National Flood Insurance Program on the cusp of hurricane season, had been expected to pass easily in the Senate. But since Paul on Monday offered an unrelated "fetal personhood" amendment, which would give legal protections to fetuses from the moment of fertilization, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is threatening to halt progress on the legislation.

"I'm told last night that one of our Republican senators wants to offer an amendment -- listen to this one -- wants to offer an amendment on when life begins," Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "I am not going to put up with that on flood insurance. I can be condemned by outside sources; my friends can say, 'Let them have a vote on it.' There will not be a vote on that on flood insurance. We'll either do flood insurance with the amendments that deal with flood insurance, or we won't do it. We'll have an extension." {Read More}

If Senator Paul has a issue with the idea of the federal government funding a National Flood Insurance Program that is one thing. He should then have the integrity to argue his position in the Senate and let the chips fall where they may.

Or, if the real issue is debating when life begins in a hope the majority buys the argument it begins at the moment of fertilization as a precursor to overturning Roe -v- Wade then have the honesty to say so and let the debate begin.

Attaching a completely and totally irrelevant amendment to a bill for the purpose of defeating it is disingenuous and dishonest. Rand Paul should be ashamed of himself and the people who elected him to represent their state in the Senate ought to take him to the woodshed.

This is the kind of behavior that will ultimately render the republican party totally useless and irrelevant. I suggest you think about it republicans and conservatives. At least those that support this type of behavior.

The video of Senator Reid addressing this issue on the Senate floor. I have many issues with Senator Reid. But when you're right you're right.

Via: Memeorandum

Mountain Fog, The Left Versus Right Analogy... and Vice Versa

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

A beautiful mountain view, complete with the early morning fog. Scenes I enjoyed in my youth living in the Pacific Northwest. I think living there, and having the opportunity to enjoy such beauty almost daily is why I am so reflective.

As I found myself reflecting on the present day state of politics, most specifically on the reality we are deeply divided along political fault lines, it occurred to me this picture is very representative of the current state of our nation.

Whether good ideas start in liberal circles or conservative circles they are, none the less, good idea. But like with most things good ideas are seldom perfect. That is to say they can, and should be improved upon. But, as almost everyone knows, at least on the personal, family, and business level, arriving at the best solutiions usually require honest discussion and compromise.

Heated, and sometimes almost uncivil irrational discussions occur. As long as those discussions do not devolve into personal attacks on someones character, and they ultimately lead to positive movement towards the realization of a good idea, such circumstances can and should be of no concern. It is, after all, the American Way.

Unfortunately, and far too often the differences we have as individuals, and as a people become roadblocks, or walls surrounding each differing political position, engulfing reasonable and otherwise rational people in the pursuit of defending their selected political ideology. The result? Polarization. Today we are more polarized as a society than we have ever been in our modern history.

So you ask. What's the relationship to the beautiful and breathtaking picture? It's simple really, at least IMO, and reflective mind.

Those on both the left (liberal or progressives) and the right (social and fiscal conservatives) have many good ideas. Neither side however has either all the "right" or all the "wrong" answers. Which leads me to the answer to the question.

Both continue to have their heads in the clouds... Until this changes and the people of this great nation, as well as their elected officials, begin to recognize again there needs to be an element of compromise we will see no change. That and we'll have difficulty surviving as a nation going forward.

Romney Clarity... ?

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

Romney speak, from The Hill:

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney argued Tuesday that if the president's signature healthcare legislation was overturned Thursday by the Supreme Court, it would mean that President Obama's first term was a waste.

"Instead of focusing on immigration — and of course the big issue, which was the economy, and getting the economy going — he instead focused on putting in place his healthcare reform called ObamaCare," Romney said at a campaign stop in Salem, Va. "As you know, the Supreme Court is going to be dealing with whether or not ObamaCare is constitutional. If it's not, if ObamaCare is not deemed constitutional, than the first three and a half years of this president's term will have been wasted on something that does not help the American people."

So, Mittens, does this mean that if the Affordable Care Act; aka ObamaCare, is deemed constitutional President Obama's first term will have been a resounding success?

On a serious note, Romney does make some valid observations later. Read the rest of the article and watch the Video.

Via: Memeorandum

Bob Dole... A Nostalgic Look Back at a Great American

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

Perhaps it's nostalgia week for me. But I always liked Bob Dole. Didn't always agree with him mind you, but I still wish he woulds have won the 1996 match up against himself and Bill Clinton. I always got the sense he could be trusted. Maybe that's why he didn't win.

Anyway Senator Dole is a real American who served his nation in wartime, took a bullet for liberty, and went on to serve it in public life for 50 years. Admirably, with integrity, and honor. Ah, the good old days of the Republican
party perhaps.

As I was reading an article in GQ this morning I was reminded of the candor and humor of the Kansas Senator. That, and how much respect I hel\d for the man. So, I decided to share a few quick excerpts of his comments from the article...

I ask him the question everyone seems to be asking of the GOP faithful in 2012: "Would you say your endorsement of Romney was...tepid?"

"Not tepid at all," Bob Dole says, his face tight and serious.

"Romney came to my office," Dole says, "we had a good meeting, and I'm not a Gingrich fan, so..." He famously loathed Gingrich: "He's just difficult to work with. It's either Newt's way or the highway. He's got a lot of ideas. Some of them are good; not many. So it looked to me like it would be either Romney or Newt for the nomination, but just on its own, I thought he—well, I'll say this: Romney looks like a president."

"You're self-made," I say. "You embody the American Dream."

"I've never known a lot of rich people," he says. "It's not my bag."

I ask him how he sizes up President Obama.

"He's a nice person. I have a good relationship with the White House, I just think he's totally out of step. We're moving farther to the left, and it may not be as bad as some people say, but we've got to cut spending. One of these days, we'll probably have to raise taxes. I just think his philosophy is too far to the left."

"Bill Clinton called me one day recently," he offers. "I said, 'What do you want?' He said, 'I want to see how you're doing. How's your health?' He's done that a couple times. If I did anything, I made a lot of friends. And they were Republicans, of course, and Democrats." Clinton would help Dole deal with Gingrich. "I'm not going to talk to him, you talk to him," Dole, as Senate majority leader, would say to Clinton. "No, you talk to him."

