A Letter To The Editor Regarding Southwest Airlines And The Presidential Debates

Editor's note: The following is a guest post from Chris Walsh of The Libertarian Patriot.

You may not be aware of this but because of pressure from consumers, 3 sponsors have pulled out of the Presidential Debates thus far. On Monday it was BBH New York, on Wednesday the YWCA dropped out and on Friday it was Philips Electronics.

As you can see, public opinion does matter to large corporations. With that in mind, we need to make it known to the other debate sponsors that there are those of us who are not happy with the Commission on Presidential Debates' decision to exclude other qualified 3rd party candidates from the upcoming debates.

Well, Southwest Airlines is one of those debate sponsors. They need to be put on notice that we are unhappy with their decision to support the exclusion of qualified 3rd party candidates who are on the ballots in enough states to have access to 270 or more electoral votes and thus a mathematical chance of winning the Presidency.

By excluding these candidates, Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein, Southwest, as well as the remaining six other sponsors, are actively silencing the voices of candidates who can influence the outcome of the election.

We know Southwest Airlines' senior management is aware of the issue as responses to email inquiries to the company show.

After careful review of the CPD’s request for Southwest Airlines involvement in the upcoming debates, our Senior Leaders felt that the core values of Southwest Airlines aligned with the CPD’s mission of providing American Citizens the opportunity to make informed decisions.

To this end, we must continue to pressure Southwest to reconsider their sponsorship and end their involvement with these sham debates.

I ask you all to email a Letter to the Editor of the Dallas Morning News (200 words or less), the major daily newspaper in Southwest's home city of Dallas. Also provided are the email addresses to Southwest executives so they may receive a copy of your letter. Blind copies should be sent to three additional Texas newspapers in cities served by Southwest as well.

Together we can make our voices and the voices of all qualified Presidential candidates heard.

Thank you for your support.

Here is a copy of the email that I sent, but remember to be effective you should use your own words.

To: letters@dallasnews.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com

cc: gary.kelly@wnco.com, jeff.lamb@wnco.com, ron.ricks@wnco.com, dave.ridley@wnco.com, kevin.krone@wnco.com, linda.rutherford@wnco.com, ellen.torbert@wnco.com

bcc: letters@statesman.com, viewpoints@chron.com, letters@express-news.net

Subject: Why is Southwest Airlines limiting our choices in the upcoming Presidential election?

To the editor:

As a businessman who is a frequent traveler through Dallas and who regularly uses Southwest for my other business and personal travel, I am disheartened to hear that Southwest is suggesting that I only have the choice to vote for a Republican or a Democrat for President.

In sponsoring the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization of professional Republican and Democratic functionaries in DC, Southwest is doing just that; preventing me and two hundred million other American voters from hearing other qualified candidates for President who will be on the majority of ballots this November.

I strongly disagree with Southwest's statement to me that, "The Senior Leadership of Southwest Airlines felt that their core values aligned with the CPD’s mission of providing American Citizens the opportunity to make informed decisions" given they are not allowing the American electorate to hear all the options in order to make that informed decision.

If a "core value" of Southwest is to silence the voices of qualified Presidential candidates, other than those from the Democratic or Republican parties, I wish to no longer do business with them.

Southwest should stay out of politics and not have a hand in influencing this important election.

Chris Walsh
San Tan Valley, AZ

And, if you wish to get in touch with the other six sponsors, here is their contact info as well:

Crowell & Moring LLP
At Crowell – Moring LLC, the Chairman is Kent A. Gardiner and his email is
kgardiner@crowell.com

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
One Busch Place
St. Louis, MO 63118
800-342-5283
E-mail Contact Form: http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/Contactus/email.asp

The Howard G. Buffet Foundation
158 W Prairie Ave, Suite 107
Decatur, IL 62523-1442
Also:
121 S 51st St
Omaha, NE 68132
402-556-6641

Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Farr, Miller & Washington
1020 19th Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
800-390-3277
202-530-5600
202-530-5508 Fax
Email: sscohen@farrmiller.com

International Bottled Water Association
1700 Diagonal Road
Suite 650
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-683-5213
703-683-4074 Fax
Email: ibwainfo@bottledwater.org
800-WATER-11 (Information Hotline)
http://bottledwater.org

The Kovler Fund
aka Marjorie Kovler Research Fellowship
c/o John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum
Columbia Point
Boston, MA 02125
617-514-1624
617-514-1625 Fax
Email: kennedy.library@nara.gov

The MSM, Is It a Threat To Our Freedoms?...

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

The following speech by Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Patrick Caddell is a breath of fresh air. It is absolutely true, and it is a warning to all Americans that a free and unchecked relentlessly questioning press is the only thing that can preserve our republic and our liberties from the corrupting influence of politics and business.

Needing no further introduction, and in the name of bipartisanship...

FOX News - I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not. You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people.

That changed in 1980.

There are a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me.

Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever.

But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press. That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances.

We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances. The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust [the American people have in the press] —when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and [the level of their distrust] it’s the highest in history. For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.” Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, independents were 31%.

So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well.

I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called “The Audacity of Cronyism” in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.” What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail. A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why. That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.

The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe. David Plouffe, who is the White House’s Senior Adviser—and was Obama’s campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria.

Now, let me tell you: There’s nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn’t expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don’t. And no one has raised this in the mainstream media.

He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions. No one asked him whatsoever about that. He was not inquired. George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two platforms. I mean, he’s a political hack masquerading as a journalist. But when you don’t ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who’s going in the White House—when we’re talking about Iran.

I just finished surveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending.

This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we’ve done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States. And here’s a man who’s being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it!

The third thing I would say is that—then there’s of course [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the “leaker-in-chief.”

I mean this ridiculous running around—“How did these secrets get out?”—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security. In Mr. [David] Sanger’s book [Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon”—but let me just make a point. Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like this. They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked.

Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell... {Read More}

Perhaps it is time Americans boycotted the MSM sending them the message unless they once again start performing the tasks the media historically performed they are no longer needed.

Via: Memeorandum

Islam, the Alleged Religion of Peace and Understranding Strikes Again...

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

Buddhist Temple Torched By Muslims...

I'm sure I'll be called a racist Muslim hating bastard or some other emotionally driven hyperbolic drivel by the looney tunes on the left but here it is. Muslims. the supposed religion of peace and understanding just torched four Buddhist temples and fifteen homes because somebody allegedly insulted their dear and make believe peaceful religion of Islam.

I may be wrong here, and if so please somebody correct me, but I don't believe there has ever been a time in the modern that time Buddhism has tried to force their beliefs on anyone. Quite unlike the terrorist prone Muslim religion it is hard to recall when that time might have been.

Today we once again witness the "peaceful religion of Islam" taking to the streets and torching the temples of another belief system and destroying the homes of others. Why? because they Really and Actually Believe it is their right and obligation to do so simply because they are offended by someones views.

Heads up for those who are still struggling to figure this out... Islam has proven yet once again to be brutal, terrorist oriented, bigoted beyond beyond, and has as its primary aim to silence anyone and everyone who dares to offend their sensitivities or question their Prophet. I for one am quite tired of making excuses for, or accepting irrational barbaric 7th century beliefs as peaceful and understanding.

As reported by Reuters...

COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh (Reuters) - Hundreds of Muslims in Bangladesh burned at least four Buddhist temples and 15 homes of Buddhists on Sunday after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam, police and residents said.

Members of the Buddhist minority in the Cox's Bazar area in the southeast of the country said unidentified people were bent on upsetting peaceful relations between Muslims and Buddhists.

Muslims took to the streets in the area late on Saturday to protest against what they said was a photograph posted on Facebook that insulted Islam.

The protesters said the picture had been posted by a Buddhist and they marched to Buddhist villages and set fire to temples and houses.

Police said they had deployed extra security forces and banned gatherings in Buddhist-dominated areas.

"We brought the situation under control before dawn and imposed restrictions on public gatherings," said Salim Mohammad Jahangir, Cox's Bazar district police superintendent.

Many people in predominantly Muslim Bangladesh have been angered in recent days by a film made in California that mocks the Prophet Mohammad... {Read More}

What will it take... ?

Via: Memeorandum

Senator McCain Debunking Senator Reid and Obama Smoke and Mirrors...

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

The Inept Supporting the Inept...

It really comes as no surprise Senator Harry Reid is out supporting the falsehoods of the Obama administration and it's ineptitude with respect to the terrorist attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi on September 11. Democratic supporters of the administration's incompetency are spinning like a top, with the Nevada Senator now taking the lead. However, most Americans will see through the smoke and mirrors of the administration's attempted cover up of their failure to protect American interests and personnel working the the American Consulate in Libya.

Senator John McCain aptly points out the glaring falsehoods in the Obama administration's statements.

THE HILL - The Arizona Republican said the administration's initial claim that an anti-Muslim video incited the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was political spin that "doesn't pass the smell test."

"It was either willful ignorance or dismal intelligence to think that people come to spontaneous demonstrations with heavy weapons, mortars, and the attack goes on for hours," McCain said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" program.

"To blame it on the video … shows the absolute ineptitude and ignorance of the realities," McCain added. "It's not the videos, it's the radical Islamists [who] are pushing the videos."

McCain said the White House was initially reluctant to label the attack a planned act of terrorism for fear of exposing the level of turmoil in the Middle East, a region he characterized as "unraveling" under Obama's watch.

"It interferes with the depiction that the administration is trying to convey that Al Qaeda is on the wane [and] that everything's fine in the Middle East,"... {Read More}

Of course the real answer is to vacate the region, cut all foreign aid, and let the region have precisely what it wants and deserves. To be left alone with the complete absence of American money and support. Wouldn't that make the Prophet most happy, not to mention the terrorists?

Via: Memeorandum

The Would Be Visionary Who Isn't...

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

The Question Is... To Where?

Mark Steyn is a breath of fresh air on occasion. His article following is certainly one of those times.

NATIONAL REVIEW - One of the reasons why Barack Obama is regarded as the greatest orator of our age is that he’s always banging on about some other age yet to come — e.g., the Future! A future of whose contours he is remarkably certain and boundlessly confident: The future will belong to nations that invest in education because the children are our future, but the future will not belong to nations that do not invest in green-energy projects because solar-powered prompters are our future, and most of all the future will belong to people who look back at the Obama era and marvel that there was a courageous far-sighted man willing to take on the tough task of slowing the rise of the oceans because the future will belong to people on viable land masses. This futuristic shtick is a cheap’n’cheesy rhetorical device (I speak as the author of a book called “After America,” whose title is less futuristic than you might think) but it seems to play well with the impressionable Obammysoxers of the press corps.

And so it was with President Obama’s usual visionary, inspiring, historic, etc., address to the U.N. General Assembly the other day: “The future must not belong to those who bully women,” he told the world, in a reference either to Egyptian clitoridectomists or the Republican party, according to taste. “The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians,” he added. You mean those Muslim guys? Whoa, don’t jump to conclusions. “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam,” he declared, introducing to U.S. jurisprudence the novel concept of being able to slander a bloke who’s been dead for getting on a millennium and a half now. If I understand correctly the cumulative vision of the speech, the future will belong to gay feminist ecumenical Muslims. You can take that to the bank. But make no mistake, as he would say, and in fact did: “We face a choice between the promise of the future or the prisons of the past, and we cannot afford to get it wrong.” Because if we do, we could spend our future living in the prisons of the past, which we forgot to demolish in the present for breach of wheelchair-accessibility codes.

