Friday, November 30, 2012

Herein Lies the Oppurtunity... rEpublicans, Are You Listening?

by:Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

For whatever it may be worth the following is something to seriously consider. rEpublicans especially should consider the implications of the article. It may very well hold the key to any hoped for future success by the party of blinders.

CBS DC - The median net worth of American households has dropped to a 43-year low as the lower and middle classes appear poorer and less stable than they have been since 1969.

According to a recent study by New York University economics professor Edward N. Wolff, median net worth is at the decades-low figure of $57,000 (in 2010 dollars). And as the numbers in his study reflect, the situation only appears worse when all the statistics are taken as a whole.

According to Wolff, between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of households with less than $10,000 in assets (using constant 1995 dollars) rose from 29.7 percent to 37.1 percent. The “less than $10,000″ figure includes the numerous households that have no assets at all, or “negative assets,” which is otherwise known as “debt.”

Over that same period of time, the wealthiest 1 percent of American households increased their average wealth by 71 percent.

As noted by Daily Finance, from 1983 to 2010 the share of total wealth held by the richest 10 percent of American households increased from 68.2 percent to 76.7 percent. Meanwhile, all the rest of Americans lost financial ground.

An August Pew Research Center study found that many in the middle-class are divided on how they believe his gap widened.

Fully 85 percent of self-described middle-class adults say it is more difficult now than it was a decade ago for middle-class people to maintain their standard of living. ... {Read More}

Serious considerations for serious people. No?

Via: Memeorandum

Rethinking Simpson Bowles, or ... What?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

As we approach "the cliff" as in fiscal, the nation's Representatives and President remain more concerned about their political viability/legacy than about the interests of thew American people.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find myself wondering just what the Founders of this Great Nation might think about our current situation. As the Children in Congress and the President are playing mind games with the American people the following is as close to a common sense analysis as I have heard of late.

TownHall - ... Simpson-Bowles, for all its faults, was conducted in an open and transparent manner and brought disparate political players into a room to forge a serious compromise. It overhauls and streamlines our byzantine tax code, takes some important first steps on entitlements, and reduces and caps federal spending. On substance, I'd wager that it would be considerably better than anything Obama and Boehner might produce after weeks of behind-closed-doors acrimony with the proverbial gun to their heads. Politically, it paints Democrats into a tough corner. Republicans could make a grand show of reluctantly supporting Simpson-Bowles for the betterment of the country. Ideally, the press conference would be led by Paul Ryan, who might explain why he voted against the plan as a commissioner, but is now willing to set aside some of his strong ideological preferences to move the nation forward. They would remind viewers that the proposal they're now backing only exists because President Obama specifically and publicly asked for it. Plus, more Democrats than Republicans voted for it, including Harry Reid's top lieutenant in the Senate. Put simply, Simpson-Bowles represents the very embodiment of bipartisan collaboration and problem solving -- precisely the sort of thing "moderates," the media, and the public are always demanding. It would be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to paint the plan as radical or draconian in light of the commission's origins and participants. The GOP's "party of no" problem would also be hugely diminished; after all, they would have just signed on to the president's commission, with the previously recalcitrant Paul Ryan magnanimously leading the way. It would be fascinating to watch the president and his allies try to denounce and reject the very proposal he called for.

Of course, all of this would require significant coordination and buy-in from Congressional Republicans -- no small thing, to be sure. Many House members in particular find major swaths of the plan rather unpalatable. They would need to be convinced that this idea would still be the best chess move for conservatism, both strategically and tactically. Paul Ryan's agreement and cooperation would also be essential. Furthermore, Republicans would have to be willing to stomach quite a bit of political stagecraft in unveiling their announcement. The reveal would be big, hyped, and dramatic -- out of necessity. Why? To capture the media's attention and earn heavy coverage. Basically, the public would need to know that it happened. They wouldn't need to internalize all the specifics, but they'd have to hear that Republicans offered a "historic" compromise by agreeing to the controversial plan authored by Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission.

Best case scenario: Republicans catch Democrats off-guard, and (much or most of) the plan is adopted. At the very least, GOP negotiators would gain major leverage in fashioning a less horrific final compromise. Worst case scenario: Democrats firmly reject the plan, further talks stall, and the we go over the cliff... {Read More}

My bet, we go off the cliff. Why, because either the dEmocrats or the rEpublicans will once again prove their inability to think beyond their own...(fill in the blank).

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Jefferson, Dead On As He Often Was...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation
-vs- Tyranny

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

Thomas Jefferson quote

And so it seems...!

First Things First... No?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Going back to school at 60 is to say the very least, insane. However, education aimed at opening up new opportunities that are about as far removed from ones prior 40 + year experiences can be invigorating and exciting. It does come at a cost however. For me it is the cost of not having the amount of time to blog that I really desire. But then again there is something about priorities, right?

Anyway, my current focus is on educating myself in the field of heath and fitness so that I become qualified to help others who are desirous of improving their health and fitness achieve their goals and lead a longer and healthier life. At least that is my goal at 60, having achieved most of my goals set earlier in life.

With the preceding explanation aside I must say that I find it almost comical that within a month of the 2012 election the analysts an pundits are already concerning themselves with the 2014 mid term elections. I mean do we NOT have immediate and pressing problems that need to IMMEDIATELY be resolved? Maybe it's just me. I don't know, and maybe it has come to the point because of the political insanity of the two major parties I no longer care. The stress of caring is not worth the possible health expense of the obviously futile effort. But then again when the stress gets too great we will have ObamaCare, right?

The rEpublican party it seems is hell bent on insuring they remain the minority party. Perhaps even becoming extinct in the next 25 - 50 years. Focusing right now on why the party lost and strategy for the future, as the following article does, does not help solve the problems that exist today. Smart, and or wise people know the latter is more important than the former. For certain that is my never humble opinion anyway.

Sabato's Crystal Ball - As the 2012 election fades into the history books, we begin our first look at the 2014 contests for Senate, House and Governor. Let’s start with the Senate, which will be the site of an intense battle for control once again.

Before looking ahead at the Republicans’ prospects to gain the six seats they need to win control of the Senate, it is first important — though for Republicans, painful — to look back at the past two Senate cycles.

In 2010, Republicans probably threw away three seats when they nominated weak candidates in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada. Then, in the just-concluded election, they threw away, at a minimum, two more seats in Indiana and Missouri (thanks to the disastrous candidacies of Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin). And that’s not counting other Senate races where different Republican candidates might have performed better or even won in Florida, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia.