"President Obama came to visit me in the hospital. He said, 'I wish you were still in the Senate; I need your help.' I'm not certain I can help on everything. Maybe some things."

"I don't know how many people run for vice president and president and lose both," Bob Dole says, turning to his aides. "I think there's one other?"

"You're testing my history on that one, sir. It would have been..."

Dole: "Anybody?"

"Lost both vice president and president? Um..."

Dole: "Somebody said there was someone—other than me?"

"You have to go back pretty far, I just, I don't think—"

Nobody can come up with one. {Read The Whole Article Here}

Maybe it's just me, but one can't help but to get a sense of the man's character and class. Even at, and perhaps especially at 88.

Via: Memeorandum

Voting Public Disaproves of Obama's Executive Order on Fast and Furious Doc's...

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

Refreshing. A majority of voters recognize the wrongheadedness of Obama's decision to invoke Executive Privilege to block the release of documents in the "Fast and Furious scandal. Whether his miscalculation will hurt him politically remains to be seen. As a majority of voters believe the Congress has been intentionally obstructive to the President it will likely be a wash.

The Hill - A clear majority of likely voters believes President Obama has exercised his executive power inappropriately — particularly in blocking the release of documents relating to "Operation Fast and Furious," according to a new poll for The Hill.

But in a sign that the electorate’s frustration extends to Capitol Hill, voters by a significant margin also feel Congress has behaved in an obstructionist manner toward the president.

Amid the discontent over the behavior of both Obama and members of Congress, the poll found a strong preference among voters for a return to one-party rule in Washington.

Obama last week invoked executive privilege to stop certain Justice Department documents relating to the botched “gun-walking” operation from being disclosed to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.

The same panel, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), voted along party lines to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

The Hill Poll found that likely voters disapproved by an almost 2-to-1 margin of Obama’s assertion of presidential power in the case. Overall, 56 percent of voters disapproved of his action, while only 29 percent approved.

Democrats have accused Issa of waging a partisan campaign that has no real purpose save for embarrassing Obama and Holder.
Issa has always denied his pursuit of Holder is politically driven.

“Our purpose has never been to hold the attorney general in contempt,” he said last week. “Our purpose has always been to get the information the committee needs to complete its work — that it is not only entitled to do, but obligated to do.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “the assertion of privilege has to do with the absolute necessity of retaining the executive branch’s independence.”

The defense is not proving an easy sell with voters, particularly independents.

Sixty-one percent of independents said they disapproved of the president’s actions, and just 25 percent approved. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Lets Get Beyond Hyperbole and Discuss the Demerits as Well as the Merits (if any) of the Issue...

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

It has allegedly been said as one gets older they get wiser. This is quite probable as the experiences of a long and productive life gives a person many references that naturally become part of their life experience and mold their philosophy of existence.

Of course that assumes the individual chooses to use reality and the truth of rational unemotional thought to guide them. Both in their analysis as well as their ultimate conclusions on every important issue of their life.

I was not a advocate nor a supporter of William Jefferson Clinton in his hay day as President and Commander in Chief. He was, as they say, just a bit too progressive as well as being a bit untrustworthy. I shall leave it to Hillary to clarify the forgoing statement.

Forgive me as I have digressed...

I stumbled across the following article published today in THE DAILY BEAST, a leftist rag I rarely visit. On the rare occasions when I do i typically find it to contain a boatload of BS.

Today was interestingly different. I found myself reading, and rereading the auricle expressing ex President Bill Clinton's position. Not because I fully disagreed nor that I fully agreed with his positions. Rather I found many of his arguments to be both interesting as well as some possessing a bit of merit.

As a person enters the senior years of their life they become more reflective. In the process the individual seem to gain the ability to fully grasp more complex perspectives that only experience can give them. That is to say if they have managed to stay awake throughout their life and take in all the intellectual stimuli that life and reality provides.

Of course it is the ideal for one is able to retain an objective and rational ability to determine reality as it is, rather than how one may wish it to be. Which I suppose is the reason I put this post up. To suggest that everyone, whether they are conservative, liberal, neo-conservative, libertarian, objectivist, Platonic, or Aristotelian in their leanings consider the merits or lack thereof of the article.

President William Jefferson Clinton most definitely does not have all the answers. In fact he may only have a few, a very few. Certainly this Randian capitalist, limited government, classical liberal, and advocate of maximum individual liberty has many issue with ex President Clinton. However, given his intelligence and experience (personal shortcomings aside) his views are at least worth considering. Naturally this means with an active and inquisitive mind. Something I fear too few liberals and conservatives do in this day and age of wedge politics.

I have prepared myself for the possible backlash this post might cause. I stand ready to defendant the post as well as the logical and rational justification for having posted it.

Simply stated it is time the political activists of both parties, the candidates as well as current office holders, and the general population start to engage in studying both sides of issues and civilly discuss/debate the possible disadvantages as well as the possible advantages of all positions. Based solely on empirical data and actual facts. Sadly this nation and its people seems to have lost the ability to do so.

Admittedly I have taken a very long way around in getting to the subject matter that drove this post. I humbly ask your understanding for this and hope you posses the capacity to understand the reason why I did so.

Please take the time to read this article in full. Consider the thoughts of this ex President. Weigh them against all opposing views. After doing so decide based on logical and rational criteria, not emotionally driven concerns or experiences. In the final analysis reason and logic must prevail.

Certainly this is true if this nation is to survive as we have known it. Both for the next millennium and beyond.

Via: Memeorandum

As the Arab Spring Continues..;.

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

As The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi was official declared the winner of Egypt's presidential election the Obama administration extended it's congratulations through Press Secretary Jay Carney.

This against a back drop of Islamic tolerance and love. Note; the video starts automatically. Be sure to read the captions as the multitude is chanting and the cleric declare Jerusalem is their goal.



Things are looking much worse for the only rational democracy in the region... Israel.

Read more commentary here, here, here, and here.

Via: Memeorandum

Times, Are they Really Going To Change?...