And the crowd went wild! Well, okay, they didn’t. They’re transnational bureaucrats on expense accounts, so they clapped politely, and then nipped out for a bathroom break before the president of Serbia. But, if I’d been one of the globetrotting bigwigs fortunate enough to get an invite — the prime minister of Azerbaijan, say, or the deputy tourism minister of Equatorial Guinea — I would have responded: Well, maybe the future will belong to those who empower women and don’t diss Mohammed. But maybe it’ll belong to albino midgets who wear pink thongs. Who knows? Que sera sera, whatever will be will be, the future’s not ours to see. But one thing we can say for certain is that the future will not belong to broke losers... {Read More}

As he nails it again...

Via: Memeorandum

Dearborn Michigan Muslims Rally Against First Amendment Free Speech Rights...

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

It is getting to the point were I don't recognize my country anymore. Freedom of religion and speech, the hallmarks of our republic are now under attack by Muslims who were offended by some ridiculous movie trailer. The aim of course is to push the U.S. government to legislate "certain" restrictions on freedom of speech in the name of tolerance and understanding. Of course we all know, at least those of us who have retained some sense of rational thought that it's a very slippery slope. One that can only lead to tyranny and oppression.

The road to liberties loss has many tributaries if you will. Guarding the freedoms enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights requires vigilance. Vigilance and a fierce burning desire to remain free. Free to speak our minds, worship or not as we choose, and limit the capacity of our government to intrude into our lives where is has no business doing so. If only we had a president who could say these words, rather than add fuel to the fire of the Muslims who would have us all be less free.

Out of Dearborn Michigan comes the story that prompted this post. "Dearborn Muslims rally against the First Amendment" Enough to make even the most politically correct individual stop and take notice of how far some have strayed from our founding principles.

THE MICHIGAN VIEW - Led by a newspaper publisher, Muslim activists will call for putting limits on American free speech at a Dearborn rally this evening. You can't make this stuff up.

Nearly a decade after Dearborn's streets celebrated America for bringing down Saddam Hussein and opening a door to democracy in the Mideast, the same city will be the epicenter today of calls to squelch free speech. Protesting the film, "Innocence of Muslims," that has sparked protests in the Mideast, rally organizer Tarek Baydoun says that so-called blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent speech that hurts the "the religious feelings of Muslims."

This assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed is a sad day in America - and confirms fears that Muslim-American activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and state in the American Constitution.

"There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence," said Arab-American News publisher Osama Siblani, a self-proclaimed "moderate" who is apparently oblivious to how gutting the First Amendment would affect his own business.

The Dearborn organizers seek an international law banning what they define as anti-Mohammed speech that would supersede American law... {Read More}

Indeed a slippery slope. If these activists were to have their way we would be well on our way to a One World Order. One where the laws of the United States of America would take a back seat to... Presumably Sharia law methinks.



Via: Memeorandum

Incompentancy in Benghazi and the Obama Failure...

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

ABACAUSA.COM

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 12, 2012.

As more time passes we are learning conclusively of security lapses at the Libyan Consulate in Benghazi as well as it becoming clear the Obama administration has been less than truthful with the American people. Were it not for responsible journalists staying on the story we might never have known the dishonesty President Obama and his administration is capable of.

WSJ - In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and declared that "there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice." What he didn't say is how relentless he'll be in tracking down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the murders. Let's say there's some doubt about that.

None of the initial explanations offered by the White House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held up. First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term: "What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent."

Administration officials also maintained that the diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, the site of the first attacks this September 11, were properly defended and that the U.S. had no reason to prepare for any attack. "The office of the director of National Intelligence has said we have no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week, calling the security measures in place there "robust."

Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march "hijacked" by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.

You'd think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with. But the Administration wants to avoid this conversation. The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.

Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration's holes. On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren't demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs. As we've noted since last winter, the waning of American and European interest in Libya could have dangerous consequences.

Deteriorating security was no secret. On April 10, for example, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin. On June 6, an improvised explosive device exploded outside the U.S. consulate. In late August, State warned American citizens who were planning to travel to Libya about the threat of assassinations and car bombings.

Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal security... {Read More}

I can't help but remember the rhetoric surrounding the Bush administration and the accusations that he and his administration lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq. Perhaps to a degree the criticism were correct, although they have never been proven beyond a doubt.

Here is a clear cut case of the President being less than honest and hoping Teflon layering works well for him. Although these reports are unlikely to cause the ObamaBots to even miss a beat in the march for "Hope and Change" and "Forward"

Via: Memeorandum

Update:

Presidential spokesman Jay Carney said the President and his administration did not initially lie regarding the terrorist attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi during which four American lives were lost. Multiple sources demonstrate the administration is; 1) totally inept, and 2) lying. Can there be any doubt of a cover up attempt by this administration?

Townhall - During a press gaggle on board Air Force One this morning in Virginia Beach, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused Mitt Romney of "politicizing" the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in reference to pressure from the campaign to come clean about what really happened. Carney also referred reporters to an ongoing FBI investigation when asked about specifics on Libya. The problem? The FBI still isn't in Benghazi despite the administration saying repeatedly they are. Carney also tried to spin Obama's refusal to call the attack an act of terrorism and covered for the administration in its lie to the American people that the attack was "spontaneous" and not planned.

Skip

Q If the President does not call it, label it a terrorist attack as you and others have, is there some legal or diplomatic trigger that that brings? Why hasn’t he said that?

MR. CARNEY: I think you’re misunderstanding something here. I’m the President’s spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by -- this is me paraphrasing -- this was a terrorist attack -- I echoed that, because this President, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the President’s position that this was a terrorist attack.

There are broader issues here that the President has addressed in answering questions, and he’s obviously interested in, as we all are, in waiting for the final result of an investigation. But let’s be clear about this. Every step of the way, the information that we have provided to you and the general public about the attack in Benghazi has been based on the best intelligence we’ve had and the assessments of our intelligence community. We have said all along that there’s an ongoing investigation and that as more facts come out, we will follow those facts wherever they lead and apprise you of our assessments as those facts come to light. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Gary Johnson the 2012 Spoiler...