So instead of having a tied Senate, or a tiny majority for one side or the other, Republicans are in the unenviable position of needing to levitate out of a deep hole they’ve dug for themselves. Only then can they end Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) six-year (and counting) leadership of the Senate.

The 113th Congress is slated to open in early January with Democrats holding a 55-45 edge in the U.S. Senate. (The number includes two independents, Sen.-elect Angus King of Maine and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who will caucus with the Democrats.) This assumes that the composition of the Senate does not change; it’s always possible that a senator will leave office prematurely, perhaps to take another position — for instance, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) might join the Obama administration as secretary of state or defense.


At first blush, the 2014 Senate map presents some promising opportunities for Republicans. Of the 33 seats that will be contested in November 2014, Republicans only have to defend 13 while Democrats have to defend 20. And the Republican seats — as is obvious from Map 1 — are almost entirely situated in deeply Republican states. In 12 of the 13 states currently represented by Republicans on this map, President Obama won 45.5% of the vote or less in all except Maine (which he won easily).

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney captured seven of the 20 states where Democrats will defend seats: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. Of those seven, only North Carolina, where Romney won by about two points, was even close at the presidential level. In the other six states, Obama’s best performance was in Montana, where he secured just 41.7%. Given that midterm electorates are typically smaller, older and whiter than presidential electorates — which generally will make them more Republican — and given that Democrats are dangerously exposed in several Romney states, Republicans have a multitude of juicy targets, while Democrats have few.

That said, let’s recall that at this time two years ago, Republicans also had an attractive playing field: They had to defend only 10 seats, while Democrats had to defend 23. And yet Democrats actually ended up netting two seats. Not to be overly cruel, but the GOP had to try hard to blow the Senate in 2012 — and their efforts were amply rewarded.

In order to capitalize on the new opportunities presented by the 2014 Senate map, Republican voters are going to have to make wiser choices in primaries than they made in 2010 and 2012. But has the party base learned its lesson? It is not at all clear, and efforts by the Republican leadership in D.C. to impose preferred candidates likely won’t be met well in many states in the next go-round either. ... {Read More}

Okay, I get it. The party is licking it's (well earned) wounds. Understandable. But the important thing is to address the pressing issues of today, right now. By that I mean resolve, or at least partially resolve them before moving on to 2014. One thing is for certain, if the rEbublican party demonstrates an active willingness to reach across the aisle and resolve the very real and pressing problems that confront America today, and then present a viable and better alternative than the dEmocrats for tomorrow, they will succeed in remaining relevant and maybe even becoming the majority again. A new age demands a new approach to solving old problems.

On the other hand pundits and analysts have a job to do. Whether it helps resolve the problem or not. Or Maybe it's just me.

Now back to other priorities...

VIA: Memorandum

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Liberalism Then and Now...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

True 18th century Classical Liberalism, the basis of a limited central government, individualism, and property rights is at great odds with modern liberalism. The following from points up the essential differences quite well.

In The Future of Liberalism (2009), Alan Wolfe writes that the true heirs to the liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson are not today’s classical liberals (libertarians (emphasis mine)), but rather the other kind of liberals, those who would use government power to assure autonomy and equality for all. Such “modern liberalism,” for Wolfe, is simply an updating of the original: In the eighteenth century, political power crushed autonomy and equality, requiring a free market as the antidote; now private corporate power under capitalism does the same, but this time the remedy is active government.

Early in his book Wolfe writes:

The core substantive principle of liberalism is this: As many people as possible should have as much say as is feasible over the direction their lives will take. Expressed in this form, liberalism, as in the days of John Locke, is committed both to liberty and to equality. . . . [Emphasis in original.]

With respect to liberty, liberals want for the person what Thomas Jefferson wanted for the country: independence. Dependency, for liberals, cripples. . . . When we have no choice but to accept someone else’s power over us, we fail to think for ourselves, are confined to conditions of existence resembling an endless struggle for survival, are unable to plan for the future, and cannot posses elementary human dignity. The autonomous life is therefore the best life. We have the potential, and are therefore responsible for realizing it, to be masters of our own destiny.

This sounds pretty good, no? Being subject to another’s arbitrary will clashes with the liberal spirit, which projects the ideal of mastery of one’s destiny even as one cooperates with others for mutual benefit.

Equality as Core Value

I also agree with Wolfe that equality is a core value of classical liberalism, but not as he means it. True liberal equality is not income equality; nor is it merely equality of liberty or equality under the law. The first would require continuous violent state interference with voluntary exchange, while the other two are inadequate in themselves. By equality, I mean what Roderick Long calls, per Locke, “equality of authority.” For Locke a state of equality is one in which “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank . . . should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection . . . .”

But now I must part ways with Wolfe because he has an utterly self-defeating idea of how to secure everyone’s mastery over his or her own one’s destiny: the welfare state. Judging by the history and nature of the state, we must conclude that Wolfe’s program would lead not to liberation but rather to subjugation of the individual. Wolfe has things turned topsy-turvy:

To advocate today what Smith advocated yesterday—a free market unregulated by government—is to foster greater, rather than lesser, dependency and less, rather than more, equality. . . . [I]n the highly organized and concentrated forms taken by capitalism in the contemporary world, removing government from the marketplace does not allow large numbers of people to become entrepreneurs in ways that enable them to set the terms by which their lives will be led; it instead allows firms to reduce their obligations to their employees and thereby make them more dependent on the vagaries of the market.

Impersonal Market Forces

The latter part of the quote has some validity, but before I get to that, let’s look at the general point. I take Wolfe to be saying—and he reinforces the point in this discussion with Russ Roberts—that one is less autonomous when subject to impersonal market forces than when subject to political forces ostensibly designed to ensure autonomy and equality. This strikes me as entirely wrong.

Admittedly, in a freed economy no one person or group would control the market forces (the law of supply and demand, and so on) to which we all must adjust as we carry out our plans. That would seem to impinge on our autonomy. But these forces are called impersonal precisely because they are not the product of any single will or directed at any chosen objective. Rather the term market forces simply refers to the spontaneous, orderly, and essential process (the price system) generated by other people’s freedom to choose what to buy and sell. In other words, each individual’s autonomy is bounded by each other individual’s autonomy. While we all must take prices and other people’s choices into account as we make our plans, we each have great leeway in the marketplace through which we can minimize our vulnerability to the arbitrary will of others. If one person won’t deal with you, someone else most likely will, so the prospect of being victimized by, say, invidious discrimination shrinks. {Read More}

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Thank You James Madison...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tranny

On why religion has no place in governance. And why the wise recognized it 227years ago. Note: All emphasis is mine.