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

2012 really does present an opportunity for change. Real change as in changing the current of American political direction and ideology that has essentially remained stuck in midstream for years.

For sure the feeble arguments for change from either side of the same political continuum has resulted in gentle movement to either one side or the other of the central current. However, as the country has flip flopped from republican to democrat back to republican back to democrat... etc. the force in American politics continues moving in the same general destructive direction. Which brings me to the point of this post and my ensuing arguments for hooking on to the opportunity for real, significant, and fundamental change.

The Associated Press ran an article this morning based on a Associated Press-KfG poll showing 1 in 4 potential voters remain uncommitted as to who they may ultimately cast their presidential vote for in November 2012.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- They shrug at President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. They're in no hurry to decide which one to support in the White House race. And they'll have a big say in determining who wins the White House.

One-quarter of U.S. voters are persuadable, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll, and both Obama and Romney will spend the next four months trying to convince these fickle, hard-to-reach individuals that only he has what it takes to fix an ailing nation.

It's a delicate task. These voters also hate pandering.

"I don't believe in nothing they say," says Carol Barber of Iceland, Ky., among the 27 percent of the electorate that hasn't determined whom to back or that doesn't have a strong preference about a candidate.

Skip

John Robinson, a 49-year-old general contractor from Santa Cruz, Calif., is paying a bit more attention, but is just as turned off by both candidates.

"I'm just bitter about everybody. They just keep talking and wavering," said Robinson, a conservative who backed the GOP nominee in 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain, but is undecided between Obama and Romney. "There's nothing I can really say that's appealing about either one of them."

To be sure, many of the 1-in-4 voters who today say they are uncommitted will settle on a candidate by Election Day, Nov. 6.

Skip

Overall, the poll found that among registered voters, 47 percent say they will vote for the president and 44 percent for Romney, a difference that is not statistically significant.

Those totals include soft support, though, meaning people who lean toward a candidate as well as those who said they could change their minds before November. The poll showed that these persuadable voters are equally apt to lean toward Obama, Romney, or neither, with about one-third of them in each camp.

The survey also showed that these voters are more likely than others to say they distrust both Romney and Obama on the major issues. They are far more likely to think the outcome of the election won't make a big difference on the economy, unemployment, the federal budget deficit or health care.

Party politics and wedge issues have dubious weight with this group. The poll found more independents fall into this category than partisans.Party politics and wedge issues have dubious weight with this group. The poll found more independents fall into this category than partisans. The partisans who are persuadable are more likely to be in the ideological middle than either liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans. Seventeen percent of persuadables say they consider themselves supporters of the tea party.

These uncommitted are individuals that know the country is on the wrong path. They sense the futility of voting for either Obama or Romney, realizing that a vote for either is a vote for the status quo. So what to so?

The issue is often framed as boiling down to a choice between "the lesser of two evils", with either choice essentially leading to the same ends. And, in reality that is precisely what has driven the country to it's present moorings. Selecting "the lesser of two evils."

There is a viable and positive alternative in the 2012 presidential election to deciding on "the lesser of two evils." The third (and rational) choice is to vote for a third party candidate that actually has an agenda for meaningful and positive change in the direction of national politics and governance.

The 25% of Americans who know that the current, as well as past direction has been a disaster have the power to change America. For the better. If this 25% of uncommitted and unenthusiastic voters were to combine with Ron Paul supporters and cast their ballots the candidate of real change big things could, and likely would happen. That candidate folks is Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President of the United States.

So, the only question really is this. Will this group of uncommitted combine with the Ron Paul supporters and vote for real change? Or will they decide to vote for one of "the lesser of two evils", thus insuring the continuation of the status quo?

America's future hangs in the balance.

Via: Memeorandum

Political Spin?...

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

We all know that every politician as well as their handlers spin the realities of the politicians record to reflect favorably on the politician. President Obama and his team are experts at the activity. Governor Romney and his team seem to hitting their stride and playing an effective game of catch up at this point.



What say you? We're you impressed?

Obama's Legal Wizards (and Himself) Actually Hurt ObamaCare's Chances in the SCOTUS

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

The Washington Post  ran an article Saturday June 23rd pointing out that many "prominent" legal scholars believe tactical errors by President Obama's legal team of experts (tactics approved by him) actually may have actually damaged the likelihood of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare) surviving Supreme Court scrutiny.

The segment of the article that actually supports the argument made by the "prominent" legal scholars follows below. We should all be thankful that the Obama team of legal experts failed to see the advantage in using them as central to their arguments.

To defend the health-care mandate, for instance, the government could have cited past measures such as a 1792 law signed by President George Washington requiring able-bodied men 18 or older to purchase a musket and ammunition. Several scholars, even former president Bill Clinton, have cited the 18th-century law as an example of an individual mandate that happened to be imposed by a president with impeccable originalist bona fides.

“It was an ace in the hole,” said Akhil Amar, a Yale University constitutional law scholar. “You’ve got George Washington signing a bill that helps you. Why wouldn’t you use it?”

Another critic, Harvard University law professor Einer Elhauge, has questioned why the administration did not point the Supreme Court to some early health-care mandates adopted by early Congresses without any objection from the framers, including laws requiring ship owners to buy medical insurance for their seamen and for the seamen to fund hospital insurance for themselves.

Elhauge said he agreed with the government’s other arguments. But, he said, by failing to directly contest the premise that a purchase mandate was unprecedented, the government put itself in the more difficult position of defending what incorrectly looked like “an exotic new creature.”

“The challengers did a great job of framing the case so they could go downhill and the government had to go uphill,” Elhauge said. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Opportunity In the Making...

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

A new Pew Research Center poll just out provides some interesting information on the Obama Romney match up. Obama currently holds the edge in the "liked" category while Romney has the edge with voters when it comes to the "economy". Interestingly enough Romney holds the edge amongst those actively giving a lot of thought to the campaign.

There certainly is volumes that can, and should be be said on the values of educating oneself on the issues of the day and voting intelligently using the faculties of ones own mind. This of course is in direct opposition to catching a few sound bites that sound good and makes you "feel good" about the false comparisons of the two major party candidates.