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

Gary Johnson, a man with integrity, new ideas, and a proven track record both in business and as a two term Governor of New Mexico will be iced out of the presidential debates because of our rigged political duopoly. So the man who should be front and center with Frik and Frak on the debate stage will most likely, and by design, be relegated to playing spoiler. Not a bad spot to be in really if Johnson has his eyes on the 2016 presidential race, something this individual and likely millions more hope he does.

The following article is both interesting and informative. It certainly highlights reasons for liberty minded people to vote for Gary Johnson.

FOX BUSINESS - The fact that you may have not heard of Johnson does not make you uninformed. According to a recent report by the Pew Center for People & the Press, only a quarter of voters have – and only 5% have heard a lot about him. However, that doesn't mean you wouldn't agree with him. The website Isidewith.com, which features a political quiz that well over 3 million people have filled it out, suggests that if the Presidential race was based on people’s beliefs, it would be between Obama and Johnson. (Emphasis Mine)

Johnson's hard-line policies are ambitious—and in many instances, radical. If elected, he said he'd abolish the IRS and enact a "fair tax," reduce federal involvement in the economy by eliminating government support for mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie Mac, reject bailouts, cut spending by revising terms for entitlement programs like Medicare and eliminate what he calls "ineffective military interventions."

"People are usually voting for the lesser of two evils," explained Debbie Dean, an Ohio-based farmer and owner of Dean's Greenhouse. "But Gary Johnson is not being included in polls, and I think the American public is being prohibited [from having] a real choice."

Johnson, who calls himself more socially liberal than Obama and more fiscally conservative than Romney, recognizes that the recognition problem is a huge one -- and he said as much in an interview with Fox Business Network's John Stossel on September 13.

"Well, the issue for me is just being in the polls to begin with," he said. "If I were just recognized for where I was right now nationally, you know what the overwhelming reaction would be…. 'Who the hell is Gary Johnson?' and that would be a good thing."

Where Johnson is nationally is hard to track accurately since in most major Presidential surveys, third-party candidates are not mentioned by name. And while Johnson is now on the ballot in 47 states, he still is in the process of making his case in court for the remaining three states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Oklahoma).

Despite the uphill battle, Johnson still might make a difference in this election. According to the latest CNN/ORC poll, 3% of likely voters would vote for Johnson and 4% of registered voters said they will vote for him.

But whether more people will vote – or know to vote for him -- is up for debate. On Friday, Johnson filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the National Commission on Presidential Debates challenging his exclusion from the upcoming presidential debates.

In a statement, senior Johnson advisor Ron Nielson said: "There is nothing remotely surprising in the fact that a private organization created by and run by the Republican and Democratic Parties have only invited the Republican and Democratic candidates to their debates. It is a bit more disturbing that the national news media has chosen to play the two-party game, when a full one-third of the American people do not necessarily identify with either of those two parties." (The only debate in which Johnson has been included was the GOP debate sponsored by Fox News on Sept 22, 2011, where he drew applause when he said: "My next-door neighbors' two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration.")

Not having Johnson at the upcoming debates seems to be positive for both of the big-party candidates. In the recent CNN poll, Obama leads Romney 52% to 46% when Romney and Obama are the only candidates. However, Romney's support goes down three percentage points with the inclusion of third-party candidates. Obama's support goes down 1% point.
Twenty-eight-year-old Marine Corp. veteran Josh Rawdon, a registered voter in Ohio, is voting for Johnson, regardless of whether or not he is at the debates. But Rawdon believes if Johnson was there, he'd make a big impact.

"If he was there to challenge Obama and Romney, he could be a challenger for the presidency because he is actually answering the questions," said Rawdon.

Rawdon may be emblematic of young voters who came out for President Obama four years ago and now see Johnson as an attractive alternative. The YouTube parody of the hit song by Goyte -- “The Obama that I Used to Know” -- which has garnered over a million views, seems to hit home with disenchanted former Obama voters. And Johnson clearly recognizes the importance of tapping into the young and passionate cohort that heavily supported Texas Rep. Ron Paul before he ended his attempt for GOP presidential nomination earlier this year.

On Sept. 17, Johnson told Fox Business's Neil Cavuto: "My voice right now is representative of the fastest-growing segment of American politics today. It's young people who realize that they are screwed. That they aren’t going to have any retirement. That they aren’t going to have any healthcare. Young people are graduating from college today with [the equivalent of a] home mortgage without a home and I’m talking now about student loans and what's the cause for high tuition in this country? It’s the government guaranteeing student loans." (Emphasis Mine)


Debbie Dean agrees.

"Young people are disillusioned. They don’t have jobs, they have school debt," said Dean, who is volunteering for Johnson's campaign in Ohio. "It’s easy for kids to get loans, but when they get out of school they can’t get a job and can't pay the loan."

Dean also said small business owners are disillusioned. She said she is worried that her family-owned farm, Dean's Greenhouse, which has been in existence since 1924, may not make it through after President Obama's healthcare initiative is enacted. She believes it could raise the current cost of healthcare for her employees.

"We’ve always offered healthcare, and I am personally on the plan," she said. "But if things get rough and I had to choose between providing healthcare and letting my business die, I'd have to choose my business."

Johnson knows a little something about small business. He started as a handyman in Albuquerque in 1974 and by 1999, he had a 1,000-person construction company called Big J Enterprises, which he sold for $10 million.

Johnson believes the Fair Tax, which would eliminate all federal taxes on business income and investments, would provide an immediate boost to small business.

"If, as others are advocating, reducing business taxes, such as the corporate income tax, would be helpful, eliminating them altogether in favor of a consumption tax would be a huge step in terms of freeing up capital, increasing competitiveness, and creating jobs," said Joe Hunter, Johnson’s communication director in an email to Fox Business.