James Madison [1785] - To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia --- A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure. {Please Continue Reading}

Reinforcing right so as to ensure continued enlightenment...

Friday, November 23, 2012

Certainly Worth Reflecting On...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Continuing on the individual -vs- collectivism struggle if you will, I found the following most interesting. Hopefully you will as well.

By Ray Thomas - People think the basic conflict today is between liberals and conservatives. It’s not. It’s between believers in collectivism and those who believe in individualism. They think that it is the difference between simply their own definition of “compassion” and “mean-spiritedness.” It isn’t that. at all. It’s the difference between collectivism and individualism.

Collectivism is really pretty simple, no matter how much collectivists want to complicate it so you will not understand what they’re trying to put over on you. It is defined thusly by one of the best known collectivists, Karl Marx, author of communism, in his “tome,” the “Communist Manifesto:” “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.” Meaning it is okay to :take from one who earned it and give that taken to those who did not. This gave permission for government to steal from one and give to another to gain power over both.

They want you to think the fight is between “right and left.” It is not. The real fight is, while it is still between right and left, on the left, counter to common belief, is always a despotic government, in complete control of its populace while on the right, contrary to what they want you to think, is not fascism or Nazism, but complete freedom, which is sometimes called anarchism.

Neither is something we want to have, for different reasons. We need to be somewhere in the middle, with just enough government to keep us from each other’s throats, but only that much.

It has always been thus: remember back when every country was ruled by a king or queen, who had a bunch of “lesser” officials called many things such as “barons” and such? The king or queen was a liberal who thought he/she was better, smarter than the “commoner.” The “barons” and such, too. They lived off the work and sweat of the “commoner.” They thought they had “the divine right of kings” to do that. They didn’t. Robin Hood has always gotten a “bad rap,” being pictured as “stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.” Not true, as is so with most of the “changed history” that has been written by those rulers. What he did was take back what was stolen by the king in the form of excessive taxes and give that to its rightful owners, the “commoners.”

Crisis Government

One of the most oft used methods, used to this day by those who would run your lives is taking advantage of any “crisis” that comes along, and if one doesn’t come along, creating one. Have you ever wondered why it seems like there is a new “crisis” announced just about every day? President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is famously quoted as saying, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” That’s because to “cure” a crisis, those who wish to control you can get laws passed that they could not have hoped to pass without that “crisis.”

Massive Conspiracy

Some think there is some kind of a “massive conspiracy” to control the world, run by the international bankers. They’re wrong. But there are conspiracies, and that is one of them. A single conspiracy would soon collapse under the weight of individual egos. Many conspiracies based on a philosophy do not. Most of today’s conspiracies are based on the philosophy of collectivism. Which is the reason why they look like a “single conspiracy to many. But it doesn’t matter who is right. The answer is investigation and exposure. These conspiracies can’t stand the “light of day.” {Read More}

Philosophy, does it really matter?

Hoover Warning of Collectivism 1929...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Herbert Hoover - 31st President of the United States

Herbert Hoover, perhaps one of America's least understood yet most maligned presidents of the early 20th century. While thinking about, or perhaps better said reflecting on our history I came across the following short article on President Hoover.

Arguments about whether or not Hoover was responsible for the Great Depression aside (he actually wasn't and much of The New Deal of FDR was merely an extension of policies Hoover had started) Hoover was correct when he warned of a collectivist government of business.

THE MORAL LIBERAL - Herbert Hoover was born AUGUST 10, 1874. The son of a Quaker blacksmith, he studied at Stanford and became a world renowned engineer.

Trapped in China when the Boxer Rebellion broke out in 1900, Herbert Hoover directed the building of barricades under heavy fire while his wife worked in the hospital. In World War I, at the request of the AmericanConsul, Hoover helped 120,000Americans stranded in Europe return home

He directed the feeding of Belgium after Kaiser Wilhelm II overran it and orchestrated feeding the Allied nations while avoiding rationing at home. After the war, Herbert Hoover arranged the feeding of millions starving in Central Europe and Russia.

He served as Secretary of Commerce for Presidents Harding and Coolidge. When the Mississippi River flooded in 1927,leaving 1.5 million people displaced from their homes, Herbert Hoover mobilized state and local authorities, militia, army engineers, the Coast Guard, and the American Red Cross, and set up health units which stamped out malaria, pellagra and typhoid, gaining him nation appreciation.

In 1929, Herbert Hoover became the 31st U.S. President. In his Inaugural, March 4, 1929, President Herbert Hoover entreated:

“Ill-considered remedies for our faults brings only penalties after them. But if we hold the faith of the men in our mighty past who created these ideals, we shall leave them heightened and strengthened for our children


Less than eight months later, the Stock Market crashed due to domestic and international conditions. Though implementing a volunteerism plan of aid through the States, political opposition tended to prolong recovery, thereby sabotaging his reelection.

Hoover warned in a speech at Madison Square Garden, NY, October 31, 1932, against his opponent’s collectivist “New Deal” plans of the government taking control of businesses:

“To enter upon a series of deep changes . . . would be to undermine and destroy our American system . . . No man who has not occupied my position in Washington can fully realize the constant battle which must be carried on against incompetence, corruption, tyranny of government expanded into business activities . . . Free speech does not live many hours after free industry and free commerce die.” Read More

President Hoover, like most of our national leaders was a deeply devout Christian whose values and principles were formed my his sincere belief in the Almighty. For those who are devout I encourage you to read the balance of the article. You will find many things that will ring true for you.

For those not unlike myself who abide deeply by our founding principles and the documents our Republic was founded on it is enough for us to know they are ethical and moral based on criteria other than religious faith. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and her belief in laissez faire capitalism, individual rights, limited role of federal government, and her faith in the United States Constitution is one shining example of which I speak.

Perhaps President Hoover was prophetic. Fast forward to now as we hear our now President in his own words on August 8, 1995, 13 years before becoming our President.

Without the need to run for reelection the progressive tendencies are undoubtedly going to become stronger and want to push to the fore in the Presidents thinking. In as much as the nation is tired of gridlock and contentious government, maybe it is a good thing we still have "divided government" in the structural sense of it's current make up.