All indications suggest that the 2012 vote will be a very close one. Barack Obama has never trailed Romney in head-to-head matchups with Romney over the past nine months. Obama currently holds a four-point advantage (50% to 46%) among all registered voters, which is not statistically significant. And if the higher engagement and interest among Republicans persists through the fall, that alone could reduce any advantage Obama has enjoyed.

For example, among the two-thirds of registered voters who say they have given a lot of thought to the campaign, 47% favor Obama and 50% Romney. Similarly, the race is tied among the roughly three-quarters who say they are closely following campaign news (48% Obama, 49% Romney). Obama holds sizable leads among voters who are less engaged with the campaign.

Candidate Romney has failed miserably in the arena of creating enthusiasm for his candidacy. He has been the flip flopper who seemingly has not found his own core set of principles. This plays poorly with the "educated" American electorate. As in... those who do not vote the squishy, feely, altruistic morality the collectivist mindset (the category which the majority of Americans actually fall into) places above that of substance and reality. For candidate Romney therein lies his greatest opportunity. If he finds the courage, and the chutzpah to grab it and run with it he could very well be the next President of the United States of America.

As is typical when incumbents are running for reelection, Barack Obama looms large in the choices of both Democratic- and Republican-oriented voters. Obama’s supporters back him strongly – as strongly as they did in 2008 – and say their vote is an expression of support for the president. And while there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney among many who intend to vote for him, their deep dislike of Obama shores up their support for Romney.

Fully 91% of Obama’s supporters have a favorable view of the president, while the same share of his opponents view him unfavorably. But there is an imbalance in the intensity of these feelings. Just over half (53%) of Romney voters have a very unfavorable opinion of Obama, as compared to 38% of Obama voters who have a very favorable opinion.

Romney voters’ intensely negative views of Obama are not matched by equally intense positive views of their own candidate. Although about three-quarters (74%) of those who intend to vote for Romney say they have a favorable impression of him, just 14% say that impression is very favorable.

Because of these differing views of the candidates, Democrats are clearly more enthusiastic about voting for Obama than Republicans are about voting for Romney: 60% of Obama’s supporters back him strongly; by comparison, just 38% of Romney voters support him strongly. An earlier Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 9-June 3, found 72% of Obama’s supporters saying their choice was more of a vote for Obama than against Romney. By contrast, most Romney voters (58%) described their vote as a vote against Obama rather than for Romney (38%).

While less enthusiastic, Republican voters are no less committed to seeing Romney win. Fully 87% of Romney voters say there is no chance they will change their mind, as do 81% of Obama supporters. Romney voters also are more likely to say it “really matters who wins” this election (69% vs. 63%). And as discussed in Section 1, Romney voters exceed Obama voters on key measures of engagement.

Please take another moment and visit the Pew Research Center to read the rest of the poll.

For those like myself who view both the Republican and Democrat 2012 presidential candidates as misdirected, unqualified, and lacking in inspiration there is a viable, qualified candidate with more executive experience than the other two candidate combined. He is Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (be sure to click on the image for more info).

If we are to change American politics and reverse the nation's downward spiral we must start by changing the "twin" two party variants of the same befuddled and ultimately destructive ideology.

Perhaps it is time to start over from the basics. Which is of course to say rationally apply the logical classical liberal principles to today's realities.

Via: Memorandum

Over the Top, Even for Obama...

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

No longer can there be any question. President Obama has removed any doubt. He is the most narcissistic, arrogant, and unethical man who has ever occupied the Oval Office. His arrogant, almost Godlike attitude should be enough to convince the voting public to pull the lever for anybody but Obama in November.

But that's just one persons view. More interesting commentary found here, here, here, and here.

Disgusting, simply disgusting.

Via: Memeorandum

Jon McNaughton, "The Empowered Man"...

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

BUZZFEED - Popular conservative artist Jon McNaughton has released a new painting, the latest in his controversial series of anti-Obama artwork.

The Empowered Man—which shows President Obama watching in horror as a thirty something white male, standing in front of the White House holds up the U.S. constitution in one hand and a wad of cash in the other—was released this week.

“I wanted this painting to reflect the hope many Americans are having that we can steer our country back on track,” McNaughton emailed BuzzFeed. “I used real models and it took a couple of months to paint.”

The Empowered Man is a follow up to another painting called Wake Up America, which included inflammatory images of President Obama standing in a rain shower of corporate cash while American workers trudged along in chains. {Click For More}

ObamaCare, Commodity or a Right?...

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

h/t: The Griper's World



Points methinks everyone should be able to understand.

The Irrationality of "ANON" and his/her Trail Through Progressive Blogistan...

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

The following word salad of irrationality and hate was left as a comment at Rational Nation USA on a post entitled “Free Will.” After a initial reading of, and further contemplating the comment I decided to withhold publication of “anon’s” comment as I believed it to lack any intrinsic value whatsoever. Other than demonstrating a complete lack of intellectual clarity and honesty I thought the comment to be, well, rather worthless.

It was not until “anon” decided to post his/her delusional irrationality that I decided to publish the comment on Rational Nation USA. Objectivism, because it requires looking at reality squarely in the face so to speak, absolutely scare hell out of the collectivist mindset that is personified by “anon.”

For those with a rational mind I am sure you will get a chuckle from reading the following diatribe of irrationality. It expresses feelings born of the belief that somebody, from “anon’s” view no doubt somebody means Leviathan Big Brother/Big Sister nanny state government, is responsible for, and will take care of the needs one chooses not to take care of themselves when they could, and should have . After all, in the minds of those who support a statist all encompassing collectivist government it is the “fair” thing to do.

Objectivism, and the morality of living one’s life in pursuit of their own “rational self interest” is the most misunderstood and misrepresented concept of the modern age. Pursuing rational one’s self interest, properly understood does not mean “at the expense” of everybody else. But that is the precise premise from which delusional uneducated folks llike “anon” portray it as meaning. It is intellectual dishonest and bereft of any and all integrity.

There is neither tine nor space to cover the concepts of Objectivism and rational self interest in the space of this column. To do so requires an extensive reading of the volume of work generated by Ayn Rand over the course of her life.