Hunter also pointed out that ending "federal manipulation of the free market" and getting government out of the way would ultimately be the best initiative to help small business.

However, while Johnson's passionate and steadfast positions on everything from small business to abolishing the IRS to legalizing marijuana have appeal for a wide range of voters, the likelihood of his candidacy having any impact on this election is slim if he isn't able to take part in the Presidential debates, which start October 3. And Johnson knows that best.

"Someone has to stand up and call this what it is: A rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly," (emphasis mine) said Johnson advisor Ron Nielson. "That someone will be the Johnson campaign."{Read More}

I don' know about anyone else but I'm definitely supporting the spoiler in this one.

Via: FOX BUSINESS

Green Party Nominee for President to Right of Obam...

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

Stein: Green Party nominee for President stands against dependency.

As an advocate of Objectivism and a true free market capitalism this site is surely not one to sing the praises of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal. However, when compared to the current occupant of the White House President Roosevelt seems the staunch conservative by comparison.

When the left leaning Green Party nominee for president, Jill Stein, comes out against the current President's policies of dependency it is clear how far our national leadership has fallen.

NEW YORK POST - It’s a hell of a thing when the nominee of the far-left Green Party espouses a stronger work ethic than the President of the United States. But that’s what we’ve come to.

For all the talk sparked by Mitt Romney’s remarks about the 47 percent of Americans who are dependent on government benefits, it’s not a simple left-right thing.

Dependency is good, of course, if your goal is to build a coalition of takers who live at the expense of makers. But not everyone favors that strategy.

I was talking with Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential nominee, the other day; she offered a different approach, one that harkens back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Back in the Great Depression, FDR was more focused on getting people back to work than on handing out money. He set up the WPA and the CCC to provide employment for out-of-work Americans — jobs building needed infrastructure: bridges, post offices, courthouses and other federal buildings.

The idea was that taxpayers should get something out of helping the unemployed.

The Green Party’s Stein has a similar suggestion, and comments: “If you don’t have work, you’d go to an employmentoffice, not an unemploymentoffice, and you’d get a job, not sit home, depressed, with a check.”

At its peak, the WPA employed over 3 million men and women who would’ve otherwise been jobless.

And the Civilian Conservation Corps put the unemployed to work improving national parks and other pieces of federal land.

When I hike in the Smokies, it’s often on trails that were built by the CCC — and of course we’re still using many of the buildings and bridges that the WPA built.

By contrast, what will we have to show in decades to come for today’s 99-week extended unemployment benefits and other government giveaways? Not so much.

So why don’t we have programs in which “you’d get a job, not sit home, depressed, with a check?”

The short answer is because key power players would ratherhave you sit at home, depressed, with a check. There are a lot of reasons for that. {Read More}

Need we any more proof of Obama's far left policies and desire to create a greater dependency on government and the nanny state?

Via: Memeorandum

Egyptian/American Women Defaces Anti-Jihad Ad Poster in NYC ...

by Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

An act of free speech and freedom of expression? Or an illegal act of a disgruntled Egyptian/American activist? You the viewer be the judge...

New York Post - Cops busted a lone protester -- angry with subway ads equating enemies of Israel as “savages” -- as she spray-painted over one of the controversial signs today.

A Post camera crew captured the bizarre conflict between suspect Mona Eltahawy, 45, and a woman defending the ads.

“Mona, do you think you have the right to do this?” said Pamela Hall, holding a mounted camera as she tried to block the barrage of spray paint.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy calmly responded. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this is freedom of expression.”

Hall then thrusts herself between Eltahawy’s spray paint and the poster.

Eltahawy -- an activist who has appeared on MSNBC and CNN -- engaged her in an odd cat-and-mouse dance, spraying pink every time she had an opening.

“What right do you have to violate free speech,” Hall pleaded.

“I’m not violating it. I’m making an expression on free speech,” an increasingly agitated Eltahawy shot back.

“You do not have the right!” Hall said.

“I do actually and I’m doing it right now and you should get out of the way! Do you want paint on yourself,” Eltahawy shot back

As the poster defender bobbed and weaved to get in the paint’s way, Eltahawy mocked: “That’s right, defend racism.”

Finally an MTA police officer and an NYPD cop came to scene and arrested Eltahawy.

“This is non-violent protest, see this America!” she said as cops cuffed her. “I’m an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate.”

The MTA was forced to install the controversial ad campaign by court order.

The 46- by 30-inch ads are plastered in 10 Manhattan stations, including busy Grand Central and Times Square Stations.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative, a pro-Israel group spearheaded by activist Pamela Geller, paid $6,000 for the ad space.

Via: Memeorandum

A President Who Continues To Refuse To Employ the Speech Needed In the Face Of Terror and Terrorism...

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

Congressman Allan West

Congressman Allan West is not at all admired by America's apologists. Methinks the following is one very precise reason why.

In his speech today to the United Nations, President Obama stated six times that the attacks across the Islamic world are attributed to a silly video. Furthermore, he refused to use the words terrorist attack in referring to what occurred in Benghazi Libya at our US Consulate on the 11th anniversary of 9-11. He continues to offer up apologies instead of defending our hard earned First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. There is no message to this silly video trailer, and it is beneath the dignity and esteem of the Office of the President of the United States to mention it at all. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. I shall not be tolerant of the intolerant. I know about the UN Resolution 1618 which would make any statement deemed by the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) “offensive’ to Islam a crime…..NOT ON MY WATCH FELLAS!

My statement to the United Nations would have been, “The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence”.(Emphasis mine)

We think your statement is really awesome Congressman. Certainly more fitting than the statement, er speech by the President and admired by the ObamaBots.

Just one more reason, not that we needed another one, to NOT vote for the reelection of President Obama on November 6, 2012.

More can be found here.

Via: Memeorandum

Iran's Hate Consumed Idiot...