Much needs to be addressed as our nation deals with debt, deficits, the looming fiscal crises, and the myriad of other issues both domestic and internationally the leader(s) of the free world has to address. Lets hope the President and Congress does so with a clear eye to the Constitution, the benefits of capitalism, and with the understanding that individual and property rights are two of the hallmarks of of our Republic.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Truth From Oscar Wilde...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

The foregoing quote by Oscar Wild sums up democracy quite well. Of course this is precisely why our founders established a representative democracy and provided for the rule of law. Indeed we have much to thank them for. It remains to be seen however whether we will keep our republic for much longer, given the political and government proclivities of both major political parties.
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning
of the people by the people for the people."

Worth a Thought, or Two...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA

Something to consider. Especially for those who only see black or white. Or, for those who might be offended buy the black and white reference, agonist or antagonist.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Happy Thanksgiving All!...

The First Thanksgiving 1621


Enjoy the holiday, drive safely and defensively if you'll be on the highway traveling to be with family and/or friends.

Hope to be back sooner than later, time will tell. In the meantime keep on keeping on, and I'll see ya on the flip side...

Saturday, November 17, 2012

As Congress Plays Politics...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

As Congress, made up of the foolish, led by the unknowing, in the attempt to right the listing ship known as The American Fiscal Screw Up kicks the can further down the road I though the following quite appropriate.

What say you?

Thanks to the evasiveness of both Progressives and Conservatives. Just call me Rip, but it's time to go back to sleep while the wizards we elect continue to kick the can down the road. Yawn. {RVW}

Search For the Truth in the Terror Attack on Benghazi Continues...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

As the hearings continue more questions will be answered. As the nation becomes fully informed of the situation(s) and realities surrounding the terror attack on the America consulate in Benghazi, and protocol is put in place to prevent similar occurrences in the future, hopefully we will put the political issue(s) to bed and move on to solving a even more complex and threatening situation. The national debt and out budgetary crisis.

Why It Matters:

The question of what the president and administration knew about the nature of the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi has become a huge political controversy. In addition, the potential nomination of Susan Rice to be secretary of state has been endangered by the controversy.
Washington Guardian - U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.

Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM.

Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and by a desire to seek vengeance for the U.S. killing last summer of a Libyan-born leader of al-Qaida named Abu Yaya al-Libi, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris Stephens were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

"There were multiple agencies involved, not for political reasons, but because of intelligence concerns," one official explained.

Rice's performance on the Sunday talk shows has become a source of controversy between Congress and the White House. Lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have questioned whether the administration was trying to mislead the country by suggesting the Benghazi attack was like the spontaneous protests that had occurred elsewhere on Sept. 11, in places like Egypt.

Obama has defended Rice, and he and his top aides have insisted politics was not involved. They argue the administration's shifting story was the result of changing intelligence.

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday, however, the assessment that the tragedy was an attack by extremists with al-Qaida links was well defined within 48 to 72 hours. (Emphasis mine.){Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, November 16, 2012

French Resistance Against Islamo-Fascism...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

A very compelling statement from a very progressive and enlightened culture on the dangers of Islamization of Western Culture.

h/t: Libertarian Republican

From Eric Dondero:

Demonstration of Frenchmen and women in the streets of Paris, against the rising Islamization of their country.

It's a problem not only for France. It's a problem for the USA.

Editor's comment - Republicans searching for a new direction after Romney's defeat; perhaps taking up the cause of anti-Islamization of the West? Something that was completely ignored by the Romney campaign.

Farewell Congressman Paul, You'll Be Missed But Not Forgotten...

by:Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Indeed America is losing one of it's best, brightest, and most reasoned voices.

Rational Nation USA wishes Representative Ron Paul a long, healthy, and happy retirement.

Your dedicated service to this nation is highly appreciated and respected. You will be missed, but not forgotten. Be assured your liberty movement will continue as the young, middle aged, and seniors continue the fight to preserve freedom and individual liberties.

h/t: Free Thinke

About the Money, To Hell With Principles...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Priebus has generally high marks from senior Republicans for raising significant money.

So, it appears the current RNC chairman is supported not because of his principles or his leadership and guidance in furthering a principled cause. No, the pursuit of raising money to secure the power in an antiquated and aging rEpublican power base is of primary consideration. That and balancing the budget.

Mr. Priebus
, a regular talking head on Fox News, is supported for his ability to raise significant money. Gee, who would have figured? Forgive me all you faithful GOP'ers but perhaps it is time to rethink your priorities. Money is important, it is after all the means to an end. However, principles must precede the end, if you know what I mean.

Election 2008 and 2012 highlights the truth of my immediately preceding statement.

POLITICO - RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told party officials Friday that he will run for a second two-year term in January and already has locked down support from most of the committee, POLITICO has learned.

Moving to pre-empt any potential challenge, Priebus sent an email message touting his support to the 168 state chairs and committee members that make up the Republican National Committee.

“I am humbled by the over 130 RNC Members who I have talked to who have pledged their support and public endorsement for me to continue on as Chairman so we can finish the job that we started and continue to grow our Party,” Priebus wrote, making clear before the Thanksgiving holiday week that he would stand for reelection.

He added: “When I return the week after Thanksgiving, I intend to make an official announcement that I am running to continue on as your chairman, but I wanted to let you all know first. “

Priebus, a former Wisconsin GOP chair, had been expected to try to keep his post. Despite the GOP’s election drubbing, he’s gotten generally high marks from senior Republicans for raising significant money and largely avoiding the sort of gaffes that plagued his predecessor at the committee.

There has been little speculation about potential challengers to Priebus, although Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, also an RNC vice chairman, raised eyebrows earlier this week when he asked for input about “how we can improve our efforts.”

In his email, Priebus didn’t name former GOP Chairman Michael Steele but referred to the state of the committee in January of 2011.

“The RNC was over $22 million in debt with almost no cash on hand; much of our donor base lost confidence and stopped contributing to the RNC,” he wrote.

But Priebus made no mention of the sweeping GOP victories that preceded his tenure and referred only obliquely to the party’s disappointing election earlier this month.

{Read More}

Okay then, Priebus is not a visionary with principles, but apparently he understands how to balance the budget of a special interest group.

Call me a cynic, because I am.

Via: Memorandum

As Another Comes Forth, Perhaps the rEpublican Party Will Remain Relevant After All...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Another voice for reason. Adding to the list of politicians that just maybe can save a tired out and principle deficient rEbublican party.

As Mitten the Human Flipper Romney so readily put on national display the Republican party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan no longer exists. I shouldn't blame Mittens as though it is his sole responsibility, it obviously isn't. But he was the standard bearer so he takes the heat. One has to wonder though how the rank and file rEpublicans of today allowed themselves to support a suit. And an empty one politically and philosophically speaking at that.