For those who understand my comments here nothing further is required. For those who chose to remain ignorant of Objectivism and the proper meaning of rational self interest nothing will change their minds. It is for those who have retained an active and inquiring mind I have written the foregoing. My hope is they will find their way to Objectivism and a proper understanding of rational self interest. In so doing they will enhance their happiness and joy beyond anything the collectivist statist cabal can promse.

Anonymous 7:35 AM, June 19, 2012 - The first thought I have is about the people who call themselves “conservatives” today, and their fully-deserved designation as Randiots. It wasn’t all that long ago that people on the hard right understood that some Government intervention in the economy wasn’t evil, but an actual necessity. There were once right-wingers I didn’t have much use for philosophically, but I still respected. People like Barry Goldwater, and Warren Rudman. Somehow, the people of that generation raised the biggest bunch of selfish, ignorant morons that any society has ever produced. Where McCarthy was denounced as a fringe lunatic by the people of Goldwater’s generation, the generation of his descendants regard McCarthy is an idol. The old-time conservatives also despised and denounced dishonesty and corruption, while their children celebrate and embrace both things. Which is not to say that the children of old-style liberals were any better; in many cases they turned out to be even MORE Randiot than kids raised in winger households. I do not know exactly what happened here, and I don’t know exactly why it happened, but it would be wonderful for the Randiots to be studied, and queried, so we might know what to tell parents to avoid in the future.

Objectivism, itself, is complete stupidity, utterly insane, and the basis of a social structure that even wild dogs would not practice. I will assume that Rand came up with Objectivism during one of her meth binges, because nobody who wasn’t high on something could ever have offered up such a blatantly unworkable proposition. A society full of Objectivists is a society full of Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers, doing what they want to do, and never mind who has to be hurt or killed in order for them to do it. I have long suspected that most Randiots don’t actually understand Objectivism, but use it as a cover for their own selfishness and greed. In their way of thinking, somehow Rand saying that greed is okie-dokie makes it an intellectual kind of philosophy. Well, you know…. it sure doesn’t mean that at all. Calling yourself “smart” because Rand agrees with your greedy nature is like calling shit “fragrant” because there are some dogs that will roll around in it.

And last but not least, once you get above a couple of kids trading baseball cards, there is no such thing as a “free market.” Every mom-and-pop shop owner on Earth would like to be bigger than Mao-Mart, and Mao-Mart would like to shut down every mom-and-pop shop on Earth. Without Government to act as a fair arbiter in the interests of BOTH parties, you eventually wind up with whatever quality and price that the monolith decides you’ll get. The Randiots that cry about REGALASHUNS on giant corporations are actually arguing the Stalinist position, since Stalin shut down all the small traders in the USSR and made everyone go to Government stores for whatever items Stalin thought that consumers should be able to get. A privately-owned Stalinism is what you inevitably wind up with in a totally-unregulated “free market” system. Regulation KEEPS markets free.

It may be that the Randiots will be completely discredited in another election cycle or two (if we have that many left,) but the damage they’ve done will now carry over into the next century. The people who have suffered from the effects of Randiot economics are going to outlive us all, and we are not going to be able to undo a lot of what they’ve had to endure, any more than we could fix the heartbreak of so many who lived through the last Republican Depression. My hope is that the suffering people of today will turn out to be as wise as those who suffered through the last Depression.

Actually, I hope they’re even wiser, and remember to watch their children for any signs that the kids might be Randiots. Let no society ever again have to endure the kind of greed and hate-blinded stupidity we’ve had to suffer through.

You can find "anon's" trail leading from here to the previous linked site. It seems almost certain that "anon" fears the power of the individual and the concept of self sufficiency and pursuing ones own rational self interest. But I guess that is what can be expected from the irrational.

Ayn Rand - Objectivism & Rational Self Interest

The Real Scope On the Economy...

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

Sword of Truth

The Obama administration and it's robotic like followers would have you believe the nation is better off than it was four years ago. Factual empirical data disagrees. Rather than doing the he said he said blame game just look at the data.

GWB's administration was a economic disaster in its infancy. Enter BHO's administration that essentially continued the misguided policies of its predecessor and what we have is a prolonged economic down turn with continued high unemployment.

No doubt the neo-cons on the right, as well as the statist socialists on the left will call for greater government intervention to force a market correction to bring us back to prosperity.

I might suggest a reading of, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal before further tinkering with the economy occurs.

Cut to Investor's Business Daily for the real scoop.

Investor's Daily - Economy: A Bloomberg poll out this week purports to find that "Americans say they're better off since Obama took office." Don't believe it. Fact is that by most measures, Americans have fallen behind under Obama.

The actual poll results are far less emphatic than what that Bloomberg headline suggests. The poll found only 45% say they're better off under Obama. However, a smaller share — just 36% — say they are worse off.

Maybe the Bloomberg poll suffered from a selection bias — after all, it also found unusually high support for Obama over Romney. Or maybe the public's views are distorted by a biased mainstream press trying to convince them that things are getting better.

Whatever the reason, it is simply not true that Americans are better off than they were four years ago.

Here are the facts:

More unemployed: As of May, there were almost 700,000 more people out of work than in January 2009, and the unemployment rate is higher — 8.2% vs. 7.8%. There are also 2.7 million more long-term unemployed — those who've been out of work for 27 weeks or more, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

More discouraged workers: The number of "discouraged workers" — people who believe no job is available — is still 100,000 bigger than when Obama took office. There are also more people working part-time because they can't find full-time jobs, and millions more who aren't in the labor force at all.

Lower weekly earnings: BLS data also show that real median weekly earnings have dropped 3% during Obama's time in the White House. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

SEIU Displaying It's Irrationality Once Again... No Surprise

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

The "Raise" Act, sponsored by Marco Rubio, a common sense and reasonable piece of legislation is soon to be voted on. Of course the unions, especially the dishonest and untrustworthy SEUI is falling all over itself misrepresenting what the law says.

In the unions continuing attempt to keep exceptional employees, those who contribute the most from being justly rewarded for their individual efforts the union will stop at nothing. Including lying in the hopes of winning support for their bankrupt collectivist ideology.