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

The Iranian Wingnut...

From the mind and mouth a total wacko...

Reuters - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated," ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.

Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran's threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.

The United States quickly dismissed the Iranian president's comments as "disgusting, offensive and outrageous."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted Israel could strike Iran's nuclear sites and criticized U.S. President Barack Obama's position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iran denies it is seeking nuclear arms and says its atomic work is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.

"Fundamentally we do not take seriously the threats of the Zionists," Ahmadinejad, in New York for this week's U.N. General Assembly, told reporters. "We have all the defensive means at our disposal and we are ready to defend ourselves."

Ahmadinejad is due to speak at the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met Ahmadinejad on Sunday and warned him of the dangers of incendiary rhetoric in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad, who has used previous U.N. sessions to question the Holocaust and the U.S. account of the September 11, 2001, attacks, did not heed the warning and instead expanded on his previous rejection of Israel's right to exist. Western envoys typically walk out of Ahmadinejad's U.N. speeches in protest at his remarks.{Read More}

With any luck Israel will take the decisive action the rest of the free world doesn't have the balls to take.

Via: Memeorandum

President Obama Finally Accepts Responsibilty. The Question, for What Exactly...

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

Obama, the Responsibly Man

President Obama is finally acknowledgiong responsibilty for his almost four years in office. Rational Nation USA has never said the President is a "bad" person, that he is unpatriotic, or doesn't love his country.

While many left leaning bloggers and commenters with an agenda will take issue with the preceding statement the fact remains Rational Nation USA has only taken issue with the President's performance and his political philosophy. Which is, as all reasonable people realize, is fair and proper game. At least as long as we live in a free nation, or should I say semi free? I'll leave it at that...

Even though the President's acknowledgement that "the buck stops at his desk" is perhaps a bit late in coming we should all appreciate that he has taken this step.

Of course reading his acknowledgement of responsibility I was somewhat taken aback by the statement from the President that said his "biggest disappointment" in his nearly four years in office has been the failure to oversee change in the nation's political climate. "My biggest disappointment is that we haven't changed the tone in Washington as much as I would have liked,"... This statement of course leaves the door wide open to the question, what exactly does the satement mean. For those of us in the camp that advocates constitutionally limited government and libertarian social philosophy it seems to be telling us he is acknowledging his failure at not successfully pushing the country further towards the progressive ideal of Marxian ideology and statist rule.

Here, for each individual to decide what the President is ACTUALLY saying is the report from CNN Politics. All emphasis is mine.

President Barack Obama discussed his frustration with gridlock in Washington, saying his "biggest disappointment" in his nearly four years in office has been the failure to oversee change in the nation's political climate.

"My biggest disappointment is that we haven't changed the tone in Washington as much as I would have liked," Obama said in a CBS News interview that aired Sunday.

Asked if he bears any blame for the stalemate, Obama said the buck stops at his desk.

"I think that, you know, as president I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree," he said on CBS' "60 Minutes."

Throughout the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney's campaign and Obama’s critics have dogged the president for failing to get certain legislation passed in recent years, while Team Obama responds by faulting congressional Republicans for not compromising.

The tension has especially heightened as Congress faces a looming, end-of-the-year deadline to avoid the "fiscal cliff," a massive amount of tax hikes and spending cuts set to take place at the beginning of 2013 if Congress fails to act. Lawmakers on both sides have already showed signs of firm partisan division on the issue.

Obama's comments aired days after the president drew criticism from Romney over separate remarks about change in Washington, comments that suggested a slight tweak in Obama's 2008 ideals of "hope" and "change."

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside," Obama said Thursday afternoon at a presidential forum the candidate taped to run on the Spanish-language network Univision.

Within hours, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney seized on the remarks, argued Obama had thrown up the "white flag of surrender," and vowed to make that change, himself.

"His first two years he had a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, he got to do whatever the heck he wanted to, but he says he can't change it from the inside. Well, I will," Romney told a Sarasota, Florida, crowd. {Read More}

Of course being the cynic that I tend to be is Willard Mitt (The Human Flipper) Romney really saying he is going to effect the changes from within the system that Obama failed to make? If so doesn't this give pause to exactly what the Mittens and Human Flipper has for his real agenda? Rational Nation has long maintained Mittens is Obama Light and that his real agenda is to continue the statist progression of the last 100 plus years of our history. Thus the only real alternative in the support and advocacy of liberty is just a rational whisper in the drone of the American statist duopoly...

Via: Memeorandum

The Late Ambassador Steven's Diary Revealed Security Concerns...

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

The diary of the late Ambassador Stevens, assassinated in Benghazi reveals his concerns over security. Apparently the State Department and President Obama did not share his concerns.

h/t: Gateway Pundit

The diary belonging to Ambassador Chris Stevens revealed his concerns about the deteriorating security in Benghazi.

CNN reported:

Four days after he was killed, CNN found a journal belonging to late U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. The journal was found on the floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where he was fatally wounded…

…A source familiar with Stevens’ thinking told CNN earlier this week that, in the months leading up to his death, the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.

Stevens died on September 11, along with three other Americans, when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi came under attack amid a large protest about a U.S.-made film that mocked the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.

Since June there had been four previous attacks on Western interests in Benghazi.

One of the attacks was an IED atack at the US Consulate on June 6, 2012.

Yet, despite this, the Obama Administration reportedly refused to provide even “standard security” at the consulate compound.

Via: Memeorandum

Pakistani Official To Finance "Hit" on Film Maker...

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

The port city of Karachi saw widespread violence and bloodshed on Friday

BBC - A Pakistani government minister has offered a $100,000 (£61,616) reward for the death of the maker of an anti-Islam film produced in the US.

Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour said he would pay the reward for the "sacred duty" out of his own pocket.

A government spokesman condemned the remarks and said it was considering taking action against Mr Bilour.