If the party of the elephant is really interested in remaining relevant it's time it moves on. Moves on to new realities and individuals like Governor Martinez of New Mexico. Someone who actually understands the face of America today while recognizing conservative principles that remain valid. Governor Martinez and individuals like her who "get it" can help shape a new and dynamic opposition party to counter the now marching progressive movement.

Smart people in the conservative movement will listen to voices like Governor Martinez and Governor Jindal if they wish their party to remain relevant. It is probably going to be an uphill battle against the entrenched old guard of the rEpublican socon, neocon, and big government power base. You know, the base that has been playing the party faithful FAR to long. But at the end of the day it will certainly have been worth it.

LAS VEGAS—After two days of meetings at the Republican Governors Association conference, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez on Thursday said she heard a lot about the party's need to reach new constituencies—particularly women and ethnic minorities—but few specifics about how.

As a Republican governor of Mexican descent who won all but four counties in a Democratic state, Martinez has ideas for how the party can reach voters who traditionally support Democrats. But it's going to take some work, she noted, and a touch of humility, from her colleagues.

"Republicans need to stop making assumptions, and they need to start talking to younger people, people of color, and ask them—not talk to them—ask them, 'What is it that we can do better? How do we earn your vote? How do we earn the ability for you to see that we can be the party that will make your life better and that of your children?'" Martinez said in an interview after the conference here. "But we can't be the ones that come and tell them how things are going to be and how we have all the solutions."

President Barack Obama in 2012 expanded his lead among Hispanic, black, Asian and women voters, according to exit polling, leaving many Republicans wondering what they need to do to adapt to the nation's rapidly shifting demographics.

The topic has dominated much of the party's postelection soul-searching. Some have placed part of the blame on Mitt Romney for writing off 47 percent of the electorate as inevitable Obama voters at a closed-door fundraiser last spring—his comment, said Martinez, was "ridiculous"—and then, postelection, saying he lost to Obama in part because the president promised "gifts" to minority voters in return for their support.

"That unfortunately is what sets us back as a party, our comments that are not thought through carefully," said Martinez, whose name was discussed in the national media as a possible running mate for Romney but who was never vetted for the job.

In order to make inroads with minority voters—particularly Hispanics—Martinez urged Republicans to pursue immigration reform and to begin grass-roots outreach now instead of waiting until an election year to seek votes.

"We need to embrace them not just at election time. ... We should not visit them when we need their vote and then walk away," Martinez said. "And then four years go by and we go visit them again. We have to make them part of the solution, and the way you do that is by listening to them and then making that part of 'How do we do this together to make our lives all better?'

"And then once you've done it," Martinez added, "you tell them we did it together."

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Still Denying the Reality...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Will this guy ever get it?

The GOP is undergoing the type of re-examination that occurs whenever a party loses. That useful exercise should be guided by facts. Here is some of what we know.

The media's postelection narrative is that Democrats won because of a demographic shift. There is some truth to that, but a more accurate description is that Democrats won in a smaller turnout by getting out more of their vote.

Turnout dropped by 7.9 million voters, falling to 123.6 million this year from 131.5 million in 2008. This is the first decline in a presidential election in 16 years. Only 51.3% of the voting-age population went to the polls.

While the Democratic "ground game" was effective, President Barack Obama received 90.1% of his 2008 total while Gov. Mitt Romney received 98.6% of Sen. John McCain's vote. Neither party generated a higher turnout nationally.

Tactically, Republicans must rigorously re-examine their "72-hour" ground game and reverse-engineer the Democratic get-out-the-vote effort in order to copy what works. For example, a postelection survey shows that the Democratic campaign ground game was more effective in communicating negative information. It would be good to know why—and how to counter such tactics in the future.

Republicans should also emulate the Democratic "50-state" strategy by strengthening the ground game everywhere, not just in swing states.

It will be important for the GOP to erase the data advantage Democrats may have in their targeting of potential supporters for their candidates. And local GOP organizations must persistently focus on adding to the voter rolls the millions of people likely to vote Republicans if they were registered. \

Strategically, Republicans will need to frame economic issues to better resonate with middle-class families. Mr. Romney had solid views on jobs, spending, deficits, health care and energy. But even among the 59% of voters for whom the economy was their top concern, he prevailed by only four points (51% to 47%).

One reason the GOP didn't do better with its pro-growth agenda was that Mr. Romney's character and record were undermined by early, relentless personal attacks that went largely unanswered. In a world of Twitter, YouTube and cable TV, the cliché that "if you're responding, you're losing" is dead. Republican campaigns need to get better at responding, setting the record straight, and bending the argument back toward their narrative. {More}

It's about vision, principles, consistency, and confidence. Mitten's was lacking in all four. It's hard to sell the product if you're not even sure if you believe in it yourself. I guess the Human Flipper found that ought.

Via: Memeorandum

Governor Jindal Sets Mittens Straight...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

More fresh air and clear headed thinking from Governor Jindal. What America needs at this divisive time in its history are a lot more politicians and officials like him. Whether they are republican, libertarian, green, or democract really doesn't matter. It is his sensible, realistic, and rational views that matter. It is time the republican party (socon, neocon, and Romney wing) gets on board with the Governor's views or close shop. For good.

LAS VEGAS — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal forcefully rejected Mitt Romney’s claim that he lost because of President Barack Obama’s “gifts” to minorities and young voters.

Asked about the failed GOP nominee’s reported comments on a conference call with donors earlier Wednesday, the incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association became visibly agitated.

“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said at a press conference that opened the RGA’s post-election meeting here. “Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.

“And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”

He reiterated the points for emphasis.

“I don’t think that represents where we are as a party and where we’re going as a party,” he said. “That has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election: If we’re going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly: One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream. Period. No exceptions.” {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Culture, Education, the Media, and the Romney Loss...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

The following excerpt from an article written by William Bennett is thought provoking. As the nation adjusts to the demographic changes it is undergoing it would be well if the issues Mr. Bennett talks about are placed on the academic and politic tables for discussion. While few will agree with everything he writes it remains there is validity in much of what he says.

CNN ...Rather than offer a broad sweeping vision for the country, Democrats played identity politics. Republicans were the culprits, and women, young adults, black, Latinos, etc... were the victims. And voters believed it. Why? For the same reason this litany -- gender, race, ethnicity, class -- sound so familiar.