From the SEIU blog:

Collective bargaining rights are under attack. Again.

The "RAISE Act," introduced by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), is yet another attempt to undermine the rights of workers to bargain collectively. The bill, which goes to a vote today, would take away employees' rights to negotiate contracts that create a uniform, fair process for granting wage increases. Employers would be allowed to ignore what they agreed to in collective bargaining agreements - and that's not fair.

The RAISE Act is an unnecessary attack on workers' rights, and it undermines the fairness collective bargaining contracts bring to the workplace. We cannot allow Senator Rubio to deny unionized employees the right to raises that are granted free from discrimination, arbitrariness, and favoritism.

A lot of talk about fairness, playing to the choir of those who expecting to provide the minimal effort expect to be compensated the same as those who expend demonstrably greater effort in advancing their companies competitiveness.

Makes no sense. Unless you're a collectivist that truly believes sinking to the lowest common denominator is good business and the "fair thing to do."

Now, the abstract of the Raise Act with the truth from The Heritage Foundation:

Abstract: Federal law allows unions to impose wage restrictions on nearly 8 million American middle-class workers. Union contracts set both a wage floor and a wage ceiling—barring unionized employers from offering pay raises as reward for exceptional work without negotiating with the union. No matter how hard most union members work, they cannot earn higher wages than specified by their contracts. The RAISE Act would lift the “seniority ceiling” on workers’ wages by allowing employers to pay individual workers more than the union contract specifies. Many unionized companies would offer merit raises if the RAISE Act were passed. Restoring workers’ freedom to contract for higher wages, and the higher earnings themselves, would create wealth and supply a much-needed boost to the economy. Congress should lift the pay cap on union members now.

Federal law caps the wages of 7.6 million middle-class workers. Union contracts set both a wage floor and a wage ceiling—unionized employers may not give productive workers pay raises outside the collectively bargained contract. Unions usually insist on seniority-based pay and rarely allow employers to reward hard-working employees on an individual basis. No matter how hard most union members work, they cannot earn higher wages than specified by their contracts.

The RAISE (Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees) Act, introduced this year by Senator Marco Rubio (R–FL) and Representative Todd Rokita (R–IN), would lift the “seniority ceiling” on workers’ wages by allowing employers to pay individual workers more—but not less—than the union contract specifies. By offering workers the opportu­nity to earn higher wages, the RAISE Act provides an incentive for increased productivity. Should Congress pass the RAISE Act, the average union member’s salary could rise between $2,700 and $4,500 a year. The RAISE Act would restore union members’ freedom to earn individual merit-based raises—a freedom that federal labor law currently denies. With many American families struggling financially in the aftermath of the recession, Congress should lift the seniority ceiling on workers’ wages.

Unions Impose Pay Caps

In December 2007, the economy slid into a deep recession and since then many American workers have struggled financially. While government-imposed pay caps for executives at firms that received funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) caused concern that the pay caps would harm the economy, these caps affected, at most, a few thousand employees. Far more destructive is the pay cap that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) places on almost 8 million middle-class workers.

Most Americans know that unions set a floor for workers’ wages: An employer may not pay individual union members less than the amount bargained for by the union. Few Americans know that unions also set a ceiling for workers’ wages: Businesses may also not pay individual workers more than the amount for which their union bargained.

Unions are exclusive bargaining representatives. They represent all employees in a bargaining unit as a group, and they negotiate a collective contract that applies to all workers. Employers may not pay individuals more than the contract allows without first negotiating such an increase with the union.

Individual Work Unrewarded

As a mere practical matter, union officials do not have the ability to assess the productivity of, and negotiate appropriate individual merit raises for, hundreds of workers at a given company. Unions also want their members to view the union—not their individual accomplishments—as the source of any wage gains. Unions prefer, in the words of Teamster’s President Jimmy Hoffa, “to create uniform standards for all employees.”[1] Therefore, individual performance reviews are the exception in collective bargaining agreements (CBA). While some union contracts permit employers to pay individual workers higher wages, most base pay on seniority systems and job classifications that apply to all workers.[2] Table 1 shows the proportion of workers in several manufacturing sectors whose pay is at least partly based on their individual performance. {Read More}

As the influence of labor union's have waned, the result of their own ineptitude and failure to represent the real interests of their membership, they have become increasingly more desperate. This is just another example of Union Leadership irrationality.

Via: Memeorandum

Pelosi.... A Political Mime or a Bona Fide Delusional Cupcake... You Be the Judge

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

This women has been out of touch with reality for so long even I am beginning to feel sorry for her. Not that it will happen mind you. I'm just sayin...

HuffPo - WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is playing politics with its vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, an action she said that even she didn't seek as House Speaker when she thought someone was legitimately deserving of it.

"I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day," Pelosi said to laughter, during a sit-down with reporters. "I'm not kidding. There's a prison here in the Capitol ... If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him."

Rove was senior advisor and deputy chief of staff to former President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2007.

Asked on what grounds she could have arrested Rove, Pelosi replied, "Oh, any number. But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress. But we didn't."

Skip

Pelosi sounded off on the ordeal ahead of the committee vote.

"This is just strictly political," she said. "It's just the irresponsibility of the Republicans. We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?" {Read It All}

Via: Memeorandum

Rand Paul, His Own Man...

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

It is refreshing to read something like this from an elected official that actually has the interests of We the People in mind. We are all hopeful I'm sure that Senator Rand Paul lives by these words and stands for the people. If he does he has a bright future in American politics and governance.

National Review - Much has been speculated and written since my endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Many in the liberty movement and my longtime supporters wondered if, as a result of endorsing someone for office, I would stand up to them when they went astray.

The question to me is as strange as the answer is simple: Yes, strongly. Every time.

I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have opposed the USA Patriot Act, voted against the NDAA over indefinite detention, fought to end mandatory minimum drug sentences, and voted against my party’s official budget because it didn’t cut enough spending.

I introduced a resolution against an unconstitutional war in Libya, and tried to repeal the authorization for the unconstitutional war before that in Iraq.