The comments came a day after at least 20 people died in clashes between anti-film protesters and Pakistani police.

Friday's violence occurred in cities throughout Pakistan, with Karachi and Peshawar among the worst hit.

"I will pay whoever kills the makers of this video $100,000," the minister said. "If someone else makes other similar blasphemous material in the future, I will also pay his killers $100,000.

"I call upon these countries and say: Yes, freedom of expression is there, but you should make laws regarding people insulting our Prophet. And if you don't, then the future will be extremely dangerous."

His ANP party, which is part of the governing coalition, told the BBC this was a personal statement, not party policy, but added that it would not be taking any action against him.

The prime minister's press secretary, Shafqat Jalil, told the BBC that the government absolutely dissociated itself from Mr Bilour's statement.

"He is not a member of the PPP, he is an ANP politician and therefore the prime minister will speak to the head of the ANP to decide the next step. They are not ruling out action against him but say he will stay in his post for now." {Read More}

A region and lands where freedom of religion (and speech) is an alien term. Perhaps it is time those countries who respect both allow the faithful to roast in their own cauldron of hate. Without our financial aid.

Via: Memorandum

You Go Gary!!! It's Worth the Challenge and Fight for Liberty...

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

Image by Joe Burbank, Pool, File 

Gary Johnson taking it to the powers that have ruled for far too long. This challenge, and fight to restore fiscal sanity and greater liberty ought to be carried on all MSM networks and Libertarian/Conservative blogs throughout the nation. However, in America's politically anesthetized state little will be heard or published on this story.

Rational Nation USA doing its part in getting the word out.

BuzzFeed Politics - Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed an anti-trust lawsuit in federal court Friday to try to force his way into next month's presidential debates.

Johnson, who first sought the GOP primary nomination before launching a third-party bid, is suing the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates and both the Democratic and Republican parties, calling the CPD a "conspiracy."

The CPD was founded jointly by the two parties and the nominee, and the lawsuit alleges that they meet every four years to set the rules for the debate to "hoodwink" the American people.

Johnson is asking the courts to force the CPD to allow for all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes to have a spot on the debate state.

According to a release, Johnson’s running mate and retired California Superior Court Judge Jim Gray will argue the motion on the campaign’s behalf.

Johnson appeared in two GOP primary debates last year.

Via: Memeorandum

Sometimes Watching Collectivists Eat Crow Is Very Satisfying...

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

Romney finally released the tax returns so sought after by the collectivists and the media. While not changing my basic position that Mittens is not the guy for the job he is seeking, it certainly gave me great pleasure to know the collectivists are now eating a huge helping of crow.

What will be even more satisfying is watching them go into over drive while they try to spin the facts to suit their statist collectivist agenda.

Townhall - It's official: The Romney campaign possesses a wicked sense of humor and an enviable degree of patience. After months of caterwauling, breathless innuendo and baseless slander, the Democrats and their media allies are being treated to a Friday feast of piping hot crow. The Romney campaign has released a detailed report of the the candidate's 2011 tax returns, as well as an extensive summary of the Romneys' taxes over the last two decades, prepared by analysts at PricewaterhouseCoopers. What do these documents contain? Brad Malt, the Romney family's trustee, summarizes the 2011 data:


- In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

- The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

In short, and as Kevin noted, Romney forked over nearly $2 million to Uncle Sam last year and donated more than $4 million to charity. He overpaid his taxes by limiting the charitable deductions he chose to claim, which could have driven his obligations to government even lower. Liberals are now actually complaining that Romney intentionally paid *too much* in taxes to boost his own effective rate, due to his prodigious philanthropic giving. This line of criticism is downright hilarious. It's okay to point and laugh. And what about the last 20 years?


- In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

-During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.


Let's unpack these numbers. The Romneys owed and paid state and federal income taxes every single year stretching back to at least 1990. Harry Reid's imaginary friend is unavailable for comment. Their effective tax rate, on average, was over 20 pecent (nearly double the average effective rate in America, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation). Does this qualify as a "fair share"? In the last two decades, the Romney's donated 13.45 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity. This totally dwarfs the long-term giving of the Obamas and the Bidens, in case anyone in the class warfare camp is keeping score. But remember, Mitt Romney is callously dismissive and uncaring toward poor people and the '47 percent.' Overall, the Romney family paid every cent they owed -- and more -- forking over nearly 40 percent of their income to either the government or charitable organizations, including their church. I've got to hand it to the Romney campaign: They played a long game here, and did so masterfully. One of the most obnoxious and relentless arrows in Democrats' attack quiver has been the tax returns issue. See how greedy and secretive Romney is? Even his own father released 12 years of returns! He's probably a tax cheat! That's all gone now, and the whiners look petty, small, and stupid. And Mitt Romney looks like the remarkably generous, law-abiding, productive member of society that he is. Bravo. {Read More}

Yep, the collectivists have been punked and are now relegated to eating crow and spinning. LOVING IT!!!

Via: Memeorandum

Another Reason To Be Wary Of rEpublicans...

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

Just one more reason to turn and run as fast as possible AWAY from the rEpublican pArty and its neo-con fundamentalist base.

TPM - Casey Michel September 20, 2012, 3:13 PM - In a conference call with fellow evangelicals earlier this week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) shared his thoughts on the origins of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. Rather than tracing the idea to the nation’s founders, Perry warned of a more nefarious source: Satan.

“Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there that is driven is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena,” Perry said during the call on Tuesday, organized by the Rev. Rick Scarborough.

Perry said the separation of religious and civic institutions in the U.S. began with a “narrative” that first took root in the 1960s.

“Somehow or another there’s this, ya know, steel wall, this iron curtain or whatever you want to call it between the church and people of faith and this separation of church and state is just false on its face,” the governor said. “We have a biblical responsibility to be involved in the public arena proclaiming God’s truth.”