Voters believed it, not because it was something new or groundbreaking, but because this has been the template of many of our character-building institutions -- our public schools, our colleges, and public universities -- for the past 50 years. Go to any major university in America and this is the mindset that is taught, preached, and ingested. It also gets an assist from television drama, from the movies, and from much of the mainstream media.

For decades liberals have succeeded in defining the national discourse, the terms of discussion, and, therefore, the election, in these terms. They have successfully set the parameters and focus of the national and political dialogue as predominantly about gender, race, ethnicity, and class. This is the paradigm, the template through which many Americans, probably a majority, more or less view the world, our country, and the election. It is a divisive strategy and Democrats have targeted and exploited those divides.

How else can we explain that more young people now favor socialism to capitalism?

According to a Pew Research poll taken last year, 49% of Americans age 18-29 have a positive view of socialism while just 46% have a positive view of capitalism. Such a view has roots.

So while we Republicans opine about election strategies and changing demographics, and appropriately so as that is our immediate order of business, in the long run we must address the problem at its source: the culture.

Politics are downstream from the culture. Plato summarized the two most important questions in a society: Who teaches the young and what do we teach them?... (Emphasis mine.) {Read More}

Food for thought. Truly thoughtful individuals will seriously consider Mr. Bennett points.

Via: Memeorandum

Working the Sleaze Factor...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Just how a man of General Petraeus's intelligence and military discipline put himself in a position that would compromise his integrity and ultimately end his career prematurely is beyond me.

Turns out the General will testify before congress after all. And, I still think there is more than meets the eye with this scandal. As has been said "pay back's a bi*ch."

Charles Krauthammer sums up a very possible and likely scenario quite well.

- CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.

And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?(emphasis mine). Keep Reading

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

The Data is There GOP, Will You Use It or Ignore It?...

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

As the republican party looks to rebuild the question is; will it understand the reason(s) for its 2012 election loss to a very vulnerable incumbent? Or, will it seek to make excuses and hang on to the old order? Hopefully smarter heads like Governor Jindal will gain control of the republican party power levers and steady a badly faltering party.

NationalJournal - In the weeks before Election Day, both Republicans and Democrats were nervous about their poll numbers. Both sides of the aisle have smart pollsters, they reasoned, so how could the numbers that Democrats were seeing diverge so sharply from the numbers the Republicans were seeing? Deep down, I wrote at the time, both parties secretly worried that their side was missing the boat.

Now we know which side needed its polls unskewed. Before Election Day, Republicans confidently predicted they would pick up seats in both chambers of Congress, and that Mitt Romney would win the White House. The results shattered those predictions, and with them any sense of security in the numbers coming out of some of the best-regarded polling firms on the right.

"Everyone thought the election was going to be close. How did [Republicans] not know we were going to get our ass kicked?" lamented Rob Jesmer, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "I don't understand how we didn't know. That's the part that's most puzzling and frustrating and embarrassing."

The underlying causes of the errant numbers are the assumptions that the pollsters made about the nature of the electorate. Most pollsters believed the electorate would look something like the voters who turned out in 2008, just with slightly lower numbers of African-Americans, younger people, and Hispanics heading to the polls.

But exit polls actually showed a much more diverse electorate than the one forecast. Black turnout stayed consistent with 2008, Hispanic turnout was up, and younger voters made up a higher percentage of the electorate than they had four years ago. White voters made up 72 percent of the electorate, according to the exits, down 2 points from 2008 and a continuation of the two-decade long decline in their share of the electorate.

That meant that even though Mitt Romney scored 59 percent of the white vote -- a higher percentage than George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004, higher than Ronald Reagan in 1980 and matching George H.W. Bush's 1988 score, when he won 426 electoral votes in 40 states -- it wasn't enough to overcome the 80 percent support that Obama scored among nonwhite voters. {Read More}

The conservative principles of fiscally responsible government plays well with responsible people. The GOP will simply have to find a way to market this principle and significantly increase the size of its tent by recognizing the socon and neocon agenda needs to be jettisoned. At least in their present state.

Via: Memeorabdum

Listen Up GOP...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Governor Jindal is one of the reasonable and thinking politicians in the republican party. There are others. The future of the party depends on it listening to Governor Jindal and those who share his views and recognize that indeed America and her demographics are changing. If the party expects to remain relevant and have a significant impact it simply MUST accept this reality.

Conservatism is a viable opposing political force to progressivism. Principals of a true fiscally conservative governance can work. However, if the majority of the electorate view it as essentially a special interest dedicated to the perseverance of the interests of only the wealthy class then conservatism becomes a mute point to the non wealthy. The perceptions people have are their reality. For the republican party to survive it must first change itself if it is to have a chance of changing perceptions.

Politico - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and make a concerted effort to reach a broader swath of voters with an inclusive economic message that pre-empts efforts to caricature the GOP as the party of the rich.

In his first interview since his party’s electoral thumping last week, Jindal urged Republicans to both reject anti-intellectualism and embrace a populist-tinged reform approach that he said would mitigate what exit polls show was one of President Barack Obama’s most effective lines of attack against Mitt Romney.

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

Calling on the GOP to be “the party of ideas, details and intelligent solutions,” the Louisianan urged the party to “stop reducing everything to mindless slogans, tag lines, 30-second ads that all begin to sound the same. “ {Read More}

A bright start in a dimming political party. Are you listening Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity, and et all? If not you sure as hell ought to be.

Oh, I almost forgot, and Eric Dondero over at Libertarian Republican as well as he seems to be gaining some notice and notoriety following the election.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Interesting, Pass It Along...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

The following was e-mailed to me by a Rational Nation USA "regular." I thought it worth posting as it makes a whole lot of sense. Feel free to use as you might see fit.

Friends - I have received and read this at least two times before now and sent it on to a few folks and so far it hasn't done anything for us. I would be really surprised if ANY congress person would consider it or any part of it. After all most people look out for themselves first and then the government which is why we now have, after the last election, exactly what we had before it. Look for four more years of deviousness and gridlock by BOTH sides.

We hear a lot about welfare, corporate and otherwise. Well in my opinion the benefits that our politicians give themselves are nothing more than political welfare and border on fraud. Why is it that after just a few years our congressmen/women receive such wonderful benefits for life when our brave women and men in the military barely get enough to survive. after offering up their lives so the politicians can give themselves these benefits?

We survived a Revolutionary War, a Civil War, a Great World War (the 1st one), the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, and many other smaller wars. Lets pray that we can survive this War on Our Freedoms!