I don’t believe any fair look at my record will show blind partisanship — or partisanship of any kind. I have worked with Senate Democrats on civil liberties, and the House Black Caucus on the drug war. I have fought alongside the ACLU on civil liberties, and at times, I have fought all by myself on federalism issues.

I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments.

Where I don’t know if there is as much of a difference as I would like is foreign policy.

Let’s first be clear: President Obama was elected on a platform of ending wars, yet he has opposed every effort made by me and others in the Senate to do that. He opposed my resolution to end the Iraq War. He has refused my urgings to end the war in Afghanistan more quickly. He started another war in Libya, and this time went further into unconstitutional territory than previous presidents by not even seeking Congressional approval whatsoever.

I opposed him when he did that. Anyone who believes President Obama is less aggressive internationally than his predecessors is mistaken.

I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy. But I do know that I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress... {Read More}

I do not agree with Senator Paul that Romney's domestic and economic policies will differ greatly from Obama. I do believe Romney may be a loose cannon internationally, particularly with respect to unilateral and unconstitutional military action.

There is one thing for sure, Rand Paul seems to have the integrity to stand by his convictions and those of his constituency. I respect that.

Via: Memeorandum

As Holder (and Obama) Run for Cover Executive Privilege Is Invoked...

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

So much for transparency in what was to be a transparent administration. I have no issue with the use of executive privileged when invoking it is for, say national security reasons. Somehow this time it just seems to look like, walk like, and quack like a CYA move for Holder and the Obama administration.

The Washington Post - President Obama asserted executive privilege over documents related to the “Fast and Furious” operation Wednesday as a House panel moved to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt for failing to cooperate with a related congressional inquiry.

The president’s decision to withhold the documents, his first use of executive privilege, and the House panel’s anticipated contempt citation quickly intensified a long-simmering feud between the White House and Republican lawmakers and set up a clash over the extent of presidential power that may take months to resolve.

Sharing the “Fast and Furious” documents “would raise substantial separation of powers concerns and potentially create an imbalance in the relationship” between Congress and the White House, Holder wrote in a letter to Obama delivered late Tuesday.

Releasing the documents “would inhibit candor of such Executive Branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the Executive Branch’s ability to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight,” Holder added.

Executive privilege has been invoked throughout U.S. history by presidential administrations to preserve the confidentiality of information in the face of legislative inquiries. The privilege is qualified, not absolute, and can be overturned in courts. But disputes over access to information rarely reach the courts and are most often resolved through political negotiations, according to the Congressional Research Service. {Read More}

More on this growing scandal and apparent cover up by the DOJ and Attorney General Eric Holder from PowerLine.

With the House of Representatives poised to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, President Obama has granted Holder’s request to assert executive privilege in refusing to turn over documents to Congress related to the Fast and Furious scandal. This won’t insulate Holder from being held in contempt. Rather, the White House presumably hopes the assertion will improve Holder’s position if/when his dispute with the House reaches the judicial system.

In requesting that Obama assert executive privilege, Holder said he is “very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight would have significant and damaging consequences.” This, he added, “would raise substantial separation of powers concerns and potentially create an imbalance in the relationship” between Congress and the White House.”

Holder has reason to be concerned. Rep. Issa’s Committee wants to find out whether, as part of its “deliberative process,” the Department of Justice engaged in a cover-up, including knowingly making false statements to the Commmittee, about the scandalous Fast and Furious program. To the extent that DOJ is discovered through its own documents to have done so, Holder and the administration would face significant and damaging consequences. {Read More}

We'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out. Certainly the phrase "Imperial Presidency" comes to mind.

Via: Memeotrandum

Udate:

Mark Levin talking on his Facebook page hit the nail squarely on the head.

Executive Privilege and how the House should move forward legally
by Mark Levin on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 5:41pm ·

As the Supreme Court recognized in US v. Nixon, the Executive Branch has a legitimate interest in confidentiality of communications among high officials so that the President can have the benefit of candid advice. However, as President Washington himself recognized, that privilege does not protect the President or his underlings from embarrassment or public exposure for questionable actions.

As the Supreme Court has also recognized repeatedly, the Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has the essential power to investigate the actions of the Executive Branch.

In this case, the exercise of Executive Privilege seems, in its timing and over-inclusiveness, to be nothing less than a political delaying tactic to prevent exposure of wrongdoing and incompetence that resulted in the murder of a American law enforcement agent and injury and death of many others. Further, a wholesale claim of privilege is facially improper: the President should be held to the standard that anyone claiming privilege is held to: identify each document in a log so that privilege can be disputed. (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974)

Because among the categories of documents sought are all those relating to the recantation by Holder of testimony before Congress, the demand goes to the core of the Congressional power under Article I. In this respect, this is not a general or oversight inquiry but a determination of why the Attorney General of the United States testified falsely before Congress about his own knowledge of a federal program. Presumptively, none of this category of documents is protected by Executive Privilege for wrongdoing per se is not protected by the privilege.

The right way to proceed is to hold Holder in contempt by resolution of the House and seek authorization from the House for the Committee, by its Chairman, to proceed by civil action to compel production of the documents. (Holder will not enforce a holding of contempt against himself -- and by the way, he should have authorized, say, the assistant attorney general for legal counsel, to handle the contempt matter once the House voted as at that point he is representing his own interests and not those of the nation generally). Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action. There is no need for Senate action. The use of this procedure has been acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service in a 2007 study. Further, a privilege log should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court, in camera inspection done promptly by the judge, and a final order entered compelling production of all documents for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Ex Governor Ventura Pledges To Campaign Against Marriage Amendment....

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

Ex Minnesota Republican Governor Jesse Ventura saying it as well as I've heard it said. Hats off to Governor Ventura. Who by the way left the republican party to join the Independence Party of Minnesota in 2000.

Post Bulletin - Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura said both he and former first lady Terry Ventura have pledged to do whatever they can to help defeat a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

"I certainly hope that people don't amend our constitution to stop gay marriage because, number one, the constitution is there to protect people — not oppress them," Ventura said during a recent interview. He will be at the Barnes & Noble at Apache Mall at 7 p.m. today for a book signing.