Skip

“You think about this spiritual warfare that’s going on and … going strong as President Obama and his cronies in Washington continue their efforts to remove any trace of religion from American life,” Perry said on the call. “And it falls on us, I mean, we truly are Christian warriors, Christian soldiers, and for us as Americans to stand our ground and to firmly send a message to Washington that our nation is about more than just some secular laws.”

Listen to the entire 13-minute conference call here.

Via: Memorandum

Our Redistributionist in Chief... The Brutal Truth

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

1998 Obama Admits He is for the Redistribution of Wealth



As the foundation of our Republic is shaken we stand to face further erosion of the principles on which this nation was founded.

May the Gods (whoever they may be) save us all.

76% Agree With Romney

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

A new (non scientific) CNBC poll is showing a overwhelming 76% agree with Mittens 47% remark. The following short breakdown supplied by Townhall.

UPDATE: The number of people who have taken the CNBC poll has doubled, bringing those who agree with Romney's comments to 76 percent.

As the faux outrage over Mitt Romney's "47%" comments continue to barrel through the airwaves of the old media, a CNBC poll shows 75 percent of voters believe Mitt Romney was right when he said Obama supporters will vote for him no matter what due to dependence on the government.

No, the poll isn't scientific, but it is an indication of the media running with a narrative opposite of what the country actually believes...again.

So, if I'm reading this correctly Romney really does not have much to worry about, right?

There is just one pesky little detail. Obama appears to be pulling ahead in national polls.

There is the REASONED ALTERNATIVE to both befuddled major party candidates...

Via: Memeorandum

New Discovery Suggests Christ had a Wife, and Female Disciple...

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

Photograph by Laura King

A Harvard historian of early Christianity may set the Christian Church, especially Roman Catholic Church on their head. In identifying what she believes is a fragment of a 4th century Coptic papyrus parchment with reference to Jesus having a wife she may be setting the stage to renew old debates within Christendom.

New York Times CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …'”

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by the historian Karen L. King, who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.

Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.

The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church, where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus. Emphasis mine. {Read More}

Discussions should prove to be interesting, and heated between those who believe the Coptic scriptures to be the more accurate and the more conventional Christians and fundies. Assuming of course the legitimacy of of the parchment can be verified.

Via: Memeorandum

The Man Who Wants To Be President...

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

... Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves...

The preceding is an excerpt from David Brooks September 17th New York Times article. Most of us are the hard working individualist type that got to where we are by hard work and consistent dedication to the achievement of our goals. And yes, with a little bit of help as opportunities popped up along the way.

Maybe Romney really understands this and is merely suffers from a malady known as "wanting to win so badly you'll say anything you think will get you there" syndrome. Perhaps we'll never known the "real" Mitt Romney. Thanks in part to his own faithful efforts at keeping this knowledge under wraps.

Whatever the case may be David Brooks, in his own unique way, describes the "Romney Problem" quite well. Take the time to read the rest of the article. It will be well worth the couple of minutes it takes.

Via: Memeorandum

Romney's Shot in the Foot

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

Willard Mitt (the Human Flipper) Romney MANAGES TO DO IT AGAIN...



Is this the Romney campaign's Armageddon that the MSM and the Obama Team obviously believe it is.? Perhaps not. It is however another statement Romney will now spend precious time trying to explain.

As the alternative candidate, one who actually has a record of achievement and is not prone to shooting himself in a different body part almost weekly barely gets noticed I can't help but wonder at the rEpublican pArty choice to be their nominee. But I suppose as the intellectual firepower of the once GOP has declined in recent years it is obvious why they did.

As to the MSM's lack of coverage of a viable alternative candidate, well, I guess we all know that Team Obama has them in his back pocket, with the lone exception of Fox News. We all know Fox News is in the back pocket of Mittens and the new Neo Fascist rEpublican pArty of America.

So the real philosophical question of this election cycle is... What to do? The answer is of course standing right before our very eyes. Yet few are looking to find it. That, my dear fellow Americans, will be America's great loss.

Via: Memeorandum

Speaking the Truth...

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

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2006

The following article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the THE DAILY BEAST ought to be  read, digested, and understood by the Obama administration and everyone else who believes that it is only a minority of the follows of Islam who support the radical elements of the religion.

It only makes sense to consider the wisdom of one who has lived the reality of the Muslim world as well as the realities of the western world.

... The riots in Muslim countries—and the so-called demonstrations by some Muslims in Western countries—that invariably accompany such provocations have the appearance of spontaneity. But they are often carefully planned in advance. In the aftermath of last week’s conflagration, the State Department and Pentagon were investigating if it was just such a coordinated, planned assault.

The Muslim men and women (and yes, there are plenty of women) who support—whether actively or passively—the idea that blasphemers deserve to suffer punishment are not a fringe group. On the contrary, they represent the mainstream of contemporary Islam. Of course, there are many Muslims and ex-Muslims, in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere, who unambiguously condemn not only the murders and riots, as well as the idea that dissenters from this mainstream should be punished. But they are marginalized and all too often indirectly held responsible for the very provocation. In the age of globalization and mass immigration, such intolerance has crossed borders and become the defining characteristic of Islam.

And the defining characteristic of the Western response? As Rushdie’s memoir makes clear, it is the utterly incoherent tendency to simultaneously defend free speech—and to condemn its results.

I know something about the subject. In 1989, when I was 19, I piously, even gleefully, participated in a rally in Kenya to burn Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses. I had never read it.

Later, having fled an arranged marriage to the Netherlands, I broke from fundamentalism. By the time of Sept. 11, 2001, I still considered myself a Muslim, though a passive one; I believed the principles but not the practice. After learning that it was Muslims who had hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings in New York and Washington, I called for fellow believers to reflect on how our religion could have inspired these atrocious acts. A few months later, I confessed in a television interview that I had been secularized. {Read Entire Article Here}

It remains to be seen which narrative the Obama administration gives most credence to.

Via: Memeorandum