Right or wrong that is my opinion and why I am glad I am as old as I am... A regular reader of RN USA.

Subject: Warren Buffet - please read...takes 1 minute--VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US ...

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just
pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive
the message. Don't you think it's time?


Friday, November 9, 2012

An Untimely Resignation Raises Many Questions...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

General David Petraeus has resigned his post as Director of the CIA citing his extramarital as the reason. President Obama has accepted the directors resignation while praising the General/s service to his country.

General Petraeus was slated to testify before Congress on Benghazi November 15th. Maybe it's just me but something smells with respect to this sudden occurrence. It is highly unlikely that a respected and dedicated military man would resign over the issue of a extramarital affair.

Presidents, most recently William Jefferson Clinton have sailed through the stigma of infidelity with flying colors. It is indeed unlikely the reason for General Petraeus stepping down has anything to do with his all to common human failings.

It seems a bunch more likely that the General was pressured to step down because he may have been unwilling to be the fall guy for the failure of the State Department and Obama to respond appropriately to the Benghazi security lapses.

Hopefully the truth on Benghazi will come out and the nation will learn the depth of the possible missteps by the Obama administration that may be responsible for the death of an ambassador and three other Americans.

That likelihood was made just a bit more unlikely with the untimely resignation of General Petraeus.

The story from Politico:
David Petraeus resigned his post as director of the Central Intelligence Agency on Friday, citing an extramarital affair.

Petraeus visited the White House on Thursday to ask President Barack Obama to accept his resignation “for personal reasons,” he said in a statement to CIA staff. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.”

The FBI is investigating Paula Broadwell, author of the biography “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” for improperly attempting to access his email, law enforcement officials tell NBC News.

An intelligence source confirms to POLITICO that the FBI had been investigating Petraeus after accidentally learning of the affair. He was pushed to exit before it all came out in detail.

“Director Petraeus was encouraged to get ahead of it and take control of the situation because it would eventually come out,” the source said.

A White House official told POLITICO that the White House was informed of the issue Wednesday, and Obama was told Thursday.

“The president met with General Petraeus yesterday. In that meeting, Petraeus offered his resignation and explained the circumstances behind it,” the official said. “The president accepted [Petraeus’s] resignation in a phone call this afternoon.”

The resignation comes as the intelligence community remains under pressure over the attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Petraeus was slated to testify next Thursday at a closed Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Benghazi.

In a statement, Obama said he accepted Petraeus’s resignation and expressed confidence in Michael Morrell, the agency’s deputy director, to take over as acting director. Morell will testify in Petraeus’s place next week {Read More}

Some may believe the "official story", such as the gullible and the Obama supporters with blinders on. which may be over half the country. Those with inquiring minds however want to arrive at the real story. Hopefully it will prove our suspicions wrong.

Via: Memeorandum

Post Election Musings...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

The week certainly has been interesting to say the least. Interesting but really a week with no surprises and no real change.

rEpublicans, having failed to successfully make the case for sending Obama back to Chicago are already busy trying to figure out "What Went Wrong." Good luck with that. You guys had four years to figure it out after 2008 and you simply put the same suit back up with a different caricature filling it out. Again the American people rejected the candidate. Oops.

Better luck in 2016. People won't be expecting much though. Other than maybe watching the rEpublican tent grow smaller while listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, Rove, and the rest of the talking heads of the rEpublican good old boy network power structure. It will be fun watching the party whose election it was lose in 2012 try and come up with a winning strategy for 2016. Suggestion, change not only your suit but your glasses as well.

Speaker Boner is signaling possible short term compromise with the democrats to avoid fiscal Armageddon the first of this coming year, the result of across the board automatic domestic and defense spending cuts. Short term, really Mr. Boner? Why what a surprise. Short term fixes for long term problems is what DC is best at. The partisans should be good at it, they've been doing it for a very long time. Plenty of blame to go around. Saving that subject for another day.

And the dEmocrats, well, they won the day. Like it or not, even though the President's margin of victory does not a mandate make he out foxed the other fox. Congratulation Mr. President. Now is your opportunity to forge a winning coalition with the rEpublicans. Perhaps you should inquire if Mr. Clinton would give you a hand in steering a successful centrist course for the next four years. Reasonable people I'm guessing would applaud such an attempt.

Making government work for the people requires more than just short term solutions. It requires so much more than ideological bickering, warfare, and ultimate refusal to put the interests of the counties fiscal responsibilities first and foremost. It requires more than being just a Federal Santa Claus as well. Again, another subject for another day as there will certainly be ample opportunities for discussion.

America is changing, it has been almost since the countries infancy. In many ways the changes have been positive and good for the nation, in other ways not so much. Demographics are changing, America is becoming more diverse with each passing year. Many in the rEpublican party it seems want to stop the flowing current of societal change and thereby stop time in its tracks. Change is never easy, it is often misunderstood, and more often than not it is resisted.

The key to a successful future lies in finding a way to integrate changing demographics and a more liberal social order with a conservative and sensible fiscal policy. One that recognizes government's proper role in a free and civil society yet at the same time allows for and expects individual responsibly and initiative.

For me one of the best post election telephone interviews was done by Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" with Ron Paul. Representative Paul is retiring at the end of his term. Hopefully his voice will continue to be heard for a very long time to come.

The Washington Times - Rep. Ron Paul, whose maverick presidential bids shook the GOP, said in the wake of this week's elections that the country has already veered over the fiscal cliff and he sees no chance of righting ship in a country where too many people are dependent on government.

"We're so far gone. We're over the cliff," the Texas Republican told Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" program. "We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5-10 years who will do wise things."

Mr. Paul, who is retiring after 12 terms in the House, said voters on Tuesday rejected Mitt Romney because he had opposed the government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.

"The people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of!' So that vote was sort of like what we are laughing at in Greece," Mr. Paul said.

"People do not want anything cut," he said. "They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing the money. And they don't believe that we've gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with some magic solution. But you can't have a budgetary solution if you don't change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we are going to argue about is who will get the loot."

Political give and take, arguments over governing philosophy and ideology is well and good. Being able to do so is after all what makes America great. That protected right to criticize our elected government, and criticize it strongly when necessary is a right we all hope we never lose. However, when the political and ideological differences result in continuing gridlock and stratification, as well as bringing us closer to the precipice isn't it time to begin thinking outside the box of conventional wisdom and find solutions? The question goes to both sides Mr. Reid, Mr.Boehner , AND Mr. President.