In November, Minnesota voters will decide whether to amend the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Ventura said the issue is personal for him because when he was a professional wrestler he had a friend who was gay who had been with his partner for more than 20 years. When his friend's partner got sick, he was unable to be by his bedside because hospital rules allowed only spouses or next of kin.

"And because they are not allowed to be married, he's neither. That's cruel," he said.

Ventura said he believes the majority should not be able to make decisions about the civil rights of a minority. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Does the Nation Need More Revenue?...

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

I am bracing for criticism from the far right as well as from the far left. Of course the criticism will be for different rationale, or reasons. The right will likely view the following as a sell out, a unnecessary compromise. On the other hand the left will no doubt call it hypocritical as they will make the case it strays from Randian objectivist principles of rational self interest. Both will be wrong. What each side fails to recognize is that reality will ultimately exact it's price for bad decisions made as well as for good decisions not made. Reality is blind to ideology.

The "No New Tax Pledge" pushed by Grover Norquist and signed by many republicans is nothing more than taking the reasonable and pushing it off the edge of a cliff to nowhere. Reality will, as it always does exact it's price.

Government, in the case of the USA means a limited constitutional government as defined and devised by the founders of our democratic republic. It is of course the ideal as history has amply demonstrated. At least for those "with eyes to see."

As our nation has grown, expanding in size and depth the infrastructure to support the growth has exceeded anything imaginable in 1787. Therefore, it stands to reason the need for tax revenues to fund the expanded infrastructure has increased exponentially over the past 2.3 centuries.

The difficulty today seems to rest in determining precisely what it is that the government ought to be funding in the 21st century. There are indeed many budget items that can be trimmed, from defense to entitlements to subsidies and really everything else in between. There is little doubt but what opportunities exist for cuts in our federal budget. It is also true there can be little doubt but what people, and this goes for business as well, will need to rethink the proper role of government in their lives. Because folks, sooner or later reality will arrive and exact it's price for all our excesses.

Our government, Leviathan as I like to call it, has no doubt grown too large and therefore excessively intrusive. Shrinking the size of our federal government and returning greater control to the people to run their own lives and businesses, thereby giving them greater liberty, should be the goal. And I believe it is what most people want, on both sides of the aisle.

Our problem is we have done nothing on either side of the aisle to regain some fiscal sanity. Simply put we need to do something, to make some decisions. Decisions that ultimately results in paying down our national debt and balances our budget annually. Failure to do will result in reality exacting a very painful price when it comes calling.

I am a strong proponent of wrapping out minds and arms around our spendthrift nature and propensity for living off the national credit card. Classical liberals, aka conservatives understand that individuals, businesses, and government cannot spend more than they are bringing in indefinitely or sooner or later the bridge that in essence is leading to nowhere will collapse. Reality always catches up to you, that's a fact.

We live in a democratic republic. Our representatives are elected by none other than... We the People. As such our representatives are accountable to us, and ultimately we are accountable for the representatives we elect to represent us. By extension this means we are responsible for the decisions they make, or don't make on our behalf. As provided for my our founders we have the ability, indeed the responsibility to fire the representatives that fail to act in our interest.

For us, (We the People) to effectively manage those we elect to represent our interests requires educating ourselves on the issues, remaining vigilant in holding our representatives feet to the fire, and taking decisive action to replace them every two, four, and six years when they fail to preform.

Now back to my original purpose. Yes, we need to control our profligate national sending and only a fool believes otherwise. We must also decide the priorities we as a people want our government to spend our money on, and at the end of the day if the "things" we want exceed the revenue stream (taxes coming in) we will have no choice but to increase dollars coming in to the federal treasury.

This is why the pledge not to raise taxes is foolish. It is just as foolish as to pledge never to reduce or cut spending when it is obvious reductions in expenditures can be made. The bottom line here folks is we simply cannot continue to live off the Nation's Platinum Card forever. The books must be balanced. If we are not willing to trim the goodies we enjoy, or give up the size of our Military Industrial Complex then we best be ready to cough up the extra dough. If we don't reality will exact a by far more painful and debilitating punishment than cutting spending or raising taxes.

Look at the reality of the past twenty five years and note the lies we have been told by the politicians.

Via: Memeorandum

Bill Maher, Gettin Jiggy...

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

Classless... Clueless

Ah yes, the ideology of tolerance and understanding. Brought to you by the proponents of the if it feels good anything goes irrational mindset. Until of course a view that runs contrary to their anti conceptual philosophy is on the table. Then you get the following:

Bill Maher on Monday called the GOP the “Party of the Apes” and ripped Republicans for not repudiating Rep. Allen West — who, the comedian suggested, should be taken to a mental hospital.

“[T]he idea that the blame for our government’s dysfunction is equally shared by the parties just is a giant, steaming mound of horsesh*t and anyone who has paid attention to politics over the last 20 years knows it. Or as I like to call it, ‘The Rise of the Party of the Apes,’” the host of HBO’s “Real Time” wrote on his blog.

Typical leftist intolerance for viewpoints they disagree with... Personified and supported of course by the anti coneptual mentality.

“[T]ake Allen West. Seriously, take him to the padded cell and give him 20 CCs of the high test,” Maher wrote, noting West’s remark that some 80 House Democrats are Communists. “And not one Republican said, ‘Allen, come on. You’re making us look dumb.’ Not one of the Republican candidates for president said anything.

Okay Maher. I will give you this, and this only, no one "officially" knows how many house democrats are communists. However, that fact does not negate the reality there are many individuals members in the Democratic party who do lean very, very far left. Perhaps one can argue they are not communists (in the true Marxist sense) but one cannot argue they are not statists in the real and true sense of what constitutes statism. Which of course is what Rep. West was really referring to, even if he didn't recognize it himself at the time.

As for the Tea Party–backed Mourdock, who said last month, “I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,” Maher equated it with a relationship in which only one partner receives oral sex."

Very cute Mr. Maher (and I use the term very loosely in your case) as wall as classless, closed minded, partisan, and as empty headed as one can possibly be. No wonder the left loves this buffoon so much.

You can read all Maher's idiocy here.

Via: Memeorandum