Update: - Mr. Krudman advising the President to "hang tough." Like I have said, more gridlock to come. Brace yourself America, as it is sure to continues to get ugly. The Age of Divisiveness, time both sides looked in the mirror. My opinion and I'm sticking by it.

Update 2x
BuzzFeed Politics - President Barack Obama has been elected twice by a coalition that reflects the diversity of America. Republicans have struggled to win with ever-higher percentages of the shrinking share of the population that is white men — "a Mad Men party in a Modern Family world," in the words of one strategist.

But at America's founding, only white men could vote, and the franchise has only slowly expanded to include people of color, women, and — during the Vietnam War — people under 21. These maps show how American politics would have looked in that undemocratic past.

It would be a VERY good idea for the rEpublican party to check out the following maps provided in this link. They just may provide a clue as to why the rEpublican party has lost two successive national elections.

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, November 5, 2012

It's Going To Be Close, Brace Yourself For Continued Polarization of America, Especially if Obama Loses...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

The race is close, very close, with the momentum shifting to Romney. However, my take is the shift, as significant as it has been, came too late and too little.

Progressives no doubt are biting their nails because as much as they prefer not to acknowledge it, this one is a real cliff hanger. Reminiscent of 2000.

It is true if Obama loses this one progressives throughout the land will be wailing and gnashing their teeth. For them it will be a great undoing of their greatest hopes and dreams. Of course the other fifty percent of America will view it quite differently.

So, as the polls close tomorrow, and the tabulating of the vote goes late into the night, we can be sure of a few thing... The nation will remain polarized, the puppet masters behind the curtains will continue calling the shots, the debt and deficits will continue, no mater who wins. And America will continue to ask why.

Tomorrow, as I visit my polling place and cast my ballot for Gary Johnson I will be wearing a very big smile. Regardless of the outcome of this election there are millions of liberty driven individuals that WILL live to fight another day.

Remember... Vote! It is not only the right of every American, it is also the RESPONSIBILITY of every American CITIZEN to do so.

Politico - A defeat for Barack Obama on Tuesday would be no ordinary loss for Democrats.

It would be a traumatic experience: the death of the dream of liberal realignment embodied in Obama’s insurgent 2008 campaign. And it would be all the more distressing to Democrats because so many of them fervently believe they will win tomorrow.

Unlike Republicans, many of whom have no particular love for their nominee, Democrats admire and sympathize with the president, understanding he came into office at a difficult time. If Obama were to lose, Democrats would suddenly be leaderless for the first time in half a decade and would be forced to confront agonizing questions about the viability of their party’s agenda — health care reform, most of all.

Here’s POLITICO’s preview of how Democrats would try to explain an Obama defeat — including some of the foreseeable arguments and spin:

Obama threw it away in Denver

At the end of September, Obama led his opponent in essentially all credible national and swing-state polling, Mitt Romney’s personal favorability was stuck underwater and the former Massachusetts governor was caught in a whirlpool of controversy around the “47 percent” tape.

And then the first debate happened.

With a strangely passive debate performance, making no mention of the “47 percent” video and even suggesting he and Romney agreed on the the future of Social Security, Obama gave the Republican a massive new opening in the 2012 campaign. Romney’s swing-state numbers leaped upward, his personal favorability surged and in national Pew polling he went from a 8-point deficit to a 4-point lead over Obama.

If Romney emerges the victor on Tuesday night, some percentage of Democrats will say that the reason is really very simple: Obama self-immolated on a single night at the University of Denver. Had the president been the fierce competitor that night that he was in the two successive debates, he could have ended the race on Oct. 3. Instead, Obama barely showed up.

The Obama campaign doesn’t buy this read on the race. It has argued in recent weeks that the movement in polls following the first debate was just a matter of Republican-leaning swing voters coming home to Romney. Those voters, they say, would ultimately have voted for Romney anyway.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, November 3, 2012

His True Colors...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

The mark of a desperate campaign and it's candidate. Some might even call it despicable.

CINCINNATI — A seemingly offhand utterance from President Obama has turned into a major point of contention between the two campaigns, as Team Obama tries to explain what the president meant when he told a crowd of supporters that “Voting is the best revenge.”

It happened in Springfield, Ohio Friday as Obama was discussing the economic policies of the 1990s. When Obama referred to “a Senate candidate by the name of Mitt Romney,” the crowd booed his opponent’s name — certainly not unusual reaction at political rallies of both parties. Then Obama said, “No, no, no — don’t boo, vote. Vote. Voting is the best revenge.”

It was an ugly and small-minded moment, especially for the end of a campaign when candidates usually try to stress larger, optimistic themes. Romney incorporated the “revenge” line in his speech in Ohio Friday night, saying that while Obama advises revenge, he, Romney, wants people to vote “for love of country.”

As Obama traveled to northern Ohio Saturday morning, campaign official Jen Psaki was asked about the “revenge” remark. According to a White House pool report, Psaki said Obama had been speaking in the context of Romney’s “scare tactics” in Ohio. The Republican is “frightening workers in Ohio into thinking, falsely, that they’re not going to have a job,” Psaki said, according to the pool report. “And the message [Obama] was sending is if you don’t like the policies, if you don’t like the plan that Gov. Romney is putting forward, if you think that’s a bad deal for the middle class, then you can go to the voting booth and cast your ballot. It’s nothing more complicated than that.”

The problem is, the president was actually not speaking in the context of Romney’s highly-controversial ads about bailed-out Chrysler adding production of Jeeps in China. In fact, Obama had not said a word about the Jeep controversy when he said “revenge.” His speech had touched on Hurricane Sandy, on the progress the American economy has made in the last few years, on his national security accomplishments, on the choice Americans will make on November 6, on Bill Clinton’s record — on a lot of things, but not on Jeep. {Read More}

Pathetic indeed!...

Via: Memorandum

UPDATE: Having witnessed he incredible integrity nd capability of President Obama over eight years it became brilliantly clear that I was wrong. President Obama was a fi e president for our time. A man to admire and, in fact emulate.

Unfortunately he was followed by the most narcissistic, dishonest,  untrustworthy, and, ignorant man to ever sit in the White House. An authoritarian who attempted to overturn the results of the free and fair 2020 presidential election.

His attempted coup (insurrection) made it clear he is an enemy of American democracy and freedom and liberty for all. A lying sociopath the Great Orange Turd belongs behind the bars of a federal penitentiary for the remainder of his miserable and pathetic